If I’m discussing literary theory, Harold Bloom inevitably comes up. He’s the icon of traditional literary criticism, focusing on form and rejecting popular literacy, as in the case of Harry Potter (via a Newsweek interview): “the Harry Potter books are going to wind up in the rubbish bin. The first six volumes have sold, I am told, 350 million copies. I know of no larger indictment of the world’s descent into subliteracy.” I don’t think his perspective on Harry Potter is very nuanced or very self-critical.
His classism, elitism and Western-centrism always disturbs me. I came across the Newsweek interview via a post at The Valve, where Scott Eric Kaufman writes that he’s “almost tempted to believe him” when Bloom is asked:
Newsweek: [Name] An Important Book that you admit you haven’t read:
Bloom: I cannot think of a major work I have not ingested.
Can you say ego?
EDIT (5 March 2007, 1:08 AM): Perhaps in hindsight, this post wasn’t very charitable and is somewhat reactionary. I stand by my belief that there is no way someone could have read every “Important Book,” unless they drastically narrow the concept of “Important Books,” but this post doesn’t show the “listening” that I espouse elsewhere, and it resorts to an ethical attack rather than a rational critique. I’ll leave it up, despite concerns, for posterity (and because I’m not ashamed of my learning process).
1. Ego? Who’s the one with the blog? All of Bloom’s comments are solicited. Can you say jealous?
2. I’m curious what kind of shoddy work in “rhetoric, composition, and pedagogy” you’ll come up with without the western tradition.
3. “Classism”? What on earth are you talking about?
4. “Elitism”? You’re certainly in the wrong profession!
You obviously haven’t read ANY Bloom. Probably haven’t read much at all … not that I’d expect that from a master’s student (certainly not most of mine these days). Do the field a favor, Faris: stick to the poetry slams and leave academe to the more intellectually endowed.
1. Jealous? perhaps.
2. I have nothing (well, other than its obvious problems with domination) against the Western tradition — certainly one can’t work without it. We’re working within it.
3. Classism is the prejudice against underprivileged social classes. The Western cannon is built on classism, in that certain privileged white men were able to choose what was valuable and virtuous.
4. Elitism — see above. I’ll also admit that I’m prone to elitism — it’s hard not to be in academia.
I have read some Bloom, though it’s been a while — since I was an undergraduate. Thanks for the bitter comment, Concerned.
A bit hyper-defensive, aren’t we Concerned? I think Michael’s points are quite valid. Bloom’s later work, characterized so well by the statement that the Harry Potter books represent a decline into subliteracy represents the worst in literary criticism: literary value is defined by what those with properly-trained discernment like, and a properly-trained discernment is defined as those who agree or are trained to agree with the powers who define what it means to be properly trained. It’s a closed system that, at its worst, leads to silly statements such as “if you like Harry Potter, you’re subliterate.“ Bloom is actually equating aesthetic preference with literacy, which is a blatant fallacy based on snobbery, and characterizes for me all that I dislike about Bloom’s recent work.
I think maybe Concernedly Yours is Harold Bloom, madly Googling himself. If Bloom is to be taken seriously then his ideas have to be up for scrutiny, otherwise he is just the loudest guy in the room, screaming at his opponents to shut up. The idea that a list of Important Books exists and is both finite and quantifiable is laughable both inside and outside academia.
Intellectual endowment… oh my. What would one need that for? To mind-fuck? Or perhaps intellectually endowed means that copious sums of money have been given to a particular intellect in order for that intellect might remain in a particular institution until its dying day, and contribute little to the growth and development of the smaller minds that surround it. Either way, I’d rather not use the terms of member-measurement to describe intelligence. It’s so… trite.
On a separate, but related note: Maybe the “intellectually endowed” should attend more poetry slams. Certainly they’re more successful (and frequent) than most academic conferences.
proofreading. oh my there goes my nonexistent credibility.