moron, go leave
In his last book he says he regrets ever taking on 'the school of resentment.'
why? because of you. you just want a Smart Man seal for your moron politica. You could not care less for art.
5 months ago
Anonymous
The school of resentment ruined literature for a generation. Now go read "White Fragility" and pretend it isn't projection.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Black person
5 months ago
Anonymous
white Black person
what is a white Black person? an ignorant ass, little-brained, insecure white person who has to fart at anything vaguely decent to have his say in the world. I hope you get run over by a bus full of black people and that your mother has to work up a tear to cry at the news. You do nothing for earth and should not have been born. May you die in pain.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Black person
5 months ago
Anonymous
>OHHHHHH BURNNNEEDD
YOU HURT MY FEELINGS
YOU SO FUNNY AND EDGY
YOU SO CLEVER
WOW
5 months ago
Anonymous
Black person
5 months ago
Anonymous
School shooter vibes
5 months ago
Anonymous
Holy seethe.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Ooga booga gibsmedat
5 months ago
Anonymous
>You could not care less for art.
Its not like Bloom really cared. When asked about why Blood Meridian was brilliant, Bloom described it as a critique of gun culture and compared the Judge to Charlton Heston.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Citation, right now. That possibly was a contemporary parralel he drew for illustrative purposes (quite correctly) but that is NOT Bloom's take on this extraordinary, cosmologically scaled novel. You are neither a Bloom reader nor a literature lover. You are an idiot stuck in political categories.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Its from one of his CSPAN interview. >Harold Bloom - How to Read and Why4 - Blood Meridian. Time Stamp 1:09
You can say "its just a parallel" but its the first thing he says about it and continues to compare it to shit like Ruby Ridge. He says almost nothing about it as a piece of art.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You have completely failed to comprehend the proportions of Bloom's comments as well the novel's dimensions, assuming you have read it (you didn't).
You are a Little Mind stuck in politics. You are reducing metaphysics to politics. This is like reducing ice hockey to a puck.
The Judge is very obviously supernatural, and is very obviously a Demonic or Daemonic rendering of the evil running through our cosmos, much of which takes the form of otherwise civilized men quite suddenly bashing in skulls and experiencing ecstasy. The horror of the book is that the Judge is violence but also light or knowledge (he likes science and diagrams, murder and child rape).
School shooters are either reality testing or reality embracing. The ones that embrace a reality of violence adore blood and become ecstatic at the thought. They are Kids met and enamored by the Judge, and we all weep at life for it.
The evil any given person is capable of doing is enough to drive anyone to despair.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>You are a Little Mind stuck in politics >Comparing The Glanton Gang to NRA is Peake literally criticism.
kek.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Look. I feel like most people on this board got into literature partly through Bloom. He's a good portal for newbies. But eventually you have to grow up and realize his analysis is lacking.
People like Northop Frye are what you should be graduating to. If you remain with Bloom your takes will remain reddit level.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Any rational person should perform a quick physiognomy assessment and move on from Bloom immediately
5 months ago
Anonymous
I have already read Frye thank you. Also I am one of the two people spamming Frye everywhere, thank you for being a barometer of board culture demonstrating my influence
you need to read bloom before you graduate bloom
also, eat a dick, pseud
5 months ago
Anonymous
Everyone here has read Bloom. Its why he's a joke.
His writing on Poe alone should disqualify him from any serious consideration as a insightful critic.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Everyone here has read Bloom. Its why he's a joke.
That is utterly false. I am glad you saw the recent Poe-Bloom thread and had something in your pocket to pay the bill. As far as I can tell Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand and DFW are more commonly read on 2024 IQfy, which is a temperate hell
5 months ago
Anonymous
I'm honestly impressed that not even you are going to try and defend Blooms appalling work on Poe. I'm proud of you anon.
5 months ago
Anonymous
"In Poe's art of sinking in poetry, every deep conceals a lower deep, a bathos more profound.... The legend or myth of Poe has a vitality that repetition does not stale."
You are oblivious to words and have not read a single volume by Harold Bloom. The greatest fan of star trek, should he also be the greatest moron of mankind, can quite easily know a man entirely unfamiliar with it from a man who saw an episode. Your pants are down, fool.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Now I know your being a fraud if your actually trying to suggest Bloom liked and respected Poes work.
Anyone reading this can google "The Inescapable Poe" and see Bloom claim that Poe is lousy poet that can't even be ranked 12th out of his contemporaries and that his short stories are so horribly written 'one should never read them aloud'.
He grudgingly admits there is something to Poe that keeps him around but gives no idea on what it his and doesn't substantiate his aesthetic complaints.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You have not read a single volume by Harold Bloom. Your pants are still down.
Stop including me in your gay fantasies
I shall dream of you as I please... your pants are still down...
...why am I so sweaty
I like your lips
can I kiss you? very quickly?
5 months ago
Anonymous
I've read more of him then you have.
5 months ago
Anonymous
best poems, jesus n yahweh, american religion, anxiety of influence and book of j
what have you read? Oh, not a single volume? right.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Western Canon, American Canon, Anxiety of Influence, How to Read and Why, Shakespeare Inventing the Human.
Bloom Critical series on Andersen, Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Hawthorne, Poe, and Whitman.
I also read his shitty novel "The Flight of Lucifer". So yeah. I've read more.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Oh I also read How to Read and why
and a Hamlet Pamphlet
Why aren't you saying anything intelligent, I don't get it?
5 months ago
Anonymous
You read so much and got filtered this hard? That’s not something to brag about, anon.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Anyone who read "The Flight of Lucifer" will run away from Bloom pretty quickly. Nothing damages a critics theories more then seeing those theories put to the test.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You’re equal parts smug and moron. I like it.
