Harold Bloom

[Pierre Menard]

1. You were also deriding/criticizing the schools of thought themselves. So, the scholars were, and are overly, relevant. Your unfamiliarity with, and inability to address, those scholars significantly undermines and counters your erroneous criticisms of those schools of thought.

2. Firstly, all critics and readers start with an ideological framework. To think otherwise is unrealistic and naive. Bloom, like all critics has an ideological framework of what a "good" text is before he starts reading, and he also has an ideological framework of critical views and experiences preceding his reading of any test. Secondly, as I said before, all the best scholars and adherents of the critical schools you mistakenly deride address the text first without imprinting their ideological framework on it.

3. No, that is not a difference. The quality scholars and adherents of the critical schools you erroneously deride place just as much emphasis on the technical/artistic qualities of the text as Bloom does. And my observation isn't pointless at all. You made an unfounded claim just like "there's a difference in the value they place on the technical/artistic qualities of the text." This implies you don't feel you need to back such inaccurate claims up, suggesting you could just believe your view is inherently correct.

4. Well, if you feel that way, then I will address you any damn way I please. You'll get over it. And I never said all scholars are "made of the same stuff." That's a red herring and a straw man (nice combo), just like the rest of your muddled paragraph. As I said in my paragraph to which you responded, You clearly haven't read most of the top representatives of the critical schools you erroneously deride. That greatly undermines your already significantly flawed stance. Regardless of their less talented adherents, those scholars have established and developed substantial and important critical schools you have yet to effectively criticize in any way.

5. "Theoretically unproven" is entirely relevant. You argue, without any adequate syllogistical or evidentiary support that Bloom's approach is superior to the approaches you deride without support. So, the fact Bloom's approach is no more theoretically proven than those approaches means you truly need to support your criticisms of them. You have definitely yet to do so.

And addressing historical issues of race in Absalom, Absalom is both a race theory approach, since it addresses the dynamics of race in the text, and a Marxist criticism approach, since it addresses the fact the dynamics of the text and the writing of it partially arise from historical material realities outside the author and the text. So, you just gave your stamp of approval on those critical schools. Well done. And Marxist criticism is no more inherently ideological and socio-political than Bloom's and your quasi-New Criticism school...yes, you are espousing that school of thought. To eschew extra-textual realities and thought when reading--which one can never really do--is just as ideological and socio-political as recognizing them when reading. And, by the way, most of the critics, scholars, and readers adhering to the latter belief are just as passionate about literature, and talking about it, as you and Bloom.

6. My wanting you to address specific problems of the schools you erroneously deride, as well as those specific schools themselves, is entirely relevant. If you are going to criticize them without actually addressing them, and incorrectly claim they take away from the technical/artistic aspects, you absolutely have to address the specific problems of those critical schools. Otherwise, the only one making a polemic is you. Any child can just falsely say something is "inherently" bad or wrong; grown-ups specifically explain why they're wrong and back their explanations up with evidence. You have yet to do so.

You clearly have little knowledge of these critical schools, and your inability to actually address them or their primary scholars shows that. The best you can do is throw out the inaccurate and unfounded statement: "most of those schools and inherently opens up the possibility of poor interpretation." As I said before, even a child could make such a hollow claim. So, I suggest you actually read some of the scholars of these valuable critical schools and actually get a grasp of their actual precepts and approaches. Until you do, your criticisms of them remain hollow and unsupported.

And now we're just going to end up repeating ourselves over and over it seems. The impasse is here. I'll do away with the point by point format, otherwise the thread will become a wall of text, and use this post as a sum up, otherwise we'll just go back and forth.


