Is he the greatest, or just great?

He literally spent his entire life saying we shouldn't praise Black or Female writers just because they're "underrepresented" (fair point) but it's okay when we promote Jewish writers even though there's no discernible talent, simply because holocaust.

and he's not?

He's not boring at least, the way he pretends to have superhuman reading powers is pretty funny

The greatest!

Well, he claims to have memorized all of Shakespeare and was able to read 500 pages an hour in his youth with incredible retention rate.

He is a decent book reviewer.

You'll make someone cry if you keep this up.

Now he is able to retain 5000 calories an hour.

Time to shill Christopher Ricks.

A.C. Bradley is good.

Your crude summarization of what he says about Merchant of Venice really undermines what he actually said. It's more complicated than that. He debunks the notion that Shylock can be considered the hero, because he is so obviously the villain (something which I initially disagreed with when I first read MoV). The thing that sold it for me was how we feel at the trial scene (and this is something A.C. Bradley talks about too)--the reason the ending doesn't mesh well with us is because Shylock shouldn't've accepted his punishment. He has certain traits of a tragic hero, and this ending is not fitting for a tragic hero. Also (now this is me summarizing it crudely, but) why is the ending happy for an anti-semitic Bassanio and a racist Portia? I guess Antonio's sad ending is fitting for the confusement, but I don't know man...

Remember, it's a comedy. This doesn't mesh well for our 21st century minds. Also don't forget the "Hath not a jew" speech.

>How can Shakespeare, one of the most ambiguous and relativist playwrights to have ever existed, be accused of being anti-semitic?

You're right. How ambiguous was it of Shakespeare to include the "hath not a jew" speech in the same play where the jew is a semi-stereotypical villain? Extremely. Plus, Bloom never outright calls Shakespeare an anti-semitic. He tosses around the idea that if one were to do this it would be wrong, just like calling Shakespeare a catholic or an atheist. We don't know.

>racist Portia
fuck off JIDF, just because she didnt want to fuck a gaudy Moor doesn't mean there's anything wrong with her. Portia is Shakespeare's most admirable female character- even moreso than Cordelia.

"If he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me." 1.3.129-31

Harold Bloom is a consistently fair appraiser of Western Literature, and just a treat to read. His latest book, The Daemon Knows, is a return to his earlier, speculative mode, and perhaps his greatest book since Agon-- if you haven't read it yet, do. He writes in this one like a man 40 years younger than he is, his love for what's best in our literature fully intact, passionate, intellectual, clear.

One cannot at all begrudge him the religion he was raised in-- for years, he has described himself as a non-believing gnostic Jew. He frankly owns that he wishes he could do more for contemporary American Jewish poetry, but has only really (over the past 40 years or so) been a fan of John Hollander, which, to me, seems just, although I personally prefer Hollander's prose to his poetry. But, what of it? So the fuck what! Along with Helen Vendler (of whom Veeky Forums seems entirely ignorant) he's what's best not only in American Criticism, but in the American appreciation of Litetature in general. He's not just 'great,' he's Frosted Flakes: Grrreat!

1k retard, 500 in old age

Oops, wrong citation. It's 1.2.129-31, or 1.2.109-11, depending on the version.

And? Portia is an incredible women who cleverly manages to retain her autonomy without flouting social convention. She maintains appearance and virtue. She has a healthy respect for authority (especially her filial piety), but is able to work her own designs without undermining it (her courtroom intervention).

If darkie had chosen the right box, she would have married him. It was a character flaw of his that prevented him from winning her. She rightfully wanted to avoid social stigmatization, and beyond that who are you or anyone else to tell her to whom she should be attracted and with whome she should be happy? She already loved Bassanio anyways.

And as for anti-semitism, what of Jessica? The claim falls flat. Shylock suffers as a result of his hubris/avarice rather than his religion. Usury is also unironically a sin.

You're making good points, but why not instead then should she say something along the lines of, "Even if he have the condition of a saint, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me." Why throw in the complexion if she's strictly just obeying authority? Oh, oh, wait. I just re-read your post. "Without flouting social convention." So, basically, she's being virtuous and abiding by authority while (god I hate to say it like this) hiding her power level?