5 months ago
Anonymous
kek. Imagine defending "Flight of Lucifer". Even Bloom recognizes its trash.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I have never read it because I don’t care about Bloom as a fiction writer. Fiction requires a different skill set than literary criticism does, you smug moron.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You are absolutely seething because you got exposed as never reading lol
5 months ago
Anonymous
Are you the anime weeb that ruined the Vollman thread?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Everyone who thinks Im a seething autist is the same guy!
5 months ago
Anonymous
My bad. I'm not the anon you're responding to by the way. I was just curious. A weeb derailed a legitimately good thread and I thought you might have been doing the same thing, but it seems you're actually debating Bloom.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I basically am just trolling lmao but this has not been a good thread by my reading of it
5 months ago
Anonymous
I’m not the anon you were replying to. It seems you keep making the same mistake, my moronic friend.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I literally just popped in there to call you autistic because I saw you screeching lmao. Stop inventing fictional enemies that you are defeating on here schizo
5 months ago
Anonymous
Bragging about reading israeli slop is like bragging about how much television you watch. Yes, I proudly have not read an obese “art critic”
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand and DFW
Somehow still all better and more interesting writers than the obese israelite you are defending for some reason
5 months ago
Anonymous
there is a reason no one is engaging you seriously no matter how much bullshit you type
5 months ago
Anonymous
Because I am smart as frick, not full of shit, and utterly indifferent to you, yes, I know.
5 months ago
Anonymous
you sound really insecure honestly, like IQfy is the only place you can feel like a man.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Like I said, I do not care at all what you think of me. We are both long dead. All I want is to be shaken out of my present boots. Tell me something to shake me.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Ok this is pretty shaking. The anon who made the /lit 2023 top 100 chart is a Black person. Like actually. He admitted to it when some anon called him out on it for having never read Wagner. I think that would shake most anons.
5 months ago
Anonymous
lol, i remember those threads...i don't remember him saying that but he was pretty open about manipulating the votes
5 months ago
Anonymous
You definitely seem like you don’t care as you make obvious lies about how smart you are on an anonymous board
5 months ago
Anonymous
eh, I think you mixed me up with other guy, I don't tell lies
5 months ago
Anonymous
True, when a moron is confidently wrong about something, it is not necessarily a lie
5 months ago
Anonymous
Please tell me where I am wrong so I can make you feel stupid.
5 months ago
Anonymous
When you said that you are smart. I think we all know that’s not the case
5 months ago
Anonymous
lol you have nothing to say at all, frick off
5 months ago
Anonymous
Is this the comeback of a true genius? I am in awe and I bow before you
5 months ago
Anonymous
I am responsible for half the effortposts on Blood Meridian and even I admit that Bloom is a gay and a moron. For the way people refer to his appraisal of the book, he didn't even discover it to begin with. He was reccd by Gordon Lish when the book was already in the middle of rediscovery. He was another one in the herd. Take his comments with a pinch of salt.
5 months ago
Anonymous
saved as a pasta, thanks
5 months ago
Anonymous
>You are an idiot stuck in political categories
kek. Nah. I think the person comparing Judge Holden to George Bush is the one stuck in politics. Its denigrating to the artistic creation to do these comparisons.
5 months ago
Anonymous
gay
5 months ago
Anonymous
Ooga booga gibsmedat
>Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand and DFW
Somehow still all better and more interesting writers than the obese israelite you are defending for some reason
contemporary Americans, be they 17 or 70, entirely lack the ability to think outside of political categories. you may thank Tweed and Trump for that. your kind are useful to men in power-- very easy to manipulate, very easy to predict. Your kind is cut off from literature, because you attempt to transform every poem, nov or idea into one of two political statements.
I can shit out my ass and puke out my mouth to. What I can do that you cannot is think. This means I do not have to dart my eyes around and guage the room. This makes you jealous so you attack me.
Now, give me all your (you)'s, or let this dumb thread die, dummies. Either way you cannot win. I am smarter than ye 3 combined and squared.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Victory is mine!
I remember being 17
5 months ago
Anonymous
I just shit on your chest and you are going to blow a fricking bubble at me? Jesus, have some self respect. Make me feel stupid. Go on. I dare you. Tell me something I do not know. Make me eat these words, I'm hungry.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Stop including me in your gay fantasies
5 months ago
Anonymous
Harold Bloom included several African and Afro-Caribbean authors in his list.
http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html
5 months ago
Anonymous
He disowned that list btw
5 months ago
Anonymous
When?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Read anything on mainstream literary list produced by modern women from a prestigious university. Whatever they recommend is guaranteed to lead you there.
>the lazy answer
Everything Bloom didn't like. So Tolkien and Poe would probably find their way in there.
You don't understand what Bloom means by School of Resentment.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Everything Bloom didn't like. So Tolkien and Poe would probably find their way in there.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Go to your local Barnes and Noble and check the social sciences section. There's the canon.
5 months ago
Anonymous
The canon of resentment is unstable. Fixity would make it vulnerable to changing standards of progressivism, uncovered failings of authors, and the absence of newly discovered and embraced oppressed groups. So the canon is whatever reviewers are praising at the moment. There is no time depth to it and the present will be erased in its turn too.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Bloom serves his purpose. He is perfect as a gateway into criticism. He gives a solid overview of many important writers in a deeper way than most readers can or are aware of. He is very accessible and easy to read. I don’t get why he gets so much hate here. He is what he is and that’s fine. There are certainly better critics out there but many of them write books on a single writer or are more academic. As an aside I wish Edmund Wilson was more known here. He kinda does what Bloom does but is better in every way
5 months ago
Anonymous
He gets criticism for two big reasons.
