Harold Bloom says the major English language poets of the 20th

>English
>poets

File: 24214505752_7e8729961c_z.jpg (112KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 640x480px

>What can people get from reading that they can't from movies or television?
>I would say not less than everything. You can get a great deal of information, as such, from screens of one sort or another. You can dazzle yourself with images, if that is your desire. But how you are to grow in self-knowledge, become more introspective, discover the authentic treasures of insight and of compassion and of spiritual discernment and of a deep bond to other solitary individuals, how in fact can like call out to like without reading, I do not know. I suppose if I were to put it in almost a common denominator sort of way, I would say that you cannot even begin to heal the worst aspects of solitude, which are loneliness and potential madness, by visual experience of any kind, particularly the sort of mediated visual experience that you get off a screen of whatever sort. If you are to really encounter a human otherness which finds an answering chorus in yourself, which can become an answering chorus to your own sense of inward isolation, there truly is no authentic place to turn except to a book.

What the fuck is his fucking problem?

>>8738053
/thread

>>8738072
Hes right though

is he dead yet?

>>8738072

>yfw Bloom pioneered the new sincerity and DFW stole it

is it true he also ghostwrote infinite meme?

>>8738072
>visual experience of any kind
funny that he's willfully discounting the visual aesthetics of written language here

>>8738114
I don't think he's discounting them. He's saying that in addition to providing the kind of spectacle found in film, literature also excels in providing an introspective glimpse into the individual human experience, a more difficult task for cinema.

>>8738028
>no ezra pound

lmao

Sylvia Plaith?

>>8738155
But he explicitly says visual experiences, which include reading, are incapable of doing what he says literature is capable of doing. It's strange and contradictory.

>He's saying that in addition to providing the kind of spectacle found in film, literature also excels in providing an introspective glimpse into the individual human experience, a more difficult task for cinema.
I understand this is in effect what he means, but he's made a bizarre error in his argumentation of this point. I don't know, I feel autistic now. It wasn't a smart or well-considered thing for him to say, even though I think he's essentially correct insofar as placing literature over cinema goes.

>>8738072
In other news, old man doesn't understand modern things, shits himself and gets dementia