Harold Bloom

In Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human" he asserts that it was Shakespeare who was first Western literature (if not world literature) to have introspectively developing characters. In his words, Shakespeare's characters "develop rather than unfold, and they develop because they reconceive themselves." That is not to say there were no prior introspective characters in litterature. After all, the word 'monologue' originates from Ancient Greek drama. Rather, it was only beginning with Shakespeare that characters changed (or developed) not because of biological factors like aging and death, nor of external factors, but of internal factors such as questioning one's own morality, personality, purpose, etc.

It sounds compelling to me but I wish to hear arguments against it.

My English professor years ago treated Harold Bloom like he was the be-all, end-all of Shakespeare scholarship, and someone to be revered above almost all others. I'm just curious what this sub's--or other current scholars'--opinions are on Bloom, especially when it comes to his take on Shakespeare.

Thanks!

Harold Bloom wasn’t a fan of Stephan King’s work (to put it lightly) and he said DFW was worse than King. I’m mostly curious about Infinite Jest, which to me seems like a really good book. Bloom loved Pynchon and a lot of people have compared Gravity’s Rainbow to Infinite Jest. I’m wondering how Bloom could feel this way?

As an aside, does anyone know what Bloom saw in Finnegan’s Wake?

Obviously I haven’t read a lot of Bloom, so if anyone could point me to books where he gets into authors like Joyce, Pynchon, Wallace, etc that would be really helpful.

I recently started reading The Western Canon, and I'm wondering if there are any significant appropriations of Bloom's work by the intellectual left. If you can get past the thinly-veiled racism, many of the ideas he has, like the idea that people no longer want to be challenged by novels, seem quite similar to left media criticism I've read about the decline of originality in corporate-produced media. Versions of Susan Sontag's ideas in Against Interpretation also seemed to be present in The Western Canon (thinking especially of Bloom's notion of the canon as a perpetual anxiety). I know there is a lot of criticism of Bloom from the left, but I am wondering if anyone has tried to run with his better ideas, so to speak.

I'm doing my undergrad in English currently, and I'm thinking of reading Bloom's "Anxiety of Influence" to consider other approaches to literary study outside of my normal coursework, but I'd like some precursor first of how Bloom fits within and between other critical frameworks like psychological, historical, New Criticism, formalism, etc. Admittedly, I'm mainly interested in reading him after being charmed by hearing the laudatory and almost mystical way he talks about literature as an aesthetic object, and I want to explore his ideas more to better understand them. The way he talks about books is so unlike how we dissect them in class. Maybe there is a better, more introductory book of his to start with one of you could recommend. Thanks :)

Anybody by chance know where I could find it?

The gist was basically Bloom’s contention that, following Shakespeare, the development of characters in western literature proceeded by the inwardness of their overhearing themselves think, and that this was what prompted their swerves and actions, Hamlet being the main exemplar of this process.

The quote was something like, “all major writers have explored consciousness in this fashion, with the exception of Thomas Pynchon”

Anybody know where in and in which of Blooms many, many books this came from?

Thanks

Not sure if this has been covered before (I’m new to Reddit), but does anybody know if the lit. critic Harold Bloom’s theory that WS wrote an earlier version of Hamlet is given much credence by Shakespeare historians/experts? Strikes me as a pet theory in which he invested too much, but I’m far from an expert in this sort of thing.

I recently came across page 911 and footnote 366 of Infinite Jest, where DFW describes prestigious literary critic Harold Bloom's work as "turgid-sounding shit". This made me wonder what Bloom thought about IJ and I discovered that he also had some pretty harsh things to say about David: "He can't write, he can't think" or "Stephen King is Cervantes compared to Wallace".

Does anybody know if there was any personal animosity between these two men? Bloom more or less explained why he thought that IJ was a dreadful book, but why do you think DFW hated Harold Bloom's work so much?

I am currently reading Harold Bloom's "Ruin the Sacred Truths: Poetry and Belief from the Bible to the Present," and I find it to be an interesting book. Bloom presents captivating perspectives about the authors and texts he discusses. However, I believe that he fails to make a very compelling argument, especially because he does not thoroughly explain the concepts he uses, such as "sublime," "poetry," and even "belief."

One concept in particular that I am having difficulty grasping is "monism," which Bloom repeatedly uses to describe the worldview of John Milton. He evidently contrasts this with a certain "dualism," which seems to be a very general and unspecific way of describing the thoughts of the likes of Plato, Descartes, and St. Paul. I would like to understand what Bloom means by these terms.

I’m guessing I’m not the only Bloom fan in this group. I discovered Bloom in the late 90s, I had taken an English 101 course and had as one assignment to write a paper on a book of literary criticism. I knew nothing about literary criticism and so my local librarian recommended Bloom’s Western Canon.

I had only recently taken an interest in the great books. Shortly after graduating high school I read Les Miserables, Lord of the Flies, and Catcher in the Rye. I was getting a sense of the kinds of books I liked and after discovering Bloom I sensed that the kinds of books Bloom liked lined up very closely with my own—dark, melancholy, mysterious, sublime. I became obsessed with Bloom over the next two decades, reading every book he wrote and a great many of the books he recommended.

If I had to choose a handful of favorite Bloom books they would probably be these:

1. Agon (if only for the essay on Arcturus)

2. Poetry and Repression (the essays on Shelley and Tennyson in particular. Bloom frequently returns to the same poets and poems, but these readings were surprisingly fresh)

3. Omens of Millennium (my favorite of the religious writings—although I could as easily include the American Religion or Jesus and Yahweh)

4. The Visionary Company/ Wallace Stevens: The Poems of Our Climate (my companions while a Peace Corps volunteer. I read these books cover to cover multiple times. They were my Bibles for two years).

5. Figures of Capable Imagination (this one strikes me as Bloom’s most free and witty book)

This is a tough list to write, I can easily think of 5 more books that I love as much as these. But I

Or who critiqued those theories, including bloom's?

Ps, does influence include development?

Harold Bloom even went on to say that Falstaff's charecter is up there with Hamlet's,which is something i find very hard to digest.

He's not even among my favourite shakepearan fools. I would put King Lear's fool above Falstaff anyday.

I often struggle finding what to read next. Bloom (with all of his baggage) helped me to filter out great gems out of many contemporary titles. For example, he is the reason I discovered John Crowley/Little, Big. He might have been a bit too strict in his definition of what a great author is (e.g., trashing Alice Walker and DFW), but still I kind of liked and miss his no-nonsense approach. I feel like very few critics like him are left, and I'd appreciate if anyone can suggest a name or two with the same taste/approach whom may I follow.