It's totally fine to criticize other theorists, but it's a disservice to students to caricature and misrepresent those theorists' views. Bloom does not believe that beauty is the only virtue of literature. He believes there are three characteristics of works that potentially make them great and/or canonical: (1) aesthetic splendor, (2) cognitive power and (3) wisdom. Obviously something like "wisdom" could entail wisdom of a moral, social or political nature, and so Bloom is not saying that great literary works do not touch upon moral, social or political themes or that this might not be part of their appeal. His point, fairly understood, is merely that great works are never reducible to -- or to be judged by -- their political contributions, as the theorists of the "schools of resentment" would have it. Bloom often writes hyperbolically, as you know, and so it's easy to find out-of-context exaggerations like the one about relevance that you latch onto and use to caricature his approach, but it's not fair to him or to your students. You also blithely dismiss the theory of the "anxiety of influence" as "silly," but you do not present it in any manner that could be comprehended or appreciated by anyone. The idea is that would-be-artists are moved to create in a particular medium, such as literature, by experiencing and falling in love with the works of their predecessors, but those works also naturally create anxiety because they overdetermine the new would-be-artist's own vision. Think of teenagers who read something they love (assuming teenagers still read anything today) and then are moved to write something themselves. Chances are that whatever those kids produce will wind up being thoroughly derivative, a pale imitation. As they mature, they have to work very hard and struggle with themselves to outgrow and overcome their predecessors' influence, to get out of their shadow in the same manner that, for example, an aspiring academic mentored by a towering intellect is necessarily in an agonistic relationship with his mentor, notwithstanding the mentor's formative influence on his would-be-successor. Most of those who try to escape the influence of strong predecessors will fail, of course. In this way, influence is a destructive force that robs people of their opportunities to create (in contrast to the traditional notion of benign inspiration). This is a deep and profound insight of Bloom's and not remotely "silly." It's fine to critique it, but you can't simply facilely wave it away. I value your perspective and agree with you in many respects, but you can do better than debating with lampooned versions of monumental theorists like Harold Bloom.
I stand by my assessment. I understand what he is opposing and am in full sympathy. However, his defence of the tradition isn’t remotely traditional, and the psychological motive is embarrassing. It reflects his own therapeutic culture, and its tendency to begin with Romantic presuppositions. Bloom never departs from his Romanticist origins, even as he moves to earlier authors
@@LitProf Well, I agree with you that his defense of the tradition isn't traditional, and I agree with your point about therapeutic culture (I assume you're referencing Philip Rieff's notion of "therapeutic culture" here). I wouldn't characterize the psychological motive as "embarrassing," as you do, but what I'd say is that it's incomplete. There's no question that art DOES serve an individually therapeutic function for us, but there's also no question that art serves MORE than a merely therapeutic function and, at its best, fruitfully engages with eternal questions of the same sort addressed by philosophy, mythology and religion. But Bloom doesn't entirely deny that (as I tried to explain with my mention of "cognitive power" and "wisdom," in addition to mere "aesthetic splendor," as his three criteria of artistic excellence). His take on these issues is more nuanced than what you portray to your students. My objection was to your flattening of and too-facile dismissal of his approach, both his approach to the canon and his groundbreaking theory of the anxiety of influence. If you'd said that his emphasis is PRIMARILY on the individual psychological or purely aesthetic function of art and then proceeded to point out that such a defense of art (any art, literature included) is inadequate because it already concedes way too much to what he calls the "schools of resentment," then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. In other words, if I were making your point, what I'd be saying is that if you're trying to mount a defense of the tradition to a civilization that is already rapidly careening into an abyss of superficiality and meaninglessness, it's not going to save the day to say that great art will merely uplift you as an individual. You have to explain how it will save your soul and, more than that, how it is indispensable to save our collective souls, and Bloom doesn't quite do that. So I think my disagreement with you is not about fundamental assumptions but, as I said in my earlier comment, that you don't need to caricature or, more charitably, simplify Bloom's views in order to mount the worthy critique that you aim to mount. Hope that clarifies the issue.
