I would start with "The Anxiety of Influence". It's my personal favorite of his.
I would start with "The Anxiety of Influence". It's my personal favorite of his.
Reading non-fiction books about fiction books...hmmm. Don't read any Harold Bloom books - or even watch Orlando Bloom movies for that matter - just read anything that sounds appealing to you. Unless one has to for school, why would anyone voluntarily submit themselves to such torture?
I know this may seem "ignorant" to some, but outside the academic world, why do people even bother with books that explain works of fiction?
While you all tackle that question, I'm going to read my book, Richard Pryor: Jokes Explained.
I think it has something to do with actually liking the non-fiction. Just like people in psychology read in psychology, not just case studies but theories. So do many people who like literature, not just read literature but read about literature. Have you ever wanted to read a biography of an author? It seems the same thing.Originally Posted by Vautrin
Ultimately, I think the idea is not so much the actually reading of the critical text, but the enrichment of reading fiction after the text. There is a refined pleasure in knowing more about what your reading.
I've read all of these. I think all are worth reading, but the key work is "The Western Canon". It's aimed at the common reader, but I'd recommend it to anyone. I think it falls into the same category as Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality", which was picked by Jim al-Khalili as his desert Island disk choice a couple of weeks ago - even though he is a top nuclear physicist he did not poo poo it as 'just for schoolkids'.
Some books are like Charles Dickens, loved by the public and serious critics, without any boundaries
The title is a misleading! It's pitched at about the same level as "The Western Canon" and "The Invention of the Human".
"The Western Canon" starts with an elegy for the canon and an elegy for Shakespeare as the centre of the canon, so it's definitely Shakespeare heavy! And it has a broader vision than his other books. So it's definitely the one to start with.
Bloom concentrates on 26 writers in the Western Canon, and "How to Read" can be looked at as extending his views on a few other writers. But to see his views extended to many more writers (100 to be precise) try "Genius".
Another good one is "Where is wisdom to be found". I also quite like "Novels and Novelists"... He has other collections of essays on "Epics", "Short Stories", and on (which I haven't looked at... hey I can't *just* read Bloom,...)
Bloom thought he hadn't said enough about Hamlet in any of the books you mention and published a separate book, which is sitting on my shelf begging to be read...
If you do fancy reading "The Art of Reading poetry" think about buying "The Best Poems of the English Language", which has "the Art" as a forward.
I notice the anti-Bloom faction are coming on strong in this thread. But just read the cover of the Western canon and see who praises Bloom: Christoper Ricks, Malcolm Bradbury, James Wood, Peter Ackroyd, A.S. Byatt, Frank Kermode, Michael Dirda... and on... Is there any work of modern, synoptic criticism that makes a stronger claim to be canonical?
Last edited by mal4mac; 03-10-2010 at 08:27 AM.
Thanks a lot. Though it was two years ago since I started this thread (bumped up from somewhere) and in that time JBI has long since put me off Bloom anyway.
I have those two and I thought they were good reads. I thought The Invention of the Human was actually quite good. I haven't read The Anxiety of Influence, but I'm familiar with his theory and frankly I think it's somewhere between silly and simple.The Invention of the Human?
How to Read and Why?
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Who would ever dream of trying to understand something they take pleasure from? Next time a friend reads a book or watches a movie, I'll ask them if they like it, but don't tell me why! I don't want to here about its technical aspects, how it participates in a genre, or how its characters are modeled on archetypes.
I've read both. The Shakespeare book (which I also started a thread on, maybe a year ago?) is a decent read, but so-so literary criticism. The Anxiety of Influence is an annoying read, although theoretically interesting.
Last edited by mayneverhave; 03-10-2010 at 09:20 PM.
The problem with the Anxiety though is it takes a basic idea, inspiration and influence, and then Freudianizes it, and throws in Greek language to make it complicated, when really it is a pretty standard idea, but a Freudian view of Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent.
Yeah, I think that's right on. Good way to look at it JBI.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
That is a good point JBI. It remains however my favorite work of Bloom's.
It's interesting looking back on my old posts (though sometimes horrifying) and seeing how my opinions have morphed over the past couple of years.
Not necessarily a bad thing - though I for one would like some more intellectual consistency. It helps that we're young.
My favorite effort by HB is his collaboration with Rosenberg in the Book of J. He purports in it that the Pentateuch was written by a women in the son of King Soloman's court and as a work or witty and ironic fancy and very much from a sophisticated female point of view. He goes on to argue that with Dante and Shakespeare she is part of the pinnacle of the western literary tradition. Great fun. I personally prefer to take this quite seriously.
HB is an old kraut, and his opinionated arrogance is just annoying. Though I really enjoyed reading his thoughts on romantic poets, his chastising of Stephen King and J.K. Rowling is just disgustingly smug and ivory tower. I read Harry Potter as an 8-year-old and that's what got my interest in literature going, according to Bloom I should be reading King and pulp fiction only, when my favorite books are from Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Of course I couldn't care less what he thinks, I don't need his stamp of approval, I like Stephen King as well. I do like Bloom's rejection on feminist and marxist critique though, which I also find pointless.
Sorry for digging up an old thread btw...
Last edited by hampusforev; 05-05-2011 at 05:25 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
