Why is it always contrarian redditors that hate Harold Bloom?

Who is this girl?

>didn't put any niggers or women in his canon
False

decent summary

go back to r/books

he's the posterchild of canon defensesomeone to rally behind in the face of the YA and historical revisionism onslaught

bloom is hardly an ultimate authority. the fact that you think of him as one proves you are from r/books

He's just boring critically. He can't go a sentence without mentioning Shakespeare.

I really hate Shakespeare, the only reason people like Shakepeare is because other people love Shakespeare

Okay, there's like four women and maybe a quadroon thrown in towards the end

Bloom's a great appreciator, a great lover of reading who when discussing literature draws literary-- not social, not political, not gender or racially-informed-- comparisons. To Bloom, words are words, and some words probe more deeply into life as it's actually thought and lived than others, if betraying the influence here and there of words that came before. The series of texts from Anxiety of Influence to Agon- the very ones that will keep 'his memory green' (and never discussed here, shamefully)-- are unparalleled in their brilliance, both as appreciations and criticisms of Western Literature, in his country. He's very simply a great man, and will be borne out by what time remains.

Because normies hate when people point out that there are better books out there than Terry Pratchett, hitchhiker's guide, and game of thrones. "Who cares about a canon, just read what you like."

a)

Writing is nothing more than putting words in and determinate order; writing is weaving sentences and phrases, using the blocks of words to build the horizontal and inky pyramids of the written pages. And the way in which you construct your verbal-words is by style. You can decide to create an entire universe in the blank pages; to compose the sinews, veins and bones of a whole pack of galaxies and shoal of nebulas; to give birth to a whole cosmos; to mould a gigantic womb fermenting with thousands of different characters and different philosophy’s, but you will only be capable of doing that with words, and by choreographing the dance and architecture of words that is the style.
There is part of a book introduction that I would like to share with you all, gentleman. It is from this book: “Literary Genius: 25 Classic Writers Who Define English & American Literature” (amazon.com/Literary-Genius-Classic-American-Literature/dp/1589880358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375375723&sr=1-1&keywords=literary genius), a guide written by many essayists, but collected by Joseph Epstein, a very witty man, who also wrote the quotes from the introduction that I am about to quote:

“The occurrence of genius may be a mystery, but that is no good reason to get mystical about it. Harold Bloom, the most famous literary critic of the day, is very generous in assigning literary genius. “I can identify for myself certain writers of palpable genius now among us”, he writes in the introduction to Genius, a book composed with his on essays on writers for whom he claims genius: “the Portuguese novelist José Saramago, the Canadian poet Anne Carson, the English poet Geoffrey Hill, and at least a half-dozen North and Latin American novelists and poets (whom I forebear naming).” But he is considerably less generous in dispensing lucidity on what constitutes literary genius. Genius, he instructs, is “clearly both of and above the age”. He adds: “Fierce originality is one crucial component of literary genius, but this originality itself is always canonical, in that it recognizes and come to terms with precursors”. Genius also turns out to be “the god within”, and genius, “by necessity, invokes the transcendental and the extraordinary, because it is fully conscious of them”. He brings in Emerson and Gnosticism, neither of them great flags signifying clarity ahead, and concludes by stating that his rough but effectual test for the literary genius is: “Does she or he augment our consciousness…has my awareness been intensified, my consciousness widened and clarified?”.

b)

"What widens one consciousness and intensifies one’s awareness, may, of course, not widen and intensify another’s consciousness. Or it may not do so the same consciousness at different times at the life of that consciousness, which is way some writers who swept us away at the age of twenty seem not worth rereading at forty. Nor is professor Bloom very helpful on the crucial matter of how literary genius operates, which is, inevitably, through style."

"Style, it needs to be understood, is never ornamentation or a matter of choice of vocabulary or amusing linguistics of mannerisms. Style, in serious writing, is a way of seeing, and literary genius, who see things in vastly different way than the rest of us, usually require a very different style. As Edward Gibbon wrote on style (quote by David Womerseley in his essay): “The style of an author should be the image of his mind”. Thorough this distinctive style something like a distinctive philosophy is expressed, thorough usually not directly: Which is where criticism and plain intelligent reading enter. Henri Bergson holds that understanding a work or body of art “consist essentially in developing in thought what artists want to suggest emotionally.” The style of the literary artist is what allows him powerfully to suggest what he sees.”

c)

This excerpt is wonderful firstly because it shows, with simplicity, one of the main flaws of Harold Bloom’s (that incredibly fool man) criticism: he never says nothing about style, he never analyzes and dissects the viscera of an author’s great work, in other words: he never studies the metrical technics; the metaphor construction; the rhyming abilities; the stressing syllables choices; the simile construction; the tools for creating characters; and all the other secrets that really integrate the flesh and blood of a writer’s work. The only thing that Bloom does is stating, with no prove or evidence (but only assertion), that author A is better than author B, that author C is more important than author D. He’s prose is a soup of strange philosophies names glued together (Scholl or resentment + agnosticism + cabala, and etc.), and he is perpetually forgetting the work of a writer to rant about feminists and minorities invading universities and the classical canon. He is a man that has read a lot, but that learned little about literature.

>Not me tho

Spot the pseud
Can't comment on a thing so he comments on what he thinks other people think about the thing

kind of related but what the fuck happened to the board quality lately?

so many redditfags

Who is this attractive female?

mammt

>ah, youth..