My first post was literally talking about the influence of the schools on a wider audience and how it's seeped into culture around my age group in a negative way. Your sheer ignorance of the influence of what I'm talking about is not something I can explain, but it is why you continually fall back on a few specific scholars. You may indeed be right in that the people I'm talking about bastardised the scholars you mention. But that's too simplistic, I think it's a mix of some bastardisation (by going too far) but also a natural progression of the schools of thought. The schools are now wider then those scholars, they've changed and evolved and I see the negative influence literally every day in art criticism - discussions of race, gender, Marxist analysis, the society it was produced in etc, superseding and reigning supreme over discussions of form in of itself and attempts at genuine aesthetic judgements or discussions (without such frameworks), aspects of close reading, artist intention, general thematic talk, etc, which ultimately leads to the negative influence I'm talking about - a focus on socio-political ideology and philosophy over an attempt at an aesthetic, artistic reading of art on it's own merits without the all-encompassing framework of these schools. Do these schools also focus on 'form', yes, but there is an undeniable difference in approach and framework. There are no doubt some good writers in broader culture out there that use the influence of these schools simply as a way to offer one more perspective to compliment these formal readings and don't necessarily use it as an overall framework, and that's fine, but they also are not the sum total of the school anymore (nor necessarily the majority either), and I daresay they're being over-shadowed by the worst adherents in broader culture. And this is where Bloom was correct, he saw the worst of what the school could do or lead to, and even if some of it was over-blown on a university course level, he got wider implications correct.

Yes, we all have an ideological outlook on the world. But Marxist, Race, Gender, etc theory by and large are socio-politically ideological in a way that is far more overt and where the negative influence probably comes from. Ideological biases can be lessened, and can be made secondary, especially in more formalist approaches, where they are not as primarily at the forefront and such readings don't inherently propose a specified ideological (and especially a socio-political) framework through which to judge the work. The assumption that what we think of as 'good' aesthetically/technically is ideologically motivated is relatively meaningless in a world and in a history of an art form where there have been a diverse amount of aesthetics/forms deemed good or worthy by a diverse amount of authors and critics, and that most of them had a influence that made it's way through various twists and turns of history on writers of numerous backgrounds and are in a state of constant change and flux and influence anyway. The ideological outlook behind that sort of 'aesthetic' reading IS different to the socio-political readings so dominant in the ideology heavy schools we're talking about (though admittedly, not all of the schools are heavy about it as others) because it's framework is broader and application different. You yourself are being wilfully naive not to see the potential negative influence the other frameworks can engender (seeing art through a socio-political ideological lens primarily, which happens too often today).

There is no such thing as 'theoretically proven' (or unproven) in regards to what we're talking about, and 'evidentiary support' in relation to that is not really possible in any sense of the term, so yes it was entirely irrelevant and I fully admit we're talking about personal preferences anyway.

As for my stamp of approval for those schools…well, that is very simplistic (and wrong), though I admit it was probably a fault of me not being clear. Talking about the actual thematics present in the text itself, i.e. race in some of Faulkner's works, and in a lot of other Southern Literature is no different to talking about themes inherent in any other work of literature (a war story, a story with religious themes, adultery themes etc, etc) and such talk of themes and what the author may be trying to attempt has literally being around since the dawn of literary criticism, and by most literary critics, including those not apart of schools. It can be an aspect of an overall act of literary criticism without being the framework with which we practice criticism as a whole, and therein lies the difference. I don't believe race should necessarily be a discussion in all Southern Literature (and that's what my poor writing in that sentence may have implied), as it totally depends on the text in question (and the quality of the text is not dependent on these readings). Eschewing societal realities (more accurately, making them secondary rather than primary) is not socio-political in the same way, because it's lack of a specified or overt framework means it has ultimately not led to the negative socio-political criticism that I'm talking about. Understanding themes that the author is talking about in the text as one aspect of critical understanding of the text is something that exists in pretty much all or most criticism. Great works of literature ultimately transcend theory (much the same way all great art forms do), and this is ultimately why the question of what lasts is important, I wasn't focusing on the minimally specified scholars you've deemed worthy, however, if any of these scholars do last, it'll be because aspects of their work (the theories as a whole will probably die out) added something over the course of time to the discussion of literature as an art, but it'll most probably rest on the quality of the individuals writings themselves, as the theories will lessen in prominence, but we're talking contemporarily here no doubt, and whilst these schools are not necessarily without their interesting points and intelligent people, it's simply wrong to ignore the worst stuff (which is so, so common), and your ignorance is undeniable of the negative broader influence of these schools on modern art theory in the wider world (especially pop culture), the schools have evolved and progressed (from an earlier place that engendered and encouraged it), and personally I believe for the worst as I can see the negative influence constantly. Bloom was correct in identifying this pernicious strain, and I can appreciate that, even if he sometimes fails his own standards.