1) He's a hypocrite for criticizing how "the school of resentment " attacked and disparaged authors for being racist / sexist, but then turned around and did the same thing to writers he thought were anti-semetic (Chesterton and Lewis being two examples).
2) Many people never move beyond him and just regurgitates his takes on literature. Unfortunately, a-lot of his takes are really bad, see his takes on Tolkien, Chesterton, Steinbeck, and Poe for example. When these takes are critiqued those who know no criticism outside of Bloom feel the need to defend them.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Regarding #2, no one’s taste is going to line up 100% with any other reader’s or critics, and there are many different takes about the same book. Some may be more “correct” than others, but most serve a purpose of showing a train of thought or a way of looking at a book. I’m not even really a Bloom fan, I’ve only read his Western Canon book which I think does a good job as an intro to criticism, as I’ve said. Personally if anons read Bloom and never go beyond him and just regurgitate his takes, I frankly think that’s a big step up from anons who just argue if a book is good or not and the thread serves almost no purpose outside of grade school bickering over whether a writer is based or not. I think have a bunch of perspectives is never a bad thing. All I’m saying is he’s intro and easy, and I’d rather anons read and post on a deeper level, which Bloom is a gateway to
5 months ago
Anonymous
I think he's a good gateway also. But there are obvious faults.
Bloom is a gnostic, and he interprets ALL literature from a gnostic lens. If the work is incapable of reflecting his gnostic worldview he disparages it. This is why he can't stand explicitly Christian writers like Tolkien.
He liked Flannery O'Conner but rejected her Catholicism as a influence on her art. He insisted she was of the gnostic party without knowing it.
If you had a Christian writer that disparaged Kafka or Poe because their work couldn't be made to reflect the Christian worldview, everyone would recognize this as bad criticism. The same applies to Bloom.
5 months ago
Anonymous
So I see what you’re about…it’s an ideological thing. You would probably dismiss someone if they critiqued through a lens that is opposite yours i suppose
5 months ago
Anonymous
I literally just said that everyone would recognize that a Christian disregarding Kafka because it didn't fit into his world view would be considered bad criticism.
Bloom and you actually have same problem that conservative Christians do when it comes to approaching art. Instead of fitting your mind and ideology to the work, you fit the work to your mind and ideology.
Such reading can never be fruitful as you only ever reinforce your beliefs.
5 months ago
Anonymous
That’s why I say criticism should be approached by a reader through multiple critics or lenses. Even if you disagree with them, someone like Dickens can easily be read through a Marxist lens, someone like Ophelia can be analyzed through a feminist lens, someone like Kafka through a israeli lens…as I said before Bloom is intro level. He isn’t particularly versatile but he’s better than nothing by far. He wrote on lots of writers where religion doesn’t play into it by my view, but then again I’ve only read Western Canon. I just think it’s dumb to hate a critic for the way they view literature, as most critics only analyze through their own way, hence the perspectives thing I said above
5 months ago
Anonymous
I can never shake this remark of his, that all interpretation is allegory, and the best allegory is somehow theological.
The most moving poems suggest a certain cosmos, or a relation of God to man, or an idea of God, or a reason to live besides.
I do not think he was seriously gnostic anymore than he was seriously a ("normative") israelite. I think he intended gnosticism as a broad paradigm capable of accomadating many different ideas of man in the universe, just as we see gnosticism in history taking a bewildering variety of theologies, influences and texts. "Gnosticism" has the added benefit of suggesting esoteric knowledge (which timeless literature must, or else why read the same old?).
I think part another major part of his self-professed "gnosticism" is a contrast with orthodoxy, and I agree totally with his description of CS Lewis as "merely Christian." Writers who are bound to an orthodoxy are extremely limited, exactly to the extent they are bound to it. Hence why Chesterton is a better writer than Lewis. He is, like TS Elliot, traditionally bound (a figurative faith antithetical to modernity more than heterodoxy) , not conversionally (a literal faith hell bent on hellfire)
5 months ago
Anonymous
I’m not saying he didn’t have his faults or wasn’t limited in range, but this stance wasn’t very apparent in Western Canon, which is again, the only book I’ve read. Most critics seem to handicap themselves in some way, and I think the better ones are ones who analyze through a very specific but broad lens, if that makes sense; something like Mimesis, which isn’t something I would call extremely accessible for someone who’s never delved beyond just reading the novel or poem. Bloom fills that space fine for someone looking to start to see the bigger picture of literature, at least with a book like Western Canon. Maybe I should have specified that when I’ve been talking about Bloom, I’ve more specifically been talking about that book. Honestly I think a lot of critics analyze themselves into too small of a corner, and the best are usually general and conversational, outside of certain instances. And even more than the critic, I think writers writing about writers are even better. Basically I don’t think someone is doing themselves a disservice by reading Western Canon for those who want to go beyond the Wikipedia page for the big guns. You have to ease your way in and the 20-40 page chapters in Western Canon are perfect for that. I think Bloom is a sphere of his own and it isn’t necessarily fair to compare him to someone like Frye or Auerbach. Those two are “readable” but not for someone who doesn’t already have the basics down to some extent
5 months ago
Anonymous
Should I use Bloom as a reading list of sorts? Read Blooms criticism of Kafka first then read Kafka. I'm a qsued and a tard. Most likely a normie and a follower too. Bauhaus is my favorite band but I pronounce it Bud-weis-er. I like the context ie The Context. I have no idea what 100 Years of Solitude is about. I just like gypsies. An audio book would be best, so I could listen to it at the gym. Or does he sniffle too much.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Absolutely not. Just read the primary material and only then, if you really enjoy it, should you read criticism. Why would you want to have preconceived notions in your head before you read a classic? Notions developed by a portly nepo baby no less!
