In The Western Canon (1994), Harold Bloom criticized Thus Spoke Zarathustra...

In its attempt to be coherent literature, Bloom's probably right, but Thus Spoke Zarathustra's purpose is to be a vehicle for Nietzsche's ideas not art. Even then, his writing is still beautiful and is meant to be parsed like verses from a religious text.

Bloom's been wrong before, remember he talks shit about T.S Eliot and my suspicion is that he does the same for Nietzsche in no small part for having, or at least engendering, similarly hostile sentiments towards Bloom's kin.

On the contrary, bloom and his ilk have never told me anything that I could not (and did not) deduce myself.

ITT: dunning kruger at work

>a vehicle for Nietzsche's ideas not art

wrong

Pseudoscience at work.

Cover looks like Albrecht durer

do you mean psychology, or criticism? in the former, you're just incorrect. in the latter, you're making a category error; criticism doesn't aspire to scientific status, but that doesn't mean you're good at reading literature.

>Those intuitions which we call Platonic are seldom scientific, they seldom explain the phenomena or hit upon the actual law of things, but they are often the highest expression of that activity which they to make comprehensible.

Nope. You've completely misunderstood Bloom. He counts Nietzsche and Freud as his two biggest influences in The Anxiety of Influence, and he dislikes Eliot not solely because of his Antisemitism, but also because Eliot more or less single-handedly created the hostile intellectual environment that Bloom entered at the start of his career. Keep in mind that Bloom also acknowledges Eliot as a supreme poet; he just thinks he's a shit thinker and an unpleasant man.

How is psychology not a pseudoscience keke

Setsuko Aihara

that's because it is

Bloom's opinion is that literary criticism is in fact a genre of literature, a claim which is easy to verify when you realize how many major writers engaged in criticism directly (in published works) and indirectly (in letters and notes): nearly all of them.

Auden, Joyce, Nietzsche, Emerson, Pope, Shelley, Blake and Coleridge all wrote criticism, often in verse/prose.

Literature is completely bound up in the pursuit of an aesthetic (reading), followed by a mastery of it (writing).

Bloom can be frustrating since he doesn't seem to articulate his major aesthetic vision in a direct way (which seems to me gnostic and Blakean).

But the man is absolutely worth reading, not in the way we do movie reviews (Harold Bloom gives it Two Thumbs Up!), but for insight into the meta-literature that is criticism. He reads like a super-computerized ultra soul, with incredible depth, speed, memory and also a constant attention to the human (which is not to say biographical) lives of readers and writers.

Would reading his criticism aid me in my own readings?

I envy the ability of critics to take such large bounties from the works they read, while I return with only a few summaries of what the theme might have been.

Absolutely. Bloom makes all writing seem epic; literature is the center of his world and he makes you want it to be the center of yours too.

If you've ever heard a musician talk about music, it makes you more interested and improves your ability to listen. For too many of us, this task was given to random adults with a four year degree who, good intentions aside, didn't care all that much for reading.

I thought he didn't like his poetry at all

His book on Shakespeare is great. Just because he fucking loves Shakespeare. The more he likes a certain play, the better the review/discussion of it. All the plays are covered. Just pick up one of S's plays, read it, then read the Bloom essay. It's fun.

I'm not a big Bloom fan. His opinions post-Canon Wars are useless. He's just too old and out of touch. Not his fault. He did great work for years.

Excellent. I'll be sure to read some of his work.

Anything in particular worth picking up?

Good post

Also, this is wonderful. And true.

> His opinions post-Canon Wars are useless

He seems to have semi-retired from academic work and become some kind of popular educator. Isn't this appropriate in light of his age , career and the decline of reading?

not him but ill plug his Visionary Company, which is his work on the romantic poets if you're interseted in those.

>created the hostile intellectual environment that Bloom entered at the start of his career
could you elaborate on this?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. He's produced enough at this point to earn his spot as the greatest literary critic in US. history... Easily.

The intro to How to Read and Why, the Shakespeare companions mentioned here (), the Western Canon. Be warned that all the plot elements of works discussed will be completely spoiled. So that poster has given a good recommendation to read a play and then the essay that goes with it afterward.

It sounds like his major academic work is The Anxiety of Influence, but I haven't dared to touch it.

Not him, but I think Eliot hated Romantic poetry and made it uncool and Bloom obviously loves it.

>It sounds like his major academic work is The Anxiety of Influence, but I haven't dared to touch it.

I've heard The Anatomy of Influence is supposed to go over the same ideas, but more accessible and refined. I dunno if that's totally true, but Bloom has said it's the work he wants to be remembered best.

Anatomy of Influence is not the same as Anxiety of Influence. the similarities are limited beyond the title.

Anxiety of Influence is brief and interesting. at least read the first chapter on clinamen.

Thanks to all who've replied; I'll be sure to follow your advice.

Is it readable? I've been reading Bloom whenever I get discouraged about the worthwhileness of reading, but most of his writing (in The Western Canon) goes over my head since I have only started reading literature.

I never liked Bloom. He's outdated and boring.
The "start with the Greeks"/Bloomtard contingent of Veeky Forums is its cancer.

>We do not read to unpack our hearts

I beg to differ. 90% of what I read is angsty as fuck

Now you are just being retarded user

You're probably thinking of Pound, who he's a bit lukewarm towards

go back to whatever pleb site yoou came from newfag

He's regurgitating Borges word-for-word.

Borges said Zarathustra was "unreadable" and in comes Bloom to repeat it.

But all Bloom's career is to add Freud to Borges' essay "Kafka and His Precursors."

Bloom is a hack.

by the virtue of rigorous empiricism

Bloom can't read shit. It took him 3 years to read Blood Meridian. He hasn't commented anything or has done anything of relevance in some time, he has been wrong many times before, has a great way of dealing with females especially by molesting them and thinks that he is the most intelligent reader and rest 100s of million people are inherently stupid.

Nietzsche literally wrote in bursts of 20 minutes. So it isn't out of place to call his writings incoherent

This, +1