Why do bazinga-tier New York Magazine-style lefties hate this guy...

Social Justice Warriors hate him because he doesnt subscribe to their politically correct delusions.

Smart people dont like him because as much as he says the modern world is full of resentment, which may very well be true, he himself epitomizes generational resentment towards change. The other side of generational resentment towards tradition.

He is right about some things and generally an intelligent guy, the Harry Potter critique known here being one example, and his better books like The Anxiety of Influence and The Book of J are another very good example. But his problem I think is that he's someone like OP, who idealizes the idea of being a "real patrician". In this way he is obsessed with image. He was so humiliated by the one work of fiction he wrote that he didnt print any more copies and said if he could remove it from every library he would - this is someone who routinely tears apart the life work of other authors, but is embarrased that, what, his first novel wasnt on par with Joyce? He has such an inflated opinion of himself he couldnt just say he had some problems with his own book but that's okay because it was his first attempt, he had to viciously disown it, a knee jerk grasp for approval. Anyone who knows amateur writers recognizes this as a symptom of a narcissistic misunderstanding of the writing process. Which suggests, along with other things, that Bloom may very well be a critic because he glorifies his favorite writers to the point that he's terrified of attempting to emulate them. It's much safer to sing their praise than try (and most likely fail, as most people do) and add his own work to the canon. He's crippled by his own anxiety of influence.

On a different subject, his insistence that literature can be purely aesthetic is ridiculous. Ideally it can be appreciated for its aesthetics alone and still be worth reading, but to say it's ideally void of ideological content is incredibly ignorant.

With all this said I should add that I do respect the man and appreciate his many contributions.

Yeah I agree entirely with this tho I would dispute the other user's claim that western society is objectively superior in every way.

But regressive leftists (SJWs) are so fucking stupid they wont recognize that human rights, democracy, these things are european in origin. Aha so human rights are eurocentric! What a bunch of fucking retards

>Neo-marxists can't deal with this since their whole judgment of a person is based upon their identity and its relation to the normative power structure, instead of evaluating the arguments on their own merit.
This. Their entire ideology is based around ad hominems and double standards

> Ideally it can be appreciated for its aesthetics alone and still be worth reading, but to say it's ideally void of ideological content is incredibly ignorant.
But saying "this book is good because It says things I agree with" is retarded

I never claimed otherwise. I think literature should be written primarily to be aesthetically appealing, but critique that deals only with aesthetics is extremely limited.

No, he emphasized that fact that it's sometimes done to females because he knows that in our society, an appeal to female suffering can elicit an emotional reaction to "defend duh wimmenz" from betas and feminist so he makes the appeal. Its not his fault that our society is controlled by the throat by plebs like anita sarkeesian and john green

>bazinga
>lefties
>patrician
>memes
think you've been on Veeky Forums too long, mate. might i suggest a refreshing walkabout?

Where does he say that about aesthetics?

>On a different subject, his insistence that literature can be purely aesthetic is ridiculous. Ideally it can be appreciated for its aesthetics alone and still be worth reading, but to say it's ideally void of ideological content is incredibly ignorant.

i agreed with everything you said until this

>all this retardation

just kill yourselves

and before you even try and put some fucking label on me, i'm not a "lefty", i'm white and so are all my favorite authors

if you think "cultures" can be inherently superior/inferior in any way you should just remove yourself from the gene pool

actually a decent post

if you unironically use the word patrician you should go back to /mu/ with the other tweens

>every society is equally valuable, I totally wouldn't mind living in south Africa :D

Fuck off, nobody buys this relativist bullshit.
I live on the periphery of Europe and I sure as fuck don't prefer living in my oh-so-authentic developing nation, I'm just glad I wasn't born further east.

Why do people always mention his Harry Potter copypasta? His Harry Potter critique is absolutely dreadful. That's exactly Bloom's problem, he's totally out of his depth when it comes to ANYTHING released in the last few decades, including novels written for teenagers. Whatever isn't "canon" in Bloom's eyes is worthless, and whatever is "canon" is ultimately decided by him. Total bullshit.

And no, I am not defending Harry Potter.

I don't know where that copypasta came from but it's completely false, there is actually zero appearances of "stretched his legs" in the book. I assume it's some troll.

>if you think "cultures" can be inherently superior/inferior in any way you should just remove yourself from the gene pool
What about cultures that cannot/do not produce questions or dialogues such as this?

This.

I will just repast these:
>I would think, How can they not see? I would sit with Harold Bloom with some regularity, hand over a book I thought highly of, say, by Jack Gilbert or McCarthy’s Blood Meridian, and wait for him to refuse even to look. Or if he did look, he’d not seem to see in it what I’d see. Later, when he was assembling his western canon, he stuck in, I believe, Blood Meridian and the great Suttree.
(from interview with Gordon Lish)

>A few years later Marjorie Perloff was giving a talk on a program with John Hollander and Harold Bloom at the Folger Library. Marjorie’s paper was on John Cage and me and she had barely begun when Bloom declared that we were not poets and stomped off the stage. I thought this was very funny because I thought all the furor was over.
(from interview with David Antin)

>literal nobodies butthurt St. Bloom doesn't deign to cohort with the riff-raff

top kek

stay based bloom

What is Veeky Forumss obsession with this guy? He hasn't done anything of relevance in years. Is it because he's the only critic you know or something?

>Anyone who knows amateur writers recognizes this as a symptom of a narcissistic misunderstanding of the writing process
Would you say people like Kafka and Bulgakov had a "narcissistic misunderstanding of the writing process?" Just because you hold yourself to shit standards doesn't mean everyone does, faggot

>lefties

Get out.

do you have any evidence whatsoever of anything you suggested?

The only people who don't like Bloom are jealous of his dick.

I love this man