5 months ago
Anonymous
Bloom criticisms are not always good. His Kafka and Shakespeare writings are good but his Dickens writings falls short of Chesterton's excellent book on Dickens.
Blooms writing on Poe and Chesterton are terrible and even though he praises Flannery O'Conner highly he has interpretative weaknesses.
His write up on Faulkner is good, and surprisingly his writing on Hans Christian Anderson has some really good insights.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The poets become disappointed because they "cannot be Adam early in the morning. There have been too many Adams, and they have named everything."[ wiki]
So read Kafka and don't even bother with Bloom then. Smugemoji.jpg
If I'm using a critic as a reading list ...
I like his take on the school of the resentful.
Post modernism is too phallic centric? obsessed?
I even bet some of these usurpers to the throne died from the male gaze. Any other critic I could use as a read list.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Any other critic I could use as a read list.
Northop Frye is probably the best critic but can be difficult.
I Honestly find authors to be the most insightful critics.
Arthur Machen and G K Chesterton have the best writings on Dickens.
If you want criticism of early gothic then Lovecraft's history of supernatural horror is really good.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Lovecraft's history of supernatural horror
randomly found this on wikisource a while back. kino. i approve of this recommendation.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I’ve been thinking about getting the Everyman’s Library Chesterton just for the Dickens stuff. Is it worth it? I read Dickens: The Two Scrooges by Edmund Wilson on a strange whim, because Dickens has never really interested me, and that essay compelled me to start reading him, and I’ve been in a bit of a Dickens phase recently. Can’t believe I just wrote him off. I’ve also been looking at FR Leavis books but I’m reading mixed reviews
5 months ago
Anonymous
The everyman's library is by far the best method of collecting Dickens. They have good binding and paper as well as having all the original illustrations.
The modern editions also all have Chesterton's original introduction as an afterword.
Chesterton emphasized that Dickens is best read not as a realist writer but as a romantic and fairy tale writer. This really opened Dickens up for me.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah I’ve been getting Dickens solely in EL, which is my go to publisher if they print a book. From what I’ve seen, it seems like Chesterton’s Dickens is mostly on demand print books which turns me off, so I might just bite the bullet and get the EL Chesterton. It’s a shame Dickens is typecast. His reputation turned me away for years but I’m glad I gave him a legitimate shot with a man open mind, and looked up some background material on him.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I liked one hundred of solitude. I read it because it was a good book on the good boy good book list. If I'm going to read a book as infrequently as I do I don't want to waste time read dumb books on the dumb dumb book list more so if it is bummer white people stuff *crime and punishment*. Are cold depressing soups filling? I suppose but they are not satisfying. And I'm not entirely sure I know what I'm getting out of it. Depressed and moronic. What fun. We all know good art is sad art. It is what it is. But I don't want to come away from reading a good book being both sad and retarted. East of Eden was sadish but I got tho mayest out of it. One hundred years of solitude wasn't really sad but I had no idea what it was about, if it was about anything at all. I was particularly found of the passage were the town folks ripped the seats out of the theater for making them feel the false sadness of the actors false death. Having said that.
What is your take on reading a critique first, getting the context, insight etc, then reading the book and visa versa. Are you over swayed by the critics pov and did it flavor the book in an unexpected way, perhaps change your view of it and say you came back to it later and found it different. Fight Club the movie - I know- was a good movie when I first say it at 17. Yeah punk rock, society man. Now being older and knowing something about the author. The crisis of masculinity and homesexual currents run through it. Hard not to see the influence. While i read Brokeback Mountain is about class, globalization and masculinity. Watching the movie and it was more funny wrestle in a tent. So that's how it happens. He he he. Rant out.
What's your take on critique first then book or book then critique.
5 months ago
Anonymous
What the hell did this have to do with Northop Frye or writers making good critics?
5 months ago
Anonymous
How much of the Bloom hate here is because he’s israeli?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Orientalism
Wretched of the earth
His comments on Pound
Authoritarian Personality
Black Athena
1619 Project
5 months ago
Anonymous
I’ve always suspected that part to much of what rubs people wrong about Bloom - and I include myself here in part - is that he doesn’t stick to his own lane. If he wishes to issue ex cathedra statements on romantic poetry and shakespeare I can disagree with him but have to concede he has the credentials to demand a fair hearing. It’s when he starts making pronouncements on writers there’s no reason to think he’s seriously studied that you give pause. And to go further, it doesn’t mean he is automatically wrong but it does mean that he’s subtly shifted his positioning in a meaningful way - from relying on the modern academic standard of specialization to an older, now out of fashion model that insists it possesses something approaching a comprehensive literary knowledge and so is entitled to dogmatic sentencings. I personally don’t mind this position in the abstract. I think older, usually pre-1960s criticism is often richer than today’s for its willingness to take strong stances and its general disinterest in hiding behind skepticism and relativity (not that I’m saying your own opinions should be structured that way). But that criticism also benefits from coming from an environment where that was the default approach and no one had to justify themselves. Bloom working much later lands himself in a weird no man’s zone when doing this. He leaves his specialist territory, assumes the mantle of universal arbiter of quality, and then interweaves with his pronouncements an uncomfortable awareness of and implicit/explicit rejection of modern relativist standards. It’s one too many fights to carry out effectively at the same time.