As opposed as I was to flooding this thread with a wall of text, I've done just that. We're at the repetitive stage now, I could write your response for you to be honest ("your ignorance of these authors undermines your points", etc) and then I'd respond with the fact you've missed the point, and still don't quite understand what I'm saying and we'd disagree over what constitutes these schools and what doesn't. I've summed up the best I can. The last word is all yours my friend. If I can think of anything I deem important to add to the discussion over the next few days, I will, otherwise, I'll leave it there for now.

[Ecurb]

Bloom's battles with "the schools of resentment" were exacerbated when Naomi Wolf accused him of groping her when she was a 20-year-old student, and he was a 50-year-old, eminent professor. Of course this has little to do with his merit as a critic -- but it's a piece of academic gossip that fueled controversy between Bloom and feminists. If I remember, Bloom acolyte (and anti-feminist feminist) Camille Paglia leaped to her mentor's defense.

Here's Wolf's account of the incident and its aftermath: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/

[ennison]

Yep schools of resentment there are aplenty. I'm in one myself. The link to Wolf is a juicy bit of tittle tattle. Why didn't she give him a skelp? Too wimpy! I go on the drink for a week and when I return PB has been banned. Alas

[JBI]

I feel she exaggerated her story, or perhaps overemphasized it. The truth is she invited him to her house by her account, got him drunk, and flirted with him, then he perhaps put his hand on her leg, feeling the sexual tension, she said no thanks and he left.

OK, that is non-professional conduct, assuming it actually happened, and she didn't just imagine the hand on her leg, or if she didn't just assume the hand on her leg was a "move" and not some weird kind of fatherly affection. That being said, she did wave her breasts in her professor's face to get attention. Perhaps that absolves the gilt somewhat. Or at least blurs the line between sexual harassment and sexual tension.

[mortalterror]

never mind

[Ecurb]

I feel she exaggerated her story, or perhaps overemphasized it. The truth is she invited him to her house by her account, got him drunk, and flirted with him, then he perhaps put his hand on her leg, feeling the sexual tension, she said no thanks and he left.

OK, that is non-professional conduct, assuming it actually happened, and she didn't just imagine the hand on her leg, or if she didn't just assume the hand on her leg was a "move" and not some weird kind of fatherly affection. That being said, she did wave her breasts in her professor's face to get attention. Perhaps that absolves the gilt somewhat. Or at least blurs the line between sexual harassment and sexual tension.

I think most people would agree that if Bloom's worst transgression is making a minor-league pass at Naomi Wolf, he has led an exemplary life. Nonetheless, blaming Wolf is silly, too. Here's her version of the story, which contradicts JBI's:

Finally, Bloom suggested that he come to the house I shared with one of his editorial assistants and her boyfriend. At dinnertime. I agreed.

The four of us ate a meal. He had, as promised, brought a bottle of Amontillado, which he drank continually.

Bloom invited himself to Wolf's house and he brought the wine. After dinner (when her roommates left): "The next thing I knew, his heavy, boneless hand was hot on my thigh." Perhaps Wolf's memory of her days as a Yale poet inspired her to call Bloom's hand "boneless" -- but it's well done, conjuring up the image of a flabby, aging professor while, perhaps, hinting at another male appendage that actually IS boneless.

Did Wolf overreact?

I lurched away. “This is not what I meant,” I stammered. The whole thing had suddenly taken on the quality of a bad horror film. The floor spun. By now my back was against the sink, which was as far away as I could get. He moved toward me. I turned away from him toward the sink and found myself vomiting. Bloom disappeared.

