Harold Bloom on Tolkien

The Book of Mormon was written (or "translated" if you ask the LDS) not in 19th Century English, but in Jacobean era English.

Tolkien is using language not contemporary to his times in the imitation of the King James Bible, classical translations of epic poems, and older English literature.

This is what Bloom refers to with Tolkien being archaic.

>It turns out he doesn't like the Lord of the Rings though?
It's not even Tolkien's best work, the Silmarillion is.

pasta

>Not reading Åke Ohlmarks swedish translation, VASTLY superior to the original. Transforms the archaic stiffness to magical ingenuity.

>swedish

It's the other way: most fantasy literature is a shameless stylistic and structural copy of Tolkien's writings.
As far as we're concerned, Tolkien's choice are both original and deliberate: he wasn't following any other great writer's path.

You can have suspicion about the value of this original effort, but you still should not conflate it with its derivatives.

Harold Bloom and academics resistant to the admission of JRR Tolkien as a literary giant are idiots. Their criteria for evaluating a work's worth is whether they personally liked it not - totally subjective, personal, meaningless. They are a few people among billions, and the billions have ruled against them. The aliens who study the ruins of our civilization will find merit in understanding JRR Tolkien for the very fact of the appeal, the influence because something there resonates deep with the human heart. Of course Harold Bloom, a kike with a reptilian brain and no heart, doesn't get it. He decides whether a book is good or not based on his Jewish it is.

>Their criteria for evaluating a work's worth is whether they personally liked it not

Academic criticism is way more structured and formal than that. Sure, you could argue that ultimately it boils down to the taste of the critic himself, but at the very least this arbitrary statement will be justified and ''revealed'' through an analytic approach.

That said, I agree with your disagreement with academia's scepticism towards Tolkien. Had he been born 200 or 300 years earlier, we would regard him, at the very least, as a solid and innovative writer, and his monumental effort would be met with far less condescension by high brow readers.
Too bad that he got famous in a time in which the literary standards were at they're all time low, meaning that his legacy is now forever linked to one of the most insignificant and pathetic genre in existence (fantasy novels).

I cant believe he is still going. Has anyone read his fiction? I think there is only one but cant remember the name.

>bloom hasn't read 3/4 of what he reviews
now thats a poor statement if I've ever seen one

Was about to write pretty much this.

I give Tolkien praise for inventing the modern "epic fantasy" genre but that's it.

Bloom has said that he likes The Hobbit.

The Flight to Lucifer. I haven't read it but it's supposedly very polarizing rather than straight up bad. It's a sequel/homage/reimagining of A Voyage to Arcturus, a book which I like very much. If Bloom's were easy to get a copy of I'd have it for sure.

>le silmarils > farmer giles
>merry kills the witch-king

>Tolkien is using language not contemporary to his times in the imitation of the King James Bible, classical translations of epic poems, and older English literature.
No, he wasn't and was quite clear on this. The only time he reverted to true archaism was in things like Theoden's speech, to emphasise his kingliness (and making a point about Rohan's isolationism etc), or the Witch King's, because he's old as fuck. Even then he doesn't go full archaism, as explained in some letter.

Isn't that just another insult? He downplays the merit of Tolkien's serious work and then suggests he did better to write children's stories. Boom a shit.

It's just banter.

Bloom on Catch-22
>In the aura of an official Counter-Culture, Catch-22 can be read with nostalgia (though not by me) or with the qualified patience that a four-hundred-fifty-page extended joke demands if it is to be read at all.
>Heller’s half-dozen subsequent books were scarcely readable; his time
had passed.

Bloom on On the Road
>I had not reread On the Road during the near half-century since its first publication, and I am not happy at encountering it again. The book has many admirers, including Thomas Pynchon, but I hardly understand what he, and others, discover in this rather drab narrative.
>I can locate no literary value whatsoever in On the Road, but I must admit the same blindness (if it is that) afflicts me when trying to reread the verse of Allen Ginsberg, a good acquaintance whom I miss personally.

Bloom on C.S. Lewis
>At seventy-five, I find it difficult to reread Lewis; he whacks me with a Christian cudgel on nearly every page.
>Like Tolkien and Charles Williams, his good friends, Lewis is most famous for his fantasy-fiction, particularly The Chronicles of Narnia. I have just attempted to reread that tendentious evangelical taletelling, but failed. This may be because I am seventy-five, but then I can’t reread Tolkien or Williams either. Lewis and Tolkien write better prose than Rowling does in her Harry Potter fantasies, but like Rowling they will rub down into Period Pieces, and end in the dustbins. There are of course the epic movies inspired by these works, but will they be viewable a decade hence?

Take the bloompill today.

Holy fuck the self satisfied smugness of this cunt

Tolkien a period piece? It's offensive to even compare Tolkien and Rowling in the same sentence, as though there's some common ground for it. I am literally shaking with anger, Twilight is a period piece, tLotR is a modern yet timeless classic.