5 months ago
Anonymous
By definition the school of resentment cannot have a canon. The latest striver simply replaces the last.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Are there any good critics still alive today?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Gender Trouble
A Critique of Pure Tolerance
White Fragility
Settlers: The Myth of a White Proletariat
Orientalism
How the Irish Became White
The History of Western Philosophy
Something from Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism and Quakerism
One of the CRT collections with Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw
Some books on care ethics and restorative justice
Maybe some eliminative materialism and "AI makes human art obsolete" stuff
5 months ago
Anonymous
whatever booktubers and booktokers are shilling
5 months ago
Anonymous
The school of resentment constantly eats its own canon. Think of Guns Germs & Steel. Once the vanguard of "actually your civilization always sucked", it is now racist and problematic.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Lol I remember my libtard history teacher in high school forcing us to read that crap and then the libtard professor in college telling us how it was actually not pro-brown enough!
5 months ago
Anonymous
Bloom couldn't write himself and also instructed Camille Paglia. subversives gonna subvert.
The Complete Works of Harold Bloom.
I hate that hypocritical pseud.
/thread
wong
wrong board
bored
Everything ever written by blacks and feminists.
Probably the best answer
moron, go leave
In his last book he says he regrets ever taking on 'the school of resentment.'
why? because of you. you just want a Smart Man seal for your moron politica. You could not care less for art.
The school of resentment ruined literature for a generation. Now go read "White Fragility" and pretend it isn't projection.
Black person
white Black person
what is a white Black person? an ignorant ass, little-brained, insecure white person who has to fart at anything vaguely decent to have his say in the world. I hope you get run over by a bus full of black people and that your mother has to work up a tear to cry at the news. You do nothing for earth and should not have been born. May you die in pain.
Black person
>OHHHHHH BURNNNEEDD
YOU HURT MY FEELINGS
YOU SO FUNNY AND EDGY
YOU SO CLEVER
WOW
Black person
School shooter vibes
Holy seethe.
Ooga booga gibsmedat
>You could not care less for art.
Its not like Bloom really cared. When asked about why Blood Meridian was brilliant, Bloom described it as a critique of gun culture and compared the Judge to Charlton Heston.
Citation, right now. That possibly was a contemporary parralel he drew for illustrative purposes (quite correctly) but that is NOT Bloom's take on this extraordinary, cosmologically scaled novel. You are neither a Bloom reader nor a literature lover. You are an idiot stuck in political categories.
Its from one of his CSPAN interview.
>Harold Bloom - How to Read and Why4 - Blood Meridian. Time Stamp 1:09
You can say "its just a parallel" but its the first thing he says about it and continues to compare it to shit like Ruby Ridge. He says almost nothing about it as a piece of art.
You have completely failed to comprehend the proportions of Bloom's comments as well the novel's dimensions, assuming you have read it (you didn't).
You are a Little Mind stuck in politics. You are reducing metaphysics to politics. This is like reducing ice hockey to a puck.
The Judge is very obviously supernatural, and is very obviously a Demonic or Daemonic rendering of the evil running through our cosmos, much of which takes the form of otherwise civilized men quite suddenly bashing in skulls and experiencing ecstasy. The horror of the book is that the Judge is violence but also light or knowledge (he likes science and diagrams, murder and child rape).
School shooters are either reality testing or reality embracing. The ones that embrace a reality of violence adore blood and become ecstatic at the thought. They are Kids met and enamored by the Judge, and we all weep at life for it.
The evil any given person is capable of doing is enough to drive anyone to despair.
>You are a Little Mind stuck in politics
>Comparing The Glanton Gang to NRA is Peake literally criticism.
kek.
Look. I feel like most people on this board got into literature partly through Bloom. He's a good portal for newbies. But eventually you have to grow up and realize his analysis is lacking.
People like Northop Frye are what you should be graduating to. If you remain with Bloom your takes will remain reddit level.
Any rational person should perform a quick physiognomy assessment and move on from Bloom immediately
I have already read Frye thank you. Also I am one of the two people spamming Frye everywhere, thank you for being a barometer of board culture demonstrating my influence
you need to read bloom before you graduate bloom
also, eat a dick, pseud
Everyone here has read Bloom. Its why he's a joke.
His writing on Poe alone should disqualify him from any serious consideration as a insightful critic.
>Everyone here has read Bloom. Its why he's a joke.
That is utterly false. I am glad you saw the recent Poe-Bloom thread and had something in your pocket to pay the bill. As far as I can tell Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand and DFW are more commonly read on 2024 IQfy, which is a temperate hell
I'm honestly impressed that not even you are going to try and defend Blooms appalling work on Poe. I'm proud of you anon.
"In Poe's art of sinking in poetry, every deep conceals a lower deep, a bathos more profound.... The legend or myth of Poe has a vitality that repetition does not stale."
You are oblivious to words and have not read a single volume by Harold Bloom. The greatest fan of star trek, should he also be the greatest moron of mankind, can quite easily know a man entirely unfamiliar with it from a man who saw an episode. Your pants are down, fool.
Now I know your being a fraud if your actually trying to suggest Bloom liked and respected Poes work.
Anyone reading this can google "The Inescapable Poe" and see Bloom claim that Poe is lousy poet that can't even be ranked 12th out of his contemporaries and that his short stories are so horribly written 'one should never read them aloud'.
He grudgingly admits there is something to Poe that keeps him around but gives no idea on what it his and doesn't substantiate his aesthetic complaints.
You have not read a single volume by Harold Bloom. Your pants are still down.
I shall dream of you as I please... your pants are still down...
...why am I so sweaty
I like your lips
can I kiss you? very quickly?
I've read more of him then you have.
best poems, jesus n yahweh, american religion, anxiety of influence and book of j
what have you read? Oh, not a single volume? right.
