Word: blooms
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
That is not all Bloom has to say. His re-exaltation of Shakespeare occurs as an end product of his own idiosyncratic notions of how literature is written and read. Bloom's Canon is the offshoot of a theory he first formulated in his book The Anxiety of Influence (1973) and has modified somewhat in the interim. This presupposition, as so much in Bloom's criticism, is difficult to state succinctly. For openers, writers who wish to be "strong," that is, to produce works worthy of the Canon, must first confront and somehow conquer the power of "strong" writers...
...Bloom's view of literature as a ceaseless agon between challengers and titleholders is interesting and, in some instances, true. Virgil obviously had an eye on Homer when he set out to write The Aeneid, just as Dante and Milton had Virgil in their sights when they embarked upon The Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost. But Bloom cannot prove, on aesthetic or any other grounds, that all the writers he deems great shared the motives he ascribes to them. By the time he gets to a discussion of Emily Dickinson's poetry, he has grown so vexed at the absence...
This assertion is just as extraliterary as those set forth by feminists, multiculturalists and all the others who discuss books in ways Bloom ridicules and despises. And Bloom's view produces chapter titles such as "Freud: A Shakespearean Reading" and "Joyce's Agon with Shakespeare," in which the actual works and words of the upstart authors are wrenched out of context and forced into hypothetical bouts of cross-generational arm wrestling...
Surely no one opens The Interpretation of Dreams or Finnegans Wake in the hope of finding out exactly how Freud or Joyce dealt with that pesky, overbearing Shakespeare, particularly when Harold Bloom is ready with shorthand answers in The Western Canon. Why then, in this distraction-besotted time, read demanding, imaginative literature at all? On this topic, Bloom is uncharacteristically tentative. "Reading the very best writers -- let us say Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Tolstoy -- is not going to make us better citizens." And: "The study of literature, however it is conducted, will not save any individual, any more than it will...
Such guidance was once the province of religion, and it is ultimately the religious experience that Bloom seeks in secular writing: "Since I myself am partial to finding the voice of God in Shakespeare or Emerson or Freud, depending on my needs, I have no difficulty in finding Dante's Comedy to be divine." He amplifies this perception a bit later: "As a writer, Shakespeare was a sort of god." Bloom is entitled to his worship, since he has spent a lifetime of reading achieving it. But he is not, in The Western Canon, a very effective prophet...