Well they're obviously bad people. If you want an armchair pathological assessment, then they're blatant narcissists and sociopaths who only really care about superficial power dynamics. From an esoteric occultist view, they live entirely in the ego and lack any subconscious to remedy their problems.
Everything but power dynamics is cope.
Beat me in a fight with your subconscious, moron.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The subconscious more or less works in the background and includes things like empathy, guilt, shame, and automatic perception. It's also the means of healing the mind and recovering from psychic damage through sleep. This isn't to say power dynamic don't matter, because they obviously do, but the ego and subconscious should work in tandem. Otherwise someone ends up being vindictive over every inconvenience, or lives like an insane person in constant mood swings.
8 months ago
Anonymous
How do I DOOMAXXX fellow IQfyThads?
>or lives like an insane person in constant mood swings.
Asking for me; how do I stop this? Within one hour I can go from crying over a news article to daydreaming about committing genocides and giving imaginary speeches before abandoning that too and going to hug my pillow pretending it's my imaginary future wife/son/daughter. Some days I feel as if I'm losing my mind but most of the time I feel literally nothing. It's as if I'm an empty vessel and moods just come into me and possess me before leaving. I literally feel nothing no matter how much I try. It all feels fake. All besides greed. That's real, but it's such a basic emotion that I cannot recognise it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Meditation, journaling, getting good sleep and doing exercise, pursuing hobbies, talking about feelings, keeping the mind preoccupied with the task at hand with work or chores etc. Otherwise try therapy and medication if nothing else is working.
I've read a bit of Bloom and it all reads like that. Incessant namedropping and referencing and absolutely nothing insightful or interesting about the work at all, ever.
Iago is very interesting because of the *lack* of speeches expounding his egoism as a philosophy (it's discussed, but always framed as simple pragmatism), which would be expected in Shakespeare and which is obviously a defining characteristic of the other three characters in the OP image. What is preternatural about Iago is his skill and lack of remorse, and the matter-of-fact, unpretentious way in which he approaches his endeavors only adds to the uncanny effect.
Well they're obviously bad people. If you want an armchair pathological assessment, then they're blatant narcissists and sociopaths who only really care about superficial power dynamics. From an esoteric occultist view, they live entirely in the ego and lack any subconscious to remedy their problems.
Yeah, I'm just saying that the "egoist" isn't an archetype, it's like the opposite of an archetype because they're based on being functioning parts of a whole and the mark of the egoist is the repudiation all that.
they're nothing alike
what a fricking hack lol
>they're nothing alike
Dull oversimplification. They have salient qualities in common.
I've read a bit of Bloom and it all reads like that. Incessant namedropping and referencing and absolutely nothing insightful or interesting about the work at all, ever.
I haven't really read him but I think what he was going for was more along the lines of what he's talking about there - connections and themes between works, not diving deep into particular ones. I highly doubt that he totally lacks substance on that front. But of course he was a fraud and a pathological liar nonetheless, and I'm sure there are infinitely better alternatives.
>I highly doubt that he totally lacks substance on that front
Well check him out anon. Everything he wrote is exactly like that quote with absolutely no point at all.
But it does have a point, it's identifying a trend and strain of influence. It's part of the history of literature. He overblows this heuristic and makes a whole worldview out of it in an obnoxious way but that doesn't mean it's totally invalid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I haven't read most of the books he's touching on so i can't really say but I don't think it's too insightful to just read how such character from such work is similar to a Shakespeare character for hundreds of pages and that's basically all Bloom does. He doesn't ever describe what makes works interesting or amazing to him, and you'd think he'd have some insight there as he claims to have read 9 gorillion pages a day since he was 6 or whatever. It's all categorizing stuff by influence from Shakespeare and occasionally the Bible.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Sounds like you are just expecting a specialized work to be more general, which is a common expectation among those who are new to a field. But whatever, like I said he's still a meme and not really worth defending.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No I'm expecting some unique insight from this highly lauded literary critic. Something interesting just once.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Some people are interested in the specifics of dynamics of influence/history of ideas in literature. He seems to do a decent job of laying these things out in an approachable way. It may not be unique but he's fundamentally a goofy popularizer-clown, you shouldn't expect someone like that to advance the state of the art.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes but he never explains the parallels in a way that's interesting to read. He just says such and such derives from Shakespeare over and over.
Every time I’ve read something Harold Bloom wrote about a book, it has always just been him referencing a bunch of other books and never actually saying anything about the book itself.
And I defy anyone to find an example of his ever doing anything different for his entire career. I don't understand how he was so successfu... >israeli
Oh, right.
And he never quotes anything or cites passages that illustrate what he wants to suggest about the works
>The pale stars of the morn
Shine on a misery, dire to be borne.
Dost thou faint, mighty Titan? We laugh thee to scorn.
Dost thou boast the clear knowledge thou waken’dst for man ?
Then was kindled within him a thirst which outran
Those perishing waters ; a thirst of fierce fever,
Hope, love, doubt, desire, which consume him for ever.
True, it's very fun to read critical works that are generously seasoned with good quotes. But I'm sure Bloom didn't want to take the spotlight off of himself.
Men whose highly developed rationality is untethered from its service to irrational moral/humanitarian principles
Examples of the proverb "The mind is a wonderful servant and a terrible master."
Other examples - Kurtz from Heart of Darkness, any D.H. Lawrence villain, Ayn Rand irl
Or perhaps a better category for them all would be archons of the demiurge
least subversive white men
If you're referring to Jungian archetypes, then they're an in-between of "outlaw" and "magician".
I don't know if that really captures it though. They're just self-worshipping, it's more of a pathology than a real archetype.