>It turns out he doesn't like the Lord of the Rings though
>though
why would you think someone who abhors harry potter would like LOTR, what's wrong with you?

>but I must admit the same blindness (if it is that) afflicts me when trying to reread the verse of Allen Ginsberg
absolutely based

>tLotR is a modern yet timeless classic.
i am dead

Face it, Tolkieneckbeard, you're not a single step above the Pottertards.

literally right about everything

...

get the fuck out

I can't believe there are fucking children on this board who not only read Tolkien, but try to defend him. He's nothing more than a children's fantasy writer; it'd be an insult to any decent novelist to include him in any canon aside from the "canon of books for fat man-children to read while they play video games."

>constantly and publicly derides The Lord of the Rings as not real literature
>publishes several anthologies of critical interpretations on The Lord of the Rings
What did he mean by this?

to be this undergrad

>he says while posting Beckett
affecting maturity or sophistication is far more criminal than having some appeal to children

brb learning swedish so can read LOTR in swedish

What are you even saying?

>these are the people who come to Veeky Forums these days

I find Tolkien really fascinating in the context of literature critics: He was undoubtedly very smart and knowledgeable about language so it would be stupid to say he didn't write the way he did on purpose. Then you have the fact he invented a genre and had immense influence. And next, both resonated with millions - and millions of relatively smart people, too (arguably the least important point). So at what point do you, as a literature critic, just become a smug contrarian cunt for insulting or downplaying him if at the same time you praise another piece of postmodern navel-gazing?

I'll never get how people look up to critics. I feel like a subjective opinion is better than a subjective opinion hidden behind pseudo-objectivity.

tolkien is waaaay better at description, and harry potter has more plot holes

I'm also completely confused by your criticism of "sophistication." Have you ever read Beckett? Aside from "Dream of Fair to Middling Women", "Dante and the Lobster", and "Sedendo et Quiescendo", which are undeniably his worst works, his work is not sophisticated in any degree? Do you really have a hard time reading Beckett or something, kid?

Critic? What? I'm just some asshole posting on Veeky Forums.

Jeez, don't take me that seriously. I'm going to grad school, and I'd never say such trite, empty criticism in real life as I did here

>Tolkien is bad because he's hard to read
children

I like both Beckett and Tolkien. Beckett's strong suits include embodying existential dread and confronting the enormous void that weighs down on mankind's psyche, and Tolkien's strengths include the precision and comprehensiveness--no one before him invented lexiconically and grammatically corroborated languages specifically to breathe life into a fictional culture--he meticulously wove into his mythos. There's no reason to hate on either, other than being an unthinking, unread pleb, or being a shitposter trying to instigate.

>or being a shitposter trying to instigate

Oh, I'm sorry, brother. I've been coming to Veeky Forums for about 2 and a half years and I thought that was the whole point of this board.

Eh misunderstanding because of the difference between German and English, I meant the general "you", not you personally; i.e. "one as a literature critic".

The way people get away with dolling up their opinions as superior criticism and develop a fellowship just amazes me.

>You guys told me Harold Bloom was the good guy

you sound like a simpleton hunny

>Rolling over and contributing to human mediocrity rather than embodying the electrochemical process that is the Will and affirming life and victory in its multivariate forms.

Rookie mistake.

these are the serious readers Veeky Forums has to offer

who are you quoting

half the faggots itt talking about how overly long or descriptive and archaic Tolkien's prose is

Bloom included

>I am literally shaking with anger
TRIGGERED

>You guys told me Harold Bloom was the good guy. He spoke of the evils of Harry Potter and I aligned myself with him.
You cannot judge a critic by the degree to which their assessments agree with yours. It's the quality of their method that matters.

I'm sure most of us are familiar with Bloom's words on Harry Potter, especially this memetic passage:
> As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous.
In a thread where this came up, an user did a quick check of the e-text, and found that "stretched his legs" came up exactly once, in the first chapter. How could an experienced critic make such an error? The obvious answer, is that Bloom was trawling for a criticism, found one, blew it up beyond proportion, and then set it on the page in what he thought would be an amusing and condescending anecdote.

Harry Potter is no masterpiece, but that does not allow Bloom to somehow suspend critical integrity in treating that work. The same thing happens in this review of Tolkien. He makes an unfavorable comparison ("reading Tolkien, I am reminded of the Book of Mormon") which he never expands on. He makes a vague and unsupported appeal to popular opinion (Tolkien's verse... is generally accepted to be even worse); anyone who has read Orwell will notice that sneaky passive voice. His comment on Tolkien's prose being "unbearably archaic" betrays (or purposefully conceals) his own ignorance. Anyone who has read Beowulf even once will realize that Tolkien's paratactic style comes from Old English verse.