Western Canon, American Canon, Anxiety of Influence, How to Read and Why, Shakespeare Inventing the Human.
Bloom Critical series on Andersen, Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Hawthorne, Poe, and Whitman.
I also read his shitty novel "The Flight of Lucifer". So yeah. I've read more.
Oh I also read How to Read and why
and a Hamlet Pamphlet
Why aren't you saying anything intelligent, I don't get it?
You read so much and got filtered this hard? That’s not something to brag about, anon.
Anyone who read "The Flight of Lucifer" will run away from Bloom pretty quickly. Nothing damages a critics theories more then seeing those theories put to the test.
You’re equal parts smug and moron. I like it.
kek. Imagine defending "Flight of Lucifer". Even Bloom recognizes its trash.
I have never read it because I don’t care about Bloom as a fiction writer. Fiction requires a different skill set than literary criticism does, you smug moron.
You are absolutely seething because you got exposed as never reading lol
Are you the anime weeb that ruined the Vollman thread?
>Everyone who thinks Im a seething autist is the same guy!
My bad. I'm not the anon you're responding to by the way. I was just curious. A weeb derailed a legitimately good thread and I thought you might have been doing the same thing, but it seems you're actually debating Bloom.
I basically am just trolling lmao but this has not been a good thread by my reading of it
I’m not the anon you were replying to. It seems you keep making the same mistake, my moronic friend.
I literally just popped in there to call you autistic because I saw you screeching lmao. Stop inventing fictional enemies that you are defeating on here schizo
Bragging about reading israeli slop is like bragging about how much television you watch. Yes, I proudly have not read an obese “art critic”
>Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand and DFW
Somehow still all better and more interesting writers than the obese israelite you are defending for some reason
there is a reason no one is engaging you seriously no matter how much bullshit you type
Because I am smart as frick, not full of shit, and utterly indifferent to you, yes, I know.
you sound really insecure honestly, like IQfy is the only place you can feel like a man.
Like I said, I do not care at all what you think of me. We are both long dead. All I want is to be shaken out of my present boots. Tell me something to shake me.
Ok this is pretty shaking. The anon who made the /lit 2023 top 100 chart is a Black person. Like actually. He admitted to it when some anon called him out on it for having never read Wagner. I think that would shake most anons.
lol, i remember those threads...i don't remember him saying that but he was pretty open about manipulating the votes
You definitely seem like you don’t care as you make obvious lies about how smart you are on an anonymous board
eh, I think you mixed me up with other guy, I don't tell lies
True, when a moron is confidently wrong about something, it is not necessarily a lie
Please tell me where I am wrong so I can make you feel stupid.
When you said that you are smart. I think we all know that’s not the case
lol you have nothing to say at all, frick off
Is this the comeback of a true genius? I am in awe and I bow before you
I am responsible for half the effortposts on Blood Meridian and even I admit that Bloom is a gay and a moron. For the way people refer to his appraisal of the book, he didn't even discover it to begin with. He was reccd by Gordon Lish when the book was already in the middle of rediscovery. He was another one in the herd. Take his comments with a pinch of salt.
saved as a pasta, thanks
>You are an idiot stuck in political categories
kek. Nah. I think the person comparing Judge Holden to George Bush is the one stuck in politics. Its denigrating to the artistic creation to do these comparisons.
gay
contemporary Americans, be they 17 or 70, entirely lack the ability to think outside of political categories. you may thank Tweed and Trump for that. your kind are useful to men in power-- very easy to manipulate, very easy to predict. Your kind is cut off from literature, because you attempt to transform every poem, nov or idea into one of two political statements.
I can shit out my ass and puke out my mouth to. What I can do that you cannot is think. This means I do not have to dart my eyes around and guage the room. This makes you jealous so you attack me.
Now, give me all your (you)'s, or let this dumb thread die, dummies. Either way you cannot win. I am smarter than ye 3 combined and squared.
>Victory is mine!
I remember being 17
I just shit on your chest and you are going to blow a fricking bubble at me? Jesus, have some self respect. Make me feel stupid. Go on. I dare you. Tell me something I do not know. Make me eat these words, I'm hungry.
Stop including me in your gay fantasies
Harold Bloom included several African and Afro-Caribbean authors in his list.
http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html
He disowned that list btw
When?
Read anything on mainstream literary list produced by modern women from a prestigious university. Whatever they recommend is guaranteed to lead you there.
>the lazy answer
You don't understand what Bloom means by School of Resentment.
Everything Bloom didn't like. So Tolkien and Poe would probably find their way in there.
Go to your local Barnes and Noble and check the social sciences section. There's the canon.
The canon of resentment is unstable. Fixity would make it vulnerable to changing standards of progressivism, uncovered failings of authors, and the absence of newly discovered and embraced oppressed groups. So the canon is whatever reviewers are praising at the moment. There is no time depth to it and the present will be erased in its turn too.
Bloom serves his purpose. He is perfect as a gateway into criticism. He gives a solid overview of many important writers in a deeper way than most readers can or are aware of. He is very accessible and easy to read. I don’t get why he gets so much hate here. He is what he is and that’s fine. There are certainly better critics out there but many of them write books on a single writer or are more academic. As an aside I wish Edmund Wilson was more known here. He kinda does what Bloom does but is better in every way
He gets criticism for two big reasons.
1) He's a hypocrite for criticizing how "the school of resentment " attacked and disparaged authors for being racist / sexist, but then turned around and did the same thing to writers he thought were anti-semetic (Chesterton and Lewis being two examples).
