Does she have a point? What is Harold Bloom really talking about

>>9107589
>because you're sooooo much smarter than us, right?

well, yeah, i mean he is.

She doesn't have a point because she doesn't understand what Bloom is trying to do, trying to say, or what the dynamics of the canon and of literary influence are as Bloom understands them (doesn't mean that his approach is the only valid one, or even the most accurate; Bloom is also subject to ideological bias, regardless of how unbiased he regards himself). Her insults and her own ideological bias don't help her case either.

If you want to read more about Bloom's thought as a literary critic, I recommend you read "The Anxiety of Influence", where he develops his theory of influence more formally.

>>9107615
Thanks for the earnest reply.

Is Bloom's ideological bias a reactionary one, as he's been accused of?

>>9107589
No. She's a bad reader and fails to see the ironic twist to Bloom's words in the bit about quiltmakers. She then does the classic "oh you think you're better than me?" thing that all morons do when confronted with something they don't totally understand. Then she just calls him names because he says that there are a lot of ahistorical schools of criticism.

>>9107667
And what Bloom talks about when he talks about the Western Canon is how we can make an unbroken web of connections between the most influential writers in the west going back quite a long way. He thinks this web of connections and the considerations that go into forming it are powerful tools in literary criticism, but that a lot of fame-hungry or activist academics ignore them.

I don't know if Bloom himself is a reactionary man, but his ideas certainly appeal to reactionaries.

>>9107589
Juvenile garbage... Why would you even post this?

>>9107589
what a contrast of abilities

il faut que les femmes tricotent

>>9107649
He is a traditionalist in a very broad, literary sense, that much is obvious. I do not know if that makes him a reactionary. I am sure he is by no means a racist or a mysoginist or even a right wingee or anything like that. He is too smart for that. Some of his criticism of the so-called School of Resentment is worthy of consideration, but the problem is that people misunderstand or do not even care to engage with his views on tradition and the dynamics of the canon, as your picture shows.

This, again, does not mean that Bloom is some sort of monolithic authority who cannot be questioned and who is always right. As with all authority, he can and must be questioned and engaged with.

He also fails to engage in a meaningful way with his detractors. For example, he dismisses feminist criticism of Hamlet and As You Like It on his book on the plays of Shakespeare. Some may say that such criticism and analysis is unecessary and even an attempt to promote a political agenda, but those people are more often than not just the contrary version of the speaker in your picture: they'd rather stay ignorant of their opponent's view and just stay with something they themselves don't fully understand. A reading of those plays from feminist theory (actual, intelligent feminist literary and cultural theory) can elucidate aspects of the plays that a character-centered criticism like that of Bloom's fails to address.

And it's not like you must choose one over the other. That would also be a mistake.

Whether one likes it or not, Bloom is an important, thoughtful critic, and one will end up reading him one way or the other. But, of course, one must be careful not to become dazzled by his way of thinking, or, even worse, disgusted by it. The same could be said about any critic or writer. That healthy dose of skepticism is, as Bloom would say, the most Shakespearean thing we mere mortals could do.

The difference in ability and knowledge and general intelligence is astounding
>true statement mixed with a couple japes, some artful phrases and concise ideas, essentially positing that feminists think their writers are free of influence or don't feel anxious about their influence when writing, ultimately criticizing and poking fun at this ludicrous idea
>"wow umm did you just call all women quiltmakers? That's incredibly misogynistic."
>phrase that basically says that what he just criticized is simplistic nonsense bullshit that anyone who's read his work on the canon will know is bullshit
>"oh you think you're smarter than me, Yale tenured professor and internationally recognized literary critic?!? You think you can just decide on something we're not talking about?"
>lampooning of activist art and activist academia with a clever and simple metaphor
>"wow I can't believe you'd call me (metaphor) that's so (buzzword)"
>phrase expressing that this piece of art isn't very good but has been welcomed into the fold because of its political relevance and that's not really that good of a thing, and no one can dare stand up against it or be labeled a (buzzword)
>oh yeah? Well you're a (buzzword) and a (buzzword)! How'dya like that?
Really made me think

>>9107589
Who is this "she"?

File: you took the bait.jpg (104KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 957x1300px

>>9107674
Why do you fucking think?

>>9108246
Some tumblrina.

>>9107589

>This is why people hate white men. Because you're assholes.

Das raciss

>>9108381
You can't be raysis against white people, cumskin