The Western Canon

[JCamilo]

This a little unfair. Bloom does not ignore Poe. His works are in the list at the end of the book and If I recall well he mentions Poe once or while. The chapters are not his favorite authors, but those he consider more relevant on historical basis. Poe could be there (Only americans have the tendency to think he is minor, despite his massing contribution to every little commercial genre americans love), but really, Bloom does not vallue short stories as much (and true to be told, they are way behind novels or poetry on influence) to the point the only short story master is Borges.

Anyways, Poe psychological stories do not suit the Freud thing. Poe did first.

[Summer M]

just now reading Bloom's Genius written in 2001 at age 71. More brilliant stuff from Bloom. Is there anyone writing today that will wind up in the Western Cannon? am thinking we may be overlooking the obvious as possibly this would be Bloom himself. Has there ever in history been one who read everything, retained more, and wrote as brilliantly with as much insight as those he reviews?

Bloom's greatest achievement is that he was able to convince so many people that his personal prejudices are some sort of scientific, empirical facts.

[kiki1982]

That's what I gathered from the Wikipedia entry on him alone. Too much reading on my part, eh (they say people's knowledge in readers is greater).
His obsession with aesthetics is worrying for an academic, because you can't write scientifically about them.

He did one good thing and that was put the spotlight again on the Romantics, which had up till then (in the academic world at least) been a nasty little brother they didn't know what to do with because they were allegedly nothing but nice words (whatever gave them that idea, I wonder).

All the rest is frankly, a bit tosh. Just say you like to read what you like. He could have saved many a page and many a tree with that.

[JBI]

He didn't put spotlight on the romantics. Abrams and Frye did.

[lawpark]

I find those canons great, even when I always criticize them all. The first thing I always do, though, is looking at the source. If it's made by an English reader, I know that there are going to be more English-language authors than there should be, but it is still interesting to see those writers he has considered better and what authors he's included from other cultures. Same thing when the source is not English. In the end, it is better to know what authors each culture considers canonical and then judge by oneself if they're worth figuring in an 'international list'.

Translations and publicity play a big role in the decisions. The latter being also a political tool. For instance, my vibrant Catalan literature is ignored by most good readers usually because of simple ignorance of its existence given the lack of political statehood. To a point that masterpieces like Tirant lo Blanch, regarded by those who read it and studied it as the best fifteenth-century novel, and which should figure in most canons of the big European novels, is usually ignored or forgotten, left out even by Bloom. The same could likely be said about a few masterpieces from some other middle-sized languages/literatures.

In honour to Bloom's canon, though, I congratulate him for having included six modern Catalan authors, even if four of them were poets. But I can't help resting surprised by the total absence of Catalan or Occitan authors for the Middle Ages.

I have recently read Oxford's Very Short Introduction of Spanish Literature. It gives some coverage of both Catalan and Basque literature. In fact a very good series -- if you are the type that enjoy Bloom's Western Canon. I have read through the booklets on French Literature, Spanish Literature, English Literature and Italian Literature. Now reading the one on Colonial Latin American Literature.

[byquist]

I find reading Harold Bloom to be a delight; he is so unique. You can also learn alot about books that you never would have time on your hands to read. Also, Bloom can make some authors, like Becket and his "Godot" which can put you to sleep, very exciting and meaningful.

[kiki1982]

He didn't put spotlight on the romantics. Abrams and Frye did.

Oh, maybe he recycled their ideas then.
The little I read about Harold Bloom was that in general he got them out of oblivion. That may be wrong though.

[JBI]

Oh, maybe he recycled their ideas then.
The little I read about Harold Bloom was that in general he got them out of oblivion. That may be wrong though.

It is wrong. Abrams and Frye were older and until Frye died he was the paramount English critic. Even Bloom would agree. Frye's fearful symmetry came out well before Bloom's Blake's apocalypse.
As for earlier precedents, Lovejoy and Symons come to mind as well as others. It's more that English wasn't a discipline until the 20th century. Bloom was not Eliot basically rediscovering playwrights and poets.

As for Stevens, he was a relatively early supporter. That credit is due

[kiki1982]

Yep, that was definitely wrong.

Thanks for the info.