Well they're obviously bad people. If you want an armchair pathological assessment, then they're blatant narcissists and sociopaths who only really care about superficial power dynamics. From an esoteric occultist view, they live entirely in the ego and lack any subconscious to remedy their problems.
Everything but power dynamics is cope.
Beat me in a fight with your subconscious, moron.
The subconscious more or less works in the background and includes things like empathy, guilt, shame, and automatic perception. It's also the means of healing the mind and recovering from psychic damage through sleep. This isn't to say power dynamic don't matter, because they obviously do, but the ego and subconscious should work in tandem. Otherwise someone ends up being vindictive over every inconvenience, or lives like an insane person in constant mood swings.
How do I DOOMAXXX fellow IQfyThads?
>or lives like an insane person in constant mood swings.
Asking for me; how do I stop this? Within one hour I can go from crying over a news article to daydreaming about committing genocides and giving imaginary speeches before abandoning that too and going to hug my pillow pretending it's my imaginary future wife/son/daughter. Some days I feel as if I'm losing my mind but most of the time I feel literally nothing. It's as if I'm an empty vessel and moods just come into me and possess me before leaving. I literally feel nothing no matter how much I try. It all feels fake. All besides greed. That's real, but it's such a basic emotion that I cannot recognise it.
Meditation, journaling, getting good sleep and doing exercise, pursuing hobbies, talking about feelings, keeping the mind preoccupied with the task at hand with work or chores etc. Otherwise try therapy and medication if nothing else is working.
> "outlaw" and "magician"
Those aren't created by Jung, and calling them Jungian is an insult.
they're nothing alike
what a fricking hack lol
I've read a bit of Bloom and it all reads like that. Incessant namedropping and referencing and absolutely nothing insightful or interesting about the work at all, ever.
Iago is very interesting because of the *lack* of speeches expounding his egoism as a philosophy (it's discussed, but always framed as simple pragmatism), which would be expected in Shakespeare and which is obviously a defining characteristic of the other three characters in the OP image. What is preternatural about Iago is his skill and lack of remorse, and the matter-of-fact, unpretentious way in which he approaches his endeavors only adds to the uncanny effect.
Yeah, I'm just saying that the "egoist" isn't an archetype, it's like the opposite of an archetype because they're based on being functioning parts of a whole and the mark of the egoist is the repudiation all that.
>they're nothing alike
Dull oversimplification. They have salient qualities in common.
I haven't really read him but I think what he was going for was more along the lines of what he's talking about there - connections and themes between works, not diving deep into particular ones. I highly doubt that he totally lacks substance on that front. But of course he was a fraud and a pathological liar nonetheless, and I'm sure there are infinitely better alternatives.
>I highly doubt that he totally lacks substance on that front
Well check him out anon. Everything he wrote is exactly like that quote with absolutely no point at all.
But it does have a point, it's identifying a trend and strain of influence. It's part of the history of literature. He overblows this heuristic and makes a whole worldview out of it in an obnoxious way but that doesn't mean it's totally invalid.
I haven't read most of the books he's touching on so i can't really say but I don't think it's too insightful to just read how such character from such work is similar to a Shakespeare character for hundreds of pages and that's basically all Bloom does. He doesn't ever describe what makes works interesting or amazing to him, and you'd think he'd have some insight there as he claims to have read 9 gorillion pages a day since he was 6 or whatever. It's all categorizing stuff by influence from Shakespeare and occasionally the Bible.
Sounds like you are just expecting a specialized work to be more general, which is a common expectation among those who are new to a field. But whatever, like I said he's still a meme and not really worth defending.
No I'm expecting some unique insight from this highly lauded literary critic. Something interesting just once.
Some people are interested in the specifics of dynamics of influence/history of ideas in literature. He seems to do a decent job of laying these things out in an approachable way. It may not be unique but he's fundamentally a goofy popularizer-clown, you shouldn't expect someone like that to advance the state of the art.
Yes but he never explains the parallels in a way that's interesting to read. He just says such and such derives from Shakespeare over and over.
Yeah, that much I could believe.
Every time I’ve read something Harold Bloom wrote about a book, it has always just been him referencing a bunch of other books and never actually saying anything about the book itself.
And I defy anyone to find an example of his ever doing anything different for his entire career. I don't understand how he was so successfu...
>israeli
Oh, right.
flexing homosexual
>Any more examples?
Thomas Sutpen
Maurice Conchis
Excellent file name
Does she fit?
God I love Makima. I don't even find her sexy at all, she is just so fricking well written.
Saturnian.
Berserkers for Berserker (Saberhagen) series
The rape dwarf archetype.
And he never quotes anything or cites passages that illustrate what he wants to suggest about the works
>The pale stars of the morn
Shine on a misery, dire to be borne.
Dost thou faint, mighty Titan? We laugh thee to scorn.
Dost thou boast the clear knowledge thou waken’dst for man ?
Then was kindled within him a thirst which outran
Those perishing waters ; a thirst of fierce fever,
Hope, love, doubt, desire, which consume him for ever.
It could have helped
True, it's very fun to read critical works that are generously seasoned with good quotes. But I'm sure Bloom didn't want to take the spotlight off of himself.
What's wrong with "Satanic". Haven't read Milton but I'm pretty sure Satan is a Satanic character.
It's called faustcore
Men whose highly developed rationality is untethered from its service to irrational moral/humanitarian principles
Examples of the proverb "The mind is a wonderful servant and a terrible master."
Other examples - Kurtz from Heart of Darkness, any D.H. Lawrence villain, Ayn Rand irl
Or perhaps a better category for them all would be archons of the demiurge
When it comes to villainy Iago really was the king. Wasn't he