I am sure there is plenty in Tolkien's works of which one could be negatively critical, but this hardly even counts as criticism. As with these examples , it is little more than a collection of pithy, empty, and dismissive statements. It is the work of an egoist who does not even bother to waste his time attempting to read a book critically. And they must be read critically! Even the Harry Potters of the world demand this, for if criticism is not applied equally and fairly to all literary works, what is the point? Anything else is an exercise in professional vanity and virtue-signalling. That this attitude can be found in a long-honored figure as Professor Bloom goes to show the degeneration of criticism in our culture.

READ DUNSANY
E
A
D

D
U
N
S
A
N
Y

You are pretty embarrassing. Please read more before posting thia kindo of shit.

His goal in those essay collections is to collect criticism for every famous author whether he likes them or not.

And is that supposed to defend him? He's going through the motions of publishing for the sake of publishing them. It's not a real reason, and it barely counts as an excuse.

Well said user.

Makes me think of Celines rant about jewish critics.

>Beckett is not sophisticated in any degree

Oh boy, you have never read him, have you?

and how does that equal 'hard to read'

No one said it was hard to read.
I said it was like reading a DND novel.
It's just overly fluffy, essentially meaningless "world-building" shit that really is very generic by modern standards.
It's not high-art or very reflective of reality it all. it doesn't require "work", it's just dull and lame.

>t. never read Tolkien
if nothing else you're fitting in

embarrassing post

I've read all of his work multiple times.
I originally read the hobbit at 10, and LOTR trilogy at 12 years old.
Reread them again at 18 or so.
It's not hard.
I'm sorry that those are the only books you've ever read.

...

very nice response.

>storage wars meme poster
We are truly dealing with a mental titan

They're meant for students who want a nice convenient collection of criticism for study purposes. Made some good use of them in school. And if you're a fan of the author it's still neat to read. Bloom just writes the introductions. Don't know why you're so butt hurt about this.

WHAT DOES HE LIKE THEN?

>he doesn't like literature made for children and redditors
>what does he like then?????

>tfw TLotR was always problematic because it appealed to the hippy generation who completely misconstrued it for their own purposes
>tfw this impropriety was doubly compounded by the popular release of the films and subsequent derivative media, spin offs, video games, etc...
>tfw you welcome the contrarian academic backlash as a result eagerly awaiting the day most people don't profess to like or know Tolkien's mythos that I may return to enjoying it untainted by their familiarity or mental appropriations
>tfw this thread leaves me hopeful and glad

>shitpost
>shitpost in reponse
>wtf nice shitpost shitpost

>so dumbfounded when someone says tolkien is shit, that it has to be a shitpost
2017 Veeky Forums

very nice response truly here is a mental titan

Shakespeare & Pynchon

youtu.be/EVWiwd0P0c0?t=4m50s

4:50s

Bloom is based as fuck and the very definition of our guy.

He's pretty much right, even though I loved Catch-22 and found it hilarious as a teenager.

Hey, he hates women and minorities. So do I!

Our guy indeed.

>they're
how did you even..

Come on... English is not my native language and there is one typo in a 2 paragraphs long post: are you really going to pick on that?

What's wrong with Dante and the Lobster?

The Lord of the Rings is potent for its deep Christian sense of Providence at work in the world. I suspect this is one of the things Bloom finds offputting about it, since his comments on C.S. Lewis here suggest that he is not fond of overtly religious fiction, which LOTR certainly is.

holy shit fantasyfags are so dumb

hes 100% correct on the road.
literary speaking, its mccarthys worst work, even though its his most famous.

triggered, as if by sorcery!

>it appealed to the hippy generation who completely misconstrued it for their own purposes.
You must be kidding.

faggot he's talking about kerouac

>You must be kidding.
What about that strikes you as wrong? Tolkien would literally be woken up in the middle of the night by dumbass American hippies calling him to say how 'far out' his story was.

>millions of relatively autistic people

fixed

If anything, D&D was shaped by LOTR, but you're quite wrong in saying Tolkien wrote too much worthless description, since he isn't Martin and his description always not only has plot importance but tends to give away little hints about the world itself. I'm sure you're the type of faggot to complain about the songs in the book, too.

LotR isn't really that archaic, Silmarillion is definitely archaic, I doubt Bloom would appreciate it.

Obviously the Book of Mormon comparison is hyperbole, but it's pretty u fair, because BoM is ridiculously archaic throughout while LotR uses archaisms only when it serves a purpose.

Here's 3 Nephi 2:3

>And it came to pass that the people began to wax strong in wickedness and abominations; and they did not believe that there should be any more signs or wonders given; and Satan did go about, leading away the hearts of the people, tempting them and causing them that they should do great wickedness in the land.

Sounds nothing like LotR.

>There are of course the epic movies inspired by these works, but will they be viewable a decade hence?
lol, the LotR movies are 14 years old and are still seen as modern classics.

Almost all of the CGI involved aged like milk. It's strange and embarrassing to revisit.