When he reemerged—from the bedroom with his coat—a moment later, I was still frozen, my back against the sink. He said: “You are a deeply troubled girl.”

Surely a hottie like Wolf must have had some experience in discouraging men who made passes at her, although vomiting is a unique and probably effective way to cool most ardor. Nonetheless, the difference in status and power between Bloom and Wolf would make the situation unsettling for an ambitious, 20-year-old girl.

In addition (although I see mortalterror retracted his post before I finished writing this one), nobody expects abstinence from college professors. When I was in grad school one of my fellow students (a former Joffrey ballet soloist with the most stunningly beautiful back I ever saw) told me about her affair with one of our professors the previous year. They had to keep it a secret (which I thought was ridiculous -- the woman was 27, the unmarried professor in his 30s). Also, Wolf herself thinks that Bloom's "pass" was a relatively minor transgression (albeit a bit creepy).

[Ecurb]

Yep schools of resentment there are aplenty. I'm in one myself. The link to Wolf is a juicy bit of tittle tattle. Why didn't she give him a skelp? Too wimpy! I go on the drink for a week and when I return PB has been banned. Alas

Pompey Bum has been banned!? Who would have thunk it? (How does one discover who has been banned on this site, by the way?)

[Pompey Bum]

Hey!

Believe no false rumors unless they come directly from me!

[Calidore]

Pompey Bum has been banned!? Who would have thunk it? (How does one discover who has been banned on this site, by the way?)

Not that PB, the other one.

It shows "Banned" between their name and join date.

[Ecurb]

Not that PB, the other one.

It shows "Banned" between their name and join date.

Thanks. I suggested Pompey to be deliberately obtuse.

[Calidore]

Thanks. I suggested Pompey to be deliberately obtuse.

*cough* I knew that.

[JBI]

That's not my point. She was clearly drunk, and she clearly exaggerates the story. One: her roommate was his student, and somehow he visited his student as usual, not exactly as if he invited himself over. He also brought a present, which is common when invited to somebody's house.

It's easy to see a situation where they say we should do something socially, and they say, how about dinner, and he says, Ok! I'll bring a nice bottle that we can enjoy. It's assumed also that she probably was drinking enough of it too - let's be honest. The vomiting from a fat guy touching one's leg without alcohol seems particularly weird. Maybe she was drunk beyond belief, acted strangely then vomited and started accusing him and things, and then he felt she acted strangely.

The general problem with the account is she published it twice with quite contradictory facts which she later dismissed as her own nervousness or whatever. My general guess is she most likely got tired of being an "all talk" feminist without much sexual trauma or anything and, upon seeing her reputation disappearing and her sales dwindling looked for the closest thing she had to a sexual harassment experience. The real point is simply that she more or less led him on, as made more clear in her first published work on the incident (not so much in her essay "The Silent Treatment").

I mean seriously. The worst thing she could dig up, assuming all is true, is that a drunken professor made a sexual advance at her (though somehow I always suspected him of sexual impotence for some reason). What she failed to discuss, I guess, in her piece is, after the so called thigh grabbing - something Bloom completely denied anyway - he backed off and didn't pursue things. That is, a drunk man somehow in a sexual tense situation ended with a hand on a girl's thigh (note, not breast or down her blouse or anything), and when she cooled, he left, and presumably took a cold shower.

All being true, I think there are far worse things than that. After all, she makes clear how she dressed to impress him, and put on perfume and everything - that is, she made herself desirable so he would like her, then turned cold when he did.

Either way, she is a third rate scholar of nonsense and conspiracy theories. It is perhaps useful to suggest that she dismissed the sexual assault charges against one Wikileaks founder as politically motivated nonsense, and the girls should have just said no and gotten over it. It seems interesting to hear that opinion from someone who held a 21 year grudge over a man making a move, and then leaving when declined.

Take a look at this for instance:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/...lyn_friedman_a

[Ecurb]

That's not my point. She was clearly drunk, and she clearly exaggerates the story. One: her roommate was his student, and somehow he visited his student as usual, not exactly as if he invited himself over. He also brought a present, which is common when invited to somebody's house.

