Harold Bloom on Tolkien

>"Elf-besotted fans aside, why shouldn't Tolkien be granted admission to the literary pantheon? Well, for one thing, his detractors argue, his prose is unbearably archaic. >"Sometimes, reading Tolkien, I am reminded of the Book of Mormon," writes Bloom. Tolkien's verse--which litters the text of The Lord of the Rings--is generally accepted to be even worse."
You guys told me Harold Bloom was the good guy. He spoke of the evils of Harry Potter and I aligned myself with him.

It turns out he doesn't like the Lord of the Rings though? What in the hell could he have possibly meant by this?

It's pretty obvious he's a mindless technician in his approach to writing. Pretty boring opinions desu. He would probably say Cormac McCarthy is too simple and makes grammar errors.

Still not jewpilled yet?

But I thought Bloom loved the Book of Mormon.

>KJV biblical stories have some of the most powerful literary value
>Tolkien's prose is to archaic and biblical
Honestly what? Bloom is usually spot on, except for Whitman

Bloom positively slobbers over Corncob tortilla so try again

>except for Whitman

Take that back.

Nope, he actually love McCarthy and said that he can be part of the Western Canon, together with Pynchon and Delillo.

People who like Bloom are incapable of having opinions of their own

do you not see the difference between an archaic work having archaic prose and a modern one having [bad] archaic prose?

>Whitman is as good as Melville
Whitman was literally the worst poet up until that point. An uneducated hack who got by with line breaking bullshit for the canaille

i've never read a book in my life and i hate bloom so there.

Reminder that he actually likes Tolkien, he just doesn't think LotR is his greatest work.

bloom is a prosefag

>not being a prosefag
women should not be allowed on the internet

Bloom is a terrible critic. He's just another person using literary fiction, because it permits such, to exhibit idée fixe after idée fixe in hopes other people with validate them as philosophies, which they can't get showings as.

He's not textual in the slightest. He just uses sources. Good critics are textual. You want a good critic? Read Mimesis by Auerbach, read Randall Jarall's reviews, read Edmund Wilson, read Cleanth Brooks.

That's true. He likes the Hobbit, I remember he said it in an interview.

take that back
bloom is this board's husbando

>don't read (((bloom)))
>read (((auerbach)))
you're not fooling anyone, kike

...

>modern one having [bad] archaic prose?
What like Blood Meridian?
Mcarthy is better though

>t. hasn't read Bloom

Lmao he wrote the introduction to Blood Meridian in my edition

How is Tolkien's English unbearably archaic? Relative to the 1940's his English is fine. My own complaint with the books is that the prose is a bit flat. The verse is so-so, but does its job more or less.

we're not all mutts yet and on the DOTR you will hang alongside them

nice try 52% you're not fooling anyone

Strange he dismisses Tolkien while kissing Ursula Le Guin's ass.

What is?

This. Heaven forbid he read something by Lord Dunsany

>An uneducated hack who got by with line breaking bullshit for the canaille

Even if you don't like him I don't know how you can read something like pic related and not see the obvious poetic sense he had.

There is no reason to believe that Bloom is the curator of the Western canon.

BAN THIS MAN

fpwp

Excuse me?
we're 51% now, I'll aave you know

Wut. In the western canon he quotes passages from books all the time.
I liked a lot his interpretation of Dante's meeting with Odisseus.

Being against prosefags is not an attack on prose itself, but an attack of the critics who use prose as the sole measurement of artistic merit in a work.

It's the same deal with pretentious wankers in film who worship neat cinematography over all else because they only understand aesthetics on a single level, disregarding things like context and meaning. And films with tons of content and beauty are disregarded and shat upon because they don't meet the visual standards of a Tarkovsky or Kubrick film.

Bloom constantly praises A Voyage to Arcturus which is one of the most badly written books of all time

he did

>bashes on The Merchant of Venice because he thinks Shakespeare was an out-sized anti-semite when Shylock himself is an ambiguous character and hardly a Jewish stereotype
>hates Dostoevsky purely because of A Writer's Diary where Dostoevsky's latent "anti-semitic" and hard Orthodox views are laid out

What is his problem?

And Philip Roth too

next book I'm going to read is American Pastoral, heard it's good

>bashes on The Merchant of Venice
Except that he thought it was great and Shylock was exactly how you described, only misinterpreted by others?

Harold Bloom on Pessoa- shit opinion
On Borges - shit opinion
On Cervantes - ridiculous opinion, nothing relevant to say

I read Bloom's Shakespeare a long time ago. Maybe he did say the play was great, but right at the beginning I distinctly remember that he wrote that he thought the play was genuinely anti-Semitic.

dostoevsky is a sloppy, melodramatic, and crude. his writings possess no real aesthetic value.

Lord of the Rings is pleb trash and genrefags need to get off my board.

>it's a /tv/edditor tries to infect other boards with manchild debate about his super-serial funhouse amusements

Wew, someone hold this guy.

dude CONSTRUCTED LANGUAGES lmao

Bloom isn't Western and therefore cannot possibly curate it properly.

>a semite disliking anti-semitism
shocker

he liked céline enough to put him in the canon though

ashkenazi jews have existed as a distinct population in europe longer than the existence of such fleeting constructs as germans, french, russians etc.

...

>hates Dostoevsky
(not true, by the way)

You guys deliberately inflate Bloom's criticisms to titanic proportions with no sense of nuance or individual taste. You do it because it gives you an excuse to be aggrieved and histrionic fanboys

Maybe you should, idk, actually read him? Bloom appreciates Tolkien's humor and has plenty of praise for The Hobbit. Bloom considers Dostoyevsky a master psychologist and a canonical writer. Which shouldn't really matter if you don't demand that every literary critic align with your personal and probably undeveloped opinions

you are too good for this board. leave and never return.

kike

> dilms with tons of content and beauty are shat upon because they arent as visually pleasing as a Tarkovsky film
what did he mean by this

European soil isn't magic.

I guess European blood is though lmao