2) Many people never move beyond him and just regurgitates his takes on literature. Unfortunately, a-lot of his takes are really bad, see his takes on Tolkien, Chesterton, Steinbeck, and Poe for example. When these takes are critiqued those who know no criticism outside of Bloom feel the need to defend them.
Regarding #2, no one’s taste is going to line up 100% with any other reader’s or critics, and there are many different takes about the same book. Some may be more “correct” than others, but most serve a purpose of showing a train of thought or a way of looking at a book. I’m not even really a Bloom fan, I’ve only read his Western Canon book which I think does a good job as an intro to criticism, as I’ve said. Personally if anons read Bloom and never go beyond him and just regurgitate his takes, I frankly think that’s a big step up from anons who just argue if a book is good or not and the thread serves almost no purpose outside of grade school bickering over whether a writer is based or not. I think have a bunch of perspectives is never a bad thing. All I’m saying is he’s intro and easy, and I’d rather anons read and post on a deeper level, which Bloom is a gateway to
I think he's a good gateway also. But there are obvious faults.
Bloom is a gnostic, and he interprets ALL literature from a gnostic lens. If the work is incapable of reflecting his gnostic worldview he disparages it. This is why he can't stand explicitly Christian writers like Tolkien.
He liked Flannery O'Conner but rejected her Catholicism as a influence on her art. He insisted she was of the gnostic party without knowing it.
If you had a Christian writer that disparaged Kafka or Poe because their work couldn't be made to reflect the Christian worldview, everyone would recognize this as bad criticism. The same applies to Bloom.
So I see what you’re about…it’s an ideological thing. You would probably dismiss someone if they critiqued through a lens that is opposite yours i suppose
I literally just said that everyone would recognize that a Christian disregarding Kafka because it didn't fit into his world view would be considered bad criticism.
Bloom and you actually have same problem that conservative Christians do when it comes to approaching art. Instead of fitting your mind and ideology to the work, you fit the work to your mind and ideology.
Such reading can never be fruitful as you only ever reinforce your beliefs.
That’s why I say criticism should be approached by a reader through multiple critics or lenses. Even if you disagree with them, someone like Dickens can easily be read through a Marxist lens, someone like Ophelia can be analyzed through a feminist lens, someone like Kafka through a israeli lens…as I said before Bloom is intro level. He isn’t particularly versatile but he’s better than nothing by far. He wrote on lots of writers where religion doesn’t play into it by my view, but then again I’ve only read Western Canon. I just think it’s dumb to hate a critic for the way they view literature, as most critics only analyze through their own way, hence the perspectives thing I said above
I can never shake this remark of his, that all interpretation is allegory, and the best allegory is somehow theological.
The most moving poems suggest a certain cosmos, or a relation of God to man, or an idea of God, or a reason to live besides.
I do not think he was seriously gnostic anymore than he was seriously a ("normative") israelite. I think he intended gnosticism as a broad paradigm capable of accomadating many different ideas of man in the universe, just as we see gnosticism in history taking a bewildering variety of theologies, influences and texts. "Gnosticism" has the added benefit of suggesting esoteric knowledge (which timeless literature must, or else why read the same old?).
I think part another major part of his self-professed "gnosticism" is a contrast with orthodoxy, and I agree totally with his description of CS Lewis as "merely Christian." Writers who are bound to an orthodoxy are extremely limited, exactly to the extent they are bound to it. Hence why Chesterton is a better writer than Lewis. He is, like TS Elliot, traditionally bound (a figurative faith antithetical to modernity more than heterodoxy) , not conversionally (a literal faith hell bent on hellfire)
I’m not saying he didn’t have his faults or wasn’t limited in range, but this stance wasn’t very apparent in Western Canon, which is again, the only book I’ve read. Most critics seem to handicap themselves in some way, and I think the better ones are ones who analyze through a very specific but broad lens, if that makes sense; something like Mimesis, which isn’t something I would call extremely accessible for someone who’s never delved beyond just reading the novel or poem. Bloom fills that space fine for someone looking to start to see the bigger picture of literature, at least with a book like Western Canon. Maybe I should have specified that when I’ve been talking about Bloom, I’ve more specifically been talking about that book. Honestly I think a lot of critics analyze themselves into too small of a corner, and the best are usually general and conversational, outside of certain instances. And even more than the critic, I think writers writing about writers are even better. Basically I don’t think someone is doing themselves a disservice by reading Western Canon for those who want to go beyond the Wikipedia page for the big guns. You have to ease your way in and the 20-40 page chapters in Western Canon are perfect for that. I think Bloom is a sphere of his own and it isn’t necessarily fair to compare him to someone like Frye or Auerbach. Those two are “readable” but not for someone who doesn’t already have the basics down to some extent
Should I use Bloom as a reading list of sorts? Read Blooms criticism of Kafka first then read Kafka. I'm a qsued and a tard. Most likely a normie and a follower too. Bauhaus is my favorite band but I pronounce it Bud-weis-er. I like the context ie The Context. I have no idea what 100 Years of Solitude is about. I just like gypsies. An audio book would be best, so I could listen to it at the gym. Or does he sniffle too much.
Absolutely not. Just read the primary material and only then, if you really enjoy it, should you read criticism. Why would you want to have preconceived notions in your head before you read a classic? Notions developed by a portly nepo baby no less!
Bloom criticisms are not always good. His Kafka and Shakespeare writings are good but his Dickens writings falls short of Chesterton's excellent book on Dickens.
Blooms writing on Poe and Chesterton are terrible and even though he praises Flannery O'Conner highly he has interpretative weaknesses.
His write up on Faulkner is good, and surprisingly his writing on Hans Christian Anderson has some really good insights.