Holy shit I love Shakespeare. While I have you, any tips on becoming a better thinker w/r/t Shakespeare and any literature? I read and re-read and take classes and read criticism. Do you take notes? What's your process?

I think for one (as you said) it would reduce her position to be thus married, but I also don't think it's wrong of her to harbor some implicit bias against 'dark-complexioned suitors', because physical and romantic attraction are more or less inscrutable.

Since you asked, and not to puff myself up: I don't take notes, but I read Shakespeare slowly and carefully. Having a good edition is helpful (I have the Norton 2nd complete) because the footnotes are generally illustrative, and the introductions thought-provoking (I never read them until after I have digested the play though).

I think unironically revisting the Greek tragedians gave me a deeper appreciation of Shakespeare, particularly Sophocles. Other than that, as I've matured I've stopped 'siding' with characters, and I'm hesitant to make moral judgments. I -try- to view the events of the play from a detached, objective point of view. I consider to some extent the historical context, what works Shakespeare is riffing off of, etc. But the relations between and the motivations of the characters, as well as their place in society, are the most important things to look at imo. I try to link their thoughts and feelings to broader concepts without pigeonholing them.

The great thing about Shakespeare is that his characters are so multi-faceted and dynamic, that they resist any one interpretation, providing fertile substrate for discussion- a common language for debate.

Which Jewish writers?

Rosalind, you mean. Followed closely by Cleopatra-- Portia does make the top 5, if I understand the terms, --but perhaps I don't.

>"those jews are up to no good"
>40 years pass
>9 million Christians die at the hands of a party led by 80% jews"

how is it bigotry to say a kettle is going to boil
if anything it should vindicate him

You can come up with your own opinions instead of parroting Harold Bloom, you know

You should read Goddard's essay on The Merchant of Venice. His analysis of Portia suggests that she is not as saintly as your portray her.

If he's so great, why isn't he listed in the canon?

lol that has always been his worst quality

I think it's probably based in slight truth that he came to actually believe about himself and cultivate as an ethos

He probably hyped himself up in his own mind after all his success to the point where actually believes that is how he used to read

I'll check it out. I can see how others might esteem her less than I, but that's the beauty of Shakespeare.

I think he's just an outright bullshitter, but he does it because he think its necessary for the greater good

Its hard to dismiss the canon in the face of a man who claims he read fucking everything

Has anyone here actually met him in Yale before? How was he like? I'm going there some time soon.

I'm a black woman, so you know how he treated me.

He's like a billion years old now, so I don't think you'll see him walking around campus. I'm pretty sure he only teaches from his home now. Are you gonna take his classes? He's very selective about the students he takes in, so I dunno if the average c/lit/ will impress him.

Am I? I sincerely didn't know. I've kind of associated Rosalind's wit with Emily Dickinson's. Is HB of that opinion as well?

Whereas Cleopatra, to me, is a kind of irresistible female maelstrom..

I guess it wouldn't help if I'm a "model minority". I wish I just wouldn't sperg out in front of him.

He's shit. No original insight into anything, just blind praise of the major English "canon" writers. He's a critic who refuses to actually criticize. He venerates the past without actually wanting to reassess it.

He's memed here because he shit on DFW

He was memed here before he did that.

>I wish I just wouldn't sperg out in front of him.

>"user, please stop asking me about Stephen King and Harry Potter books. I don't like them, let's please leave it at that."
>"user, stop trying to get me to post on your internet message boards. I have no interest in that."
>"user, this is a course on Shakespeare. Stop trying to steer the class discussions towards talking about DFW."

Nah man. I would have more self-awareness than to ask him about YA and DFW. I hope

Impossible.

Tell him Veeky Forums is literally the last remaining bastion of Western Civilization

I enjoyed "How to Read and Why". I refer back to it occasionally. I think he may talk about Shakespeare a little too much, but what can you expect.