Harold Blooms dies

>implying the canon wasn't already 99% kikes and fags anyways

Your fate will be even worse when it becomes Algeria 2.

I'm saying that Bloom is a liberal who put women and people of color into the canon and he's not the racist hero /pol/lit/ holds him up to be.

I wouldn't mind getting shot out of her canon if ya know wat I mean.

How dumb are you? WNs hate Bloom the jew for undermining the canon, which he should have zero influence over.

>people of color
Are you fucking stupid ro what?

As long as Tommy P lives, the western canon survives.

Okay whoever keeps making these
“when X dies” needs to stop. These people are legends and it’s being done in bad faith. When they’re gone who’s good enough to replace them? Someone will step up, but who exactly?

Who are the next best novelists after The Big Four? Who’s going to carry the torches? Unlike many of you, I read current literature and maybe I’m just jaded but I don’t see a lot of geniuses under 50. You think Friendzone and fucking Rick Moody are going to save lit?

Go there. It's perfect for retards like you.

Who exactly are the big four? I want to know.

Pinecone, Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth, Don DeLillo are generally regarded as the big four of American literature

Why isn't Harold Bloom there?

His only novel is sci-fi fanfiction. Granted, it's well written, but he is far more important as a critic than a writer.

Lol, negative.

>Jorge Luis Borges,
A "colored" man of English and Spanish descent? lol
And Toni Morison being there is the problem

>Who are the next best novelists after The Big Four? Who’s going to carry the torches? Unlike many of you, I read current literature and maybe I’m just jaded but I don’t see a lot of geniuses under 50.
There aren't imo
A couple of them showed talent but never got anywhere

We're coasting off literary leftovers: Pynchon, Bloom, Edmund White, Banville, Richard Wilbur, etc
Once they're gone it's a freefall, pure and simple

The unironic Bloom posting has to stop.

for historical reasons yes but even female writers like Austen and Woolf are pretty mediocre and would be Franzen tier if they were male

Literally nothing of value would be lost. He is an authoritarian hack who bitches and moans when nobody cares about paying for his thoughts on why people who look just like him wrote the best books.

George Saunders, Steve Erickson, William Vollmann, David Mitchell, Kazuo Ishiguro, Peter Ackroyd, Ian McEwan, Michel Houellebecq are all good writers and under the age of 70

>George Saunders, Steve Erickson, William Vollmann, David Mitchell, Kazuo Ishiguro, Peter Ackroyd, Ian McEwan, Michel Houellebecq are all good writers
laughingjohnson.jpg

you haven't read any of them, that's the only joke here

>Peter Ackroyd
Vollmann's prose is distinguished only by its awkwardness, Houellebecq recognizes but cannot convey artistically the emotions relating to certain social conditions, and Ackroyd has nothing new to say in any of his nonfiction works.
Haven't read ishiguro, but he unironically enjoys the works of Kerouac.

Not that guy, but I've read several works by everyone in that list except for Erickson and Peter Ackroyd.

I love Houellebecq and Ishiguro. I slogged through Cloud Atlas ... and UGH. Vollmann's Europa Central is good (I also like Whores for Gloria) but he tends to sputter on aimlessly more often than not. Lincoln in the Bardo is going to win the Pulitzer but Saunders mostly writes small pieces here and there and short stories. Ian McEwen's The Cement Garden is a secret guilty pleasure.

Still, none of them have ever produced anything as timeless as Mason & Dixon, Against the Day, Underworld, American Pastoral, Sabbath's Theater, A Frolic of His Own (the only Gaddis I've read), Suttree or Blood Meridian.

whatever man keep reading stuff only Bloom recommends, personally I think DeLillo is an average writer and all the other guys I listed are better than him. Philip Roth is also a limited writer with nothing to say except sex and anger in middle class American Jew setting

Toni morrison was already in the canon.

Do you fags even read what you talk about or is that too mainstream? Fml

Bloom is great on poetry but don't take his opinions on prose too seriously, he thinks Roth is better than Updike which is just pretty bad taste

True, it's idiotic of him to put Roth above guys like Hemingway or Updike. And he has little to say about Fitzgerald, who is leagues above all of his darlings.

Still, he's one a few able men left in a decaying field of study.

I think Ishiguro, Saunders and and Ackroyd stories are fairly timeless but it remains to be seen, just to keep in mind since 1945 the USA is the dominant Anglo nation so American writers will find it easier to get literary support as a classic

user, that assumes that /pol/tards read anything besides their circlejerk.

>just to keep in mind since 1945 the USA is the dominant Anglo nation so American writers will find it easier to get literary support as a classic
lol, this excuse

well read people read everything, not just the critical darling, stop being a pseud

But Toni Morrison isn't that good.
>inb4 /pol/

There's good female authors.
There's good black authors.
There's good female black authors.

She isn't one of them.

>There's good female authors.
ehhhh...

My uni had a guest lecturer recently who was a high school teacher and he told us that he had just finished spending ~8 weeks teaching his year 9 students the hunger games trilogy.
This is in Australia btw

Ah, I see.
I thought that the big four were all renowned for being critics, hence why someone here said that they would inherit Harold's legacy once he died.

