Is Bloom's "Shakespeare: the Invention of the Human"

no. i read 5 of his books. read it if you have no other commentary on shakespeare, but he admitted frye is the better critic. so read frye if you can.

>>9513050

It's fine, but not really as a "read front to back" thing. He meant for it to be dipped into and read out of order, reading a chapter before or after you read the corresponding play. Of course if you dislike Bloom and his books, you'll hate it, but if you're a Bloomite this has some great Bloom in it.

It's a good read if you already like Bloom's style. The problem with it is that it's too self-centered (in more than one way). Bloom focuses almost purely on character, and tends to be very anectodical in his appreciation of the text, even to the point of being pompous. He also has some very questionable opinions on some plays, which sometimes get in the way of the actual, meaningful analysis.

Still, it's an interesting read, if only to disagree with Bloom. Read a PDF or something, I wouldn't spend money on it.

>>9513067
in other words bloom puts a lot of himself in shakesmeme. i suppose it's alluring at times, but take the fat jew with a grain of salt.

File: new Nuttall Shakes cover.jpg (257KB, 441x650px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 441x650px

>>9513073
>in other words bloom puts a lot of himself in shakesmeme

Bloom is nearly half the fun in reading Bloom.

Anyways, I recommend pic related for a more straightforward explanation of his plays, this one focusing on Bloom as a sort of philosopher. Also, Bloom lends it a blurb which praises it.

I've also dipped into Marjorie Garber's Shakespeare After All which from what I've read it's a cool read. It seems to be very comprehensive and takes from a lot of different schools of criticism.

I've read a few of the sections, and I thought it was pretty good.
Will definitely be coming back to it as I continue reading Shakespeare.

>>9513071
/thread

>>9513096
I've also only parsed Shakespeare After All, but it does seem more robust and less self-involved than Invention of the Human.

But yeah, reading Bloom is half the fun in reading Bloom.

>>9513071
>Bloom focuses almost purely on character, and tends to be very anectodical in his appreciation of the text

I'm not saying you're explicitly claiming this, but I'm wondering if you think there are good/correct readings of Shakespeare that aren't character-centric? Could you point me to them?

I'm about 1/3 of my way through my goal to finish the Bard's corpus this year. When I look through the secondary literature, it seems like the best, most honest critics of Shakespeare foreground their analysis in character.

>>9513362
>good/correct readings of Shakespeare that aren't character-centric

Of course there are. Just think of language-centered analysis (e.g. close reading), textual criticism, performance criticism, source and influence criticism, plot/structure criticism, etc. There are a great many ways to read Shakespeare, and while many of them inevitably refer to the characters of the plays, to focus exclusively on them while dismissing almost all other forms of criticism (which is what Bloom does in many cases), is just myopic.

Of course, charactes is, perhaps only second to language, what defines Shakespare as Shakespeare. If you deal with any of the plays, you inevitably deal with character. Even more so in plays such as Othello, where you have three heavy-weights of Shakespearen character in Othello, Iago, and Desdemona. In the case of Bloom, however, when he deals with character he, more often than not, deals with Bloom as a Shakespearean character. In other words, he tends to be very personal in his analysis, relating it to character so as to convey his opinions. Evidently he is trying to set his criticism on a certain tradition, namely, the Romantic one, with Hazlitt at its center. It is effective, sure, but gets cumbersome after a while.

If you want good criticism that doesn't necessarily focus on character, check out Frank Kermode's Shakespeare's Language.

>>9513398
Ah, I see. Thanks for the recommendation!

Don't wanna make a new thread and it seems appropriate to ask here. What is some essential Bloom?

>>9514707
there isn't any. just read his wiki. his more importatnt as a person and defender of the canon than an actual critic. all of his books are just, "this book is a copy of this aspect of iago", etc.

>>9514707
The Anxiety of Influence and Agon.

>>9514707

First I'd recommend you read or watch some interviews to get to know the man. As for his actual books: How to Read and Why is the best introduction to his tastes and philosophy on Reading. Anxiety of Influence is the book that made him famous and is actually quite innovative and insightful. The Western Canon is great for Bloom's idiosyncratic thoughts on the greatest writers. If you still want more Bloom after that, just read whatever looks interesting to you.

Also, try to get a hand on his 20th Anniversary Criticism Collections, which collect his introductions for all those essay collections he edited.

>>9513398
>three heavy-weights of Shakespearen character in Othello, Iago, and Desdemona
Nice post otherwise but Iago is practically the only one that matters, Othello and Desdemona are caricatures of romantic lovers without much depth or intelligence IMO.

>>9514900
Not really. Othello and Desdemona seem caricatures because 1) Iago portrays them as such, and 2) because they are playing a role that doesn't fit them completely. Othello is a very profound character because there is a battle within him. He's the Renaissance self-made man, and yet his notion of self crumbles because it is based on a mask. I'm not saying he is a savage because he is a Moor or some idiotic thing like that, but that he goes through a lot in order to play a role that society tries to impose on him; that includes the role of the romantic lover. Desdemona might not be as deep as Othello or Iago, but she's not just some dumb teen. She asserts her freedom of choice in a society that demands her servitude.

>>9513050
Why do you love Shakespeare ?