It's easy to see a situation where they say we should do something socially, and they say, how about dinner, and he says, Ok! I'll bring a nice bottle that we can enjoy. It's assumed also that she probably was drinking enough of it too - let's be honest. The vomiting from a fat guy touching one's leg without alcohol seems particularly weird. Maybe she was drunk beyond belief, acted strangely then vomited and started accusing him and things, and then he felt she acted strangely.

Your version is plausible, JBI, but it is untrue that Wolf was "clearly" drunk or "clearly" exaggerating. I'm unaware of another version of Wolf's story in which she contradicts herself (although I have no reason for disbelieving you). IN fact, I know next to nothing about the entire incident except that I vaguely remembered it, and googled it because of the thread about Harold Bloom. However, the New York magazine version directly contradicts JBI's version of the incident, in the following ways:

1) "Bloom suggested that he come to the house I shared with one of his editorial assistants and her boyfriend. At dinnertime." This was AFTER Wolf had unsuccessfully tried to get meetings with him, because she was supposedly doing an accredited independent study course with him. There is nothing in the article (that I saw, I stopped reading after a couple of pages) that suggests he was "visiting his student as usual".

2) Wolf was 20, and probably couldn't legally buy alcohol, although many 20-year-old college seniors are fairly experienced drinkers. It's certainly possible that a couple of glasses of sherry went to her head, and that would explain the vomiting, but she was not "clearly drunk", based on the story I just read. So JBI's "maybe" is possible, but not probable. MY guess: a 20-year-old senior who had been trying to corner her famous professor into reading her poems all semester would be a little careful not to over-indulge.

3) Do you have a link to the "contradictory" published version? If so I'd like to see it (although we may have spent too much time already on a 30-year-old, minor "sexual encroachment" incident).

4) I agree with JBI that there are "far worse things" than a hand on the thigh, although Wolf's contention that the meeting was professional (her professor was coming to dinner to look at her poems, as was his professional duty) makes that inappropriate. IN addition, if Wolf is telling the truth, we can probably assume that this wasn't an isolated incident, and that Bloom made passes at other students, some of which were probably successful.

Either way, she is a third rate scholar of nonsense and conspiracy theories. It is perhaps useful to suggest that she dismissed the sexual assault charges against one Wikileaks founder as politically motivated nonsense, and the girls should have just said no and gotten over it. It seems interesting to hear that opinion from someone who held a 21 year grudge over a man making a move, and then leaving when declined.

Take a look at this for instance:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/...lyn_friedman_a

I wouldn't call Wolf a "scholar". She is a cultural critic who has written best-selling books. Certainly she had a motive for exaggerating her claims about Bloom: the story supports the notion of Wolf's feminist-glamor-girl desirability as well as her victim hood. I also agree that it seems strange to hold a grudge for 20 years (although she claims she doesn't really hold a grudge, and writers are tempted to write stories that will interest readers). Nonetheless, her position about Julian Assange seems to make her MORE believable, not less. I read the interview you linked, and Wolf seems to be saying that women are responsible for saying, "No" clearly, and that the Swedish government's response to dubious rape claims is wholly out of character with Sweden's usual treatment of these cases. I don't know whether this is true -- but it seems irrelevant to her credibility about Bloom, whom she is not accusing of any crime. As is whether she is a first-rate, second-rate, or third-rate scholar.

[ennison]

Wish I had a pound for every time a female drunk or sober had grabbed me by the thigh!

[Poetaster]

Then again, in the past 5-10 years or so literary Theory has pretty much been extinguished, and classicism, conservatism, and history are receiving more credit and publishing space, so perhaps his rants were listened to, or perhaps were prophetic. In terms of scholarship he has hardly been a big player in the past 30 odd-years, given that he hasn't come up with a single volume of critical textual work.

What do you mean that literary theory has been pretty much extinguished? To be honest, I hope you are right - I'm just curious what you mean by that.