>when it becomes Algeria 2.
>when
Marseilles here. You don't need to use the future tense.

Have you actually read Toni Morrison?

Beloved.
It was utterly worthless in every capacity, it had the literary merit of John Green.

The 21st century literary establishment is basically an extension of the all powerful psychiatric managerial state, an instrument of bureaucratic governance, devoted to the production and regulation of identity. 'Literature' is merely a by product of this system.

>Identity politics in literature, to the extent that it curtails freedom, can be seen as a yearning for predictability—almost an industrialized form of reproduction, though couched in a postmodern literary infrastructure. Literature should be efficient in the sense that it should not be wasteful or unpredictable. It should handle insults and hurts (“microaggressions,” in the current argot) in a manner that protects the reputation of the one who is attacked. Any challenge to identity raises fundamental questions about the source of that identity, whether it is earned or unearned, genuine or phony, and creates ambiguities in terms of reception and audience that the infrastructure of writing has been seeking predictable means to handle. The ideal seems to be to minimize the time occupied by purely literary endeavor, utilizing excess personal energy for the establishment of one’s literary brand. In the Marxist framework, the surplus value created by the efforts of labor is appropriated by capital. In the postcapitalist literary environment, such surplus value accrues to the institutions of writing, meaning the various orthodoxies, particularly identity politics, that give it legitimacy. Letting writers appropriate surplus value for themselves in the form of time or other resources enabling freedom from economic entanglement is the last thing the institutions of writing wish to permit.

>Identity politics purports to seek social justice for the marginalized. But do the marginalized really have the resources to speak for themselves? Or are we really doing the opposite of what the founders of progressive education had in mind, by requiring authors, teachers, educators, and anyone else in the public sphere to take on the performative or self-narrating functions that literature used to perform, and therefore making passive, or sidelining, the very subjects of benevolent improvement, the “marginalized groups” that everyone in identity politics talks about, keeping them from taking on an active citizenship role? In other words, has literature been replaced by continuous verbal performance, an oral delivery of repetitive identity to which the writing itself is subjugated as almost an afterthought?

subtropics.english.ufl.edu/index.php/2017/06/12/notes-ascendancy-identity-politics-literary-writing/

>implying jewish women don't run the publishing industry already

I read the Bluest Eye and thought it was pretty damn good. One of the best books I've read this year. She's like a black Delillo with substance.

the concept of 'people of color' is fundamentally USA-centric.

>tfw you realise the neurotic guilt ridden post protestant middle class american consciousness remains the invisible center of 'identity politics'

>Marseilles
i'm sorry user

The only time I've ever seen Charlie Rose make fun of a guest

youtube.com/watch?v=EVWiwd0P0c0

he made fun of DFW

>"Why do you keep worrying about what you're saying sounding pretentious? Why care so much about what other people think?"

Isn't Bloom an entry level critic?

You can't stop the /pol/onization.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this before. Even if none of it were of value otherwise, the Blood Meme reference at the end is worth the wait.

>This is in Australia btw

Oh, well ok then.

My diary desu.

The 21st century Strong Independent Canon consists solely of two elements:
>books that can be watched as films
>slam poetry

>Sunset found Wardine be cry

he only wrote one novel and it contained no discernible talent

I don’t understand how this comment is constructive, or encourages the reader to think more deeply about anything. It appears to me that this comment’s only purpose is to display the cleverness of the author. Unfortunately, despite the collective efforts of the commentariate, we do get infiltration from those who are apparently determined to give the impression that they are incapable of parsing an entire piece of writing and reading it as a whole.

As has been previously noted (regular readers will be aware) we (that’s the “Royal we” — fellow commenters, occasional contributors such as myself and the moderator team) are engaged in an ongoing attempt to keep the quality of comments at its former impeccably high standard. Sadly, this is more of an effort than it should be.

And as a writer, it is rather tiresome having to try to explain to the occasional numpty who happens across a post basic reading comprehension skills, how to follow an argument when it is constructed long-form and the ability to master data interpretation.

And I’ve just caught up on all the subsequent comments on this page. All the other commenters have managed to make coherent and intelligible contributions that furthered my understanding or gave me something to think about, because they took the trouble to type more than a single sentence. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said in other comments. Quite the opposite in a couple of cases. But at least I understand what was expressed and the intention behind it.

>Could it be that identity politics in the literary world is just a con game, a practical joke that’s being played upon marginalized subgroups, a higher form of insult because it is ultimately based on a patronizing or cynical view of the inherent character flaws of the various sub-identities? How would we go about proving such a case in the literary world, and if this insidious proposition might have some truth to it, how might participants in the con, both those with power and those who feel they lack it, exit the trap?

have thought this before myself, thx

Glad this was said. The boyfriend character was "Microagressions: The Character".

I'm currently reading A Brief History of Seven Killings and Marlon James isn't even 50 yet and already pretty good.
Of course you'll disagree because he's black and gay, but so was James Baldwin and he was great.

john green is a gay kike?

>"But come, Charles..."
>"One cannot be happy about the 35 million copies of Harry Potter...I had a piece in today's Wall Street Journal..." "I saw that editorial, yes... Uh, we CAN'T BE HAPPY about that?"...

Not a conservative, so
Still has fuel for his victim complex