The book sounds great! I think of Bloom as an essentially Talmudic scholar — the memorisation, the total spiritual commitment, the lifelong dialogue with the corpus — albeit of literature. I’m sure he’s said something similar about himself…
It might not be a full biography, but you, Henry Oliver, may find Prof. Susan A. Handelman’s “The Slayers of Moses” interesting. She dedicates a chapter to Bloom.
It’s the book that made me interested in critical theory or literary criticism or whatever full stop. I had (still have!) a prior interest in critical theory as applied to science fiction on science fiction’s terms (Darko, Delany, etc.) but Prof. Handelman made me want to read literary criticism for its own sake and even for things I’d never read.
Also unsure if this’ll be applicable to you at all, but it also positively influenced my understanding of and relationship with my own Jewishness. I also nearly emailed a historian of ideas to tell him about it and then nearly emailed Prof. Handelman to tell her about that historian’s work, but then I got shy and felt dumb because I don’t even have a tertiary degree or anything, and maybe cold-calling academics is gauche.
After listening to the THB podcast between you and Henderson, I’m wondering where Bloom’s standing lies exactly, lots of conflicting messages about him. I’m not going to allow them to influence my initial impressions of him ofcourse, but it appears to me like the consensus on Bloom is “he’s an excellent voice if you want a friendly opinion on aesthetics, but he’s no academic and shouldn’t be taken seriously”.
Please correct me if I’m missing something here, I’m planning to read a few of his book in about a month’s time. Excellent podcast by the way!
I’m not sure what that question implies but I would follow your nose and read him as you feel would be most helpful to you. The Western Canon is the obvious starting place for the “popular” books, and for something more particular try The Ringers in the Tower, The Anxiety of Influence, or The Visionary Company.
The timing of this post is a pleasant surprise. I just completed Bloom's "The Art of Reading Poetry," of which I unfortunately got very little. It felt like an essay for someone with extensive prior experience and familiarity with poetry to reexamine their process, rather than an accessible guide to a beginner. Nevertheless, I respect Bloom. Reading "How to read and why" opened me up to the possibilities of literature. Thanks for this piece.
What a sad, sorry thing for that to be what you take from this. Bloom himself had much to say about the critics of the various Schools of Resentment, whose criticism is essentially just made up of a long string of comments like yours.
I shall pass on this book. I am in no doubt that Harold Bloom was an immensely well-read man who genuinely believed in the value of excellent literature. However, I deplore his tendency to assume he knew better than others what constituted literary greatness and to dismiss the equal weight of other opinions, particularly when they came from New Historicist critics and scholars. There is something in his writing style, too, that I consider quite off-putting. It conveys the odour of puffy self-importance and pomposity.
The letters must be undoubtedly rich in content and references; I'll definitely try to delve deeper into Bloom! I particularly love how he admired Borges' work.
The book sounds great! I think of Bloom as an essentially Talmudic scholar — the memorisation, the total spiritual commitment, the lifelong dialogue with the corpus — albeit of literature. I’m sure he’s said something similar about himself…
When Bloom praised a poet he was almost always right — or at least brilliantly illuminating. Often wrong about poets he didn’t love.
And once we were walking with him and we mentioned Saki. He proceeded to quote, verbatim, his ten favorite first paragraphs.
!!
Wow
I recently read The Western Canon after reading some contemporary literary theory.
It was like leaving the Office of Circumlocution and going on an exhilarating walk on a mountain peak.
It might not be a full biography, but you, Henry Oliver, may find Prof. Susan A. Handelman’s “The Slayers of Moses” interesting. She dedicates a chapter to Bloom.
oh yes I will be interested thank you!
It’s the book that made me interested in critical theory or literary criticism or whatever full stop. I had (still have!) a prior interest in critical theory as applied to science fiction on science fiction’s terms (Darko, Delany, etc.) but Prof. Handelman made me want to read literary criticism for its own sake and even for things I’d never read.
Also unsure if this’ll be applicable to you at all, but it also positively influenced my understanding of and relationship with my own Jewishness. I also nearly emailed a historian of ideas to tell him about it and then nearly emailed Prof. Handelman to tell her about that historian’s work, but then I got shy and felt dumb because I don’t even have a tertiary degree or anything, and maybe cold-calling academics is gauche.
i wish i liked bloom more.
He’s very much not for everyone !
After listening to the THB podcast between you and Henderson, I’m wondering where Bloom’s standing lies exactly, lots of conflicting messages about him. I’m not going to allow them to influence my initial impressions of him ofcourse, but it appears to me like the consensus on Bloom is “he’s an excellent voice if you want a friendly opinion on aesthetics, but he’s no academic and shouldn’t be taken seriously”.
Please correct me if I’m missing something here, I’m planning to read a few of his book in about a month’s time. Excellent podcast by the way!
Certainly he’s more popular among non scholarly readers yes
Alright cool. Do you think it’s apt to approach him as one would approach Johnson?
I’m not sure what that question implies but I would follow your nose and read him as you feel would be most helpful to you. The Western Canon is the obvious starting place for the “popular” books, and for something more particular try The Ringers in the Tower, The Anxiety of Influence, or The Visionary Company.
My thoughts were in that ballpark. Thanks again and happy reading ❤️
The timing of this post is a pleasant surprise. I just completed Bloom's "The Art of Reading Poetry," of which I unfortunately got very little. It felt like an essay for someone with extensive prior experience and familiarity with poetry to reexamine their process, rather than an accessible guide to a beginner. Nevertheless, I respect Bloom. Reading "How to read and why" opened me up to the possibilities of literature. Thanks for this piece.
I loved his Invention of the Human book . Gave me a deeper appreciation for the Bard.
A couple of your lines here have entered my commonplace book.
Can't help noticing that he was *not* the one 'cooking the chicken pilaf', or tending to the playing children or the house.
Same here...
What a sad, sorry thing for that to be what you take from this. Bloom himself had much to say about the critics of the various Schools of Resentment, whose criticism is essentially just made up of a long string of comments like yours.
I shall pass on this book. I am in no doubt that Harold Bloom was an immensely well-read man who genuinely believed in the value of excellent literature. However, I deplore his tendency to assume he knew better than others what constituted literary greatness and to dismiss the equal weight of other opinions, particularly when they came from New Historicist critics and scholars. There is something in his writing style, too, that I consider quite off-putting. It conveys the odour of puffy self-importance and pomposity.
Reading your post reminds me of a book by Bloom: How to Read and Why. One should read and reread it
The letters must be undoubtedly rich in content and references; I'll definitely try to delve deeper into Bloom! I particularly love how he admired Borges' work.
That is food for thought...bless him...