>The poets become disappointed because they "cannot be Adam early in the morning. There have been too many Adams, and they have named everything."[ wiki]
So read Kafka and don't even bother with Bloom then. Smugemoji.jpg
If I'm using a critic as a reading list ...
I like his take on the school of the resentful.
Post modernism is too phallic centric? obsessed?
I even bet some of these usurpers to the throne died from the male gaze. Any other critic I could use as a read list.
>Any other critic I could use as a read list.
Northop Frye is probably the best critic but can be difficult.
I Honestly find authors to be the most insightful critics.
Arthur Machen and G K Chesterton have the best writings on Dickens.
If you want criticism of early gothic then Lovecraft's history of supernatural horror is really good.
>Lovecraft's history of supernatural horror
randomly found this on wikisource a while back. kino. i approve of this recommendation.
I’ve been thinking about getting the Everyman’s Library Chesterton just for the Dickens stuff. Is it worth it? I read Dickens: The Two Scrooges by Edmund Wilson on a strange whim, because Dickens has never really interested me, and that essay compelled me to start reading him, and I’ve been in a bit of a Dickens phase recently. Can’t believe I just wrote him off. I’ve also been looking at FR Leavis books but I’m reading mixed reviews
The everyman's library is by far the best method of collecting Dickens. They have good binding and paper as well as having all the original illustrations.
The modern editions also all have Chesterton's original introduction as an afterword.
Chesterton emphasized that Dickens is best read not as a realist writer but as a romantic and fairy tale writer. This really opened Dickens up for me.
Yeah I’ve been getting Dickens solely in EL, which is my go to publisher if they print a book. From what I’ve seen, it seems like Chesterton’s Dickens is mostly on demand print books which turns me off, so I might just bite the bullet and get the EL Chesterton. It’s a shame Dickens is typecast. His reputation turned me away for years but I’m glad I gave him a legitimate shot with a man open mind, and looked up some background material on him.
I liked one hundred of solitude. I read it because it was a good book on the good boy good book list. If I'm going to read a book as infrequently as I do I don't want to waste time read dumb books on the dumb dumb book list more so if it is bummer white people stuff *crime and punishment*. Are cold depressing soups filling? I suppose but they are not satisfying. And I'm not entirely sure I know what I'm getting out of it. Depressed and moronic. What fun. We all know good art is sad art. It is what it is. But I don't want to come away from reading a good book being both sad and retarted. East of Eden was sadish but I got tho mayest out of it. One hundred years of solitude wasn't really sad but I had no idea what it was about, if it was about anything at all. I was particularly found of the passage were the town folks ripped the seats out of the theater for making them feel the false sadness of the actors false death. Having said that.
What is your take on reading a critique first, getting the context, insight etc, then reading the book and visa versa. Are you over swayed by the critics pov and did it flavor the book in an unexpected way, perhaps change your view of it and say you came back to it later and found it different. Fight Club the movie - I know- was a good movie when I first say it at 17. Yeah punk rock, society man. Now being older and knowing something about the author. The crisis of masculinity and homesexual currents run through it. Hard not to see the influence. While i read Brokeback Mountain is about class, globalization and masculinity. Watching the movie and it was more funny wrestle in a tent. So that's how it happens. He he he. Rant out.
What's your take on critique first then book or book then critique.
What the hell did this have to do with Northop Frye or writers making good critics?
How much of the Bloom hate here is because he’s israeli?
Orientalism
Wretched of the earth
His comments on Pound
Authoritarian Personality
Black Athena
1619 Project
I’ve always suspected that part to much of what rubs people wrong about Bloom - and I include myself here in part - is that he doesn’t stick to his own lane. If he wishes to issue ex cathedra statements on romantic poetry and shakespeare I can disagree with him but have to concede he has the credentials to demand a fair hearing. It’s when he starts making pronouncements on writers there’s no reason to think he’s seriously studied that you give pause. And to go further, it doesn’t mean he is automatically wrong but it does mean that he’s subtly shifted his positioning in a meaningful way - from relying on the modern academic standard of specialization to an older, now out of fashion model that insists it possesses something approaching a comprehensive literary knowledge and so is entitled to dogmatic sentencings. I personally don’t mind this position in the abstract. I think older, usually pre-1960s criticism is often richer than today’s for its willingness to take strong stances and its general disinterest in hiding behind skepticism and relativity (not that I’m saying your own opinions should be structured that way). But that criticism also benefits from coming from an environment where that was the default approach and no one had to justify themselves. Bloom working much later lands himself in a weird no man’s zone when doing this. He leaves his specialist territory, assumes the mantle of universal arbiter of quality, and then interweaves with his pronouncements an uncomfortable awareness of and implicit/explicit rejection of modern relativist standards. It’s one too many fights to carry out effectively at the same time.
By definition the school of resentment cannot have a canon. The latest striver simply replaces the last.
Are there any good critics still alive today?
Gender Trouble
A Critique of Pure Tolerance
White Fragility
Settlers: The Myth of a White Proletariat
Orientalism
How the Irish Became White
The History of Western Philosophy
Something from Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism and Quakerism
One of the CRT collections with Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw
Some books on care ethics and restorative justice
Maybe some eliminative materialism and "AI makes human art obsolete" stuff
whatever booktubers and booktokers are shilling
The school of resentment constantly eats its own canon. Think of Guns Germs & Steel. Once the vanguard of "actually your civilization always sucked", it is now racist and problematic.
Lol I remember my libtard history teacher in high school forcing us to read that crap and then the libtard professor in college telling us how it was actually not pro-brown enough!
Bloom couldn't write himself and also instructed Camille Paglia. subversives gonna subvert.