Despite mentioning wisdom, he never really discusses it, however, and ‘cognitive power’ is a strange and subjective expression borrowed from the human sciences. It is a weak defence of the tradition by a putative defender of the humanities.
I have never read it. I will have a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is not an emphasis in his earlier work, of which I have read several volumes.
Do NOT get rid of the canon, people! Read it, understand the ideas in the classics, and equip yourself with that understanding (regardless of whether or not you agree) in order to better construct arguments for or against those ideas; along with ideas that might be floating around today.
The purpose of art is to refine our perceptions and deepen and broaden our sympathies. This is useful because it allows us to get more value out of life and become better people. The trouble is that they pull in opposite directions. The refinement of our perceptions can make us snobbish. But the deepening and broadening of our sympathies can also lead us to be kinder and more sensitive to the feelings of others. The experience of beauty too has a positive moral effect because beauty, truth and goodness are intimately related. This can be seen from the fact that beauty without truth and goodness is just cosmesis, goodness without truth and beauty is hypocrisy and humbug, and truth without goodness and beauty is just a desire to shock. Therefore separated from each other they become allied to ugliness, lies and evil. Or perhaps even worse.
"Shakespeare wrote for Harold Bloom. That's absurd." This was not really a fair representation of Bloom's views. The point is that Shakespeare's characters explore universal aspects of human experience that transcend their historical setting, and Bloom reads Shakespeare in so far as it enriches his understanding of his own experience of life. And he believes that such an understanding is available to all of human beings regardless of historical context or identity.
A point that has been made for centuries. Everything that Bloom adds to that opinion is baseless. I appreciate Bloom as one of the last defenders of the humanities in the liberal tradition. But his take on the great tradition is devoid of moral sense. It is pure aesthetics, which is a symptom of the general ailment.
How much of canon problems remain outside university class format, for independent people who want as full an intellectual experience as possible? I appreciate exegeses that come from public profs like here, so the texts they choose can semi-determine my awareness of texts, but what about the list part of the canon?
Some Universities are actually eliminating Shakespeare from their curriculum. Milton is no longer required, and many universities don’t even offer much before the Enlightenment.
Is your approach not a Christian literary theory? It would seem the identity politics detest, you also espouse. Also, as a member of the liberal left I wish you would not conflate us with identity politics and literary theory. We mostly agree with Bloom--At least I do..
It is a Christian approach to literary theory. I make that plain. But it is not that of identity politics, because Christ isn’t only the true God but the true man. In the latter respect he represents us all.
The Church was, is, and will always be the authority to decide what books contstitutes the Canon. You have no credibility to interpret that authority because you do not belong to the Magisterium of the Church. The standard you use for the literary canon cannot be applied to the Canon of Scriptures.
Indeed. I think it is a misapplied phrase. The authors and genres seen to be canonical for secular literature were determined in the Hellenistic era though. See my lecture on Horace’s Ars Poetica.
It's totally fine to criticize other theorists, but it's a disservice to students to caricature and misrepresent those theorists' views. Bloom does not believe that beauty is the only virtue of literature. He believes there are three characteristics of works that potentially make them great and/or canonical: (1) aesthetic splendor, (2) cognitive power and (3) wisdom. Obviously something like "wisdom" could entail wisdom of a moral, social or political nature, and so Bloom is not saying that great literary works do not touch upon moral, social or political themes or that this might not be part of their appeal. His point, fairly understood, is merely that great works are never reducible to -- or to be judged by -- their political contributions, as the theorists of the "schools of resentment" would have it. Bloom often writes hyperbolically, as you know, and so it's easy to find out-of-context exaggerations like the one about relevance that you latch onto and use to caricature his approach, but it's not fair to him or to your students.
You also blithely dismiss the theory of the "anxiety of influence" as "silly," but you do not present it in any manner that could be comprehended or appreciated by anyone. The idea is that would-be-artists are moved to create in a particular medium, such as literature, by experiencing and falling in love with the works of their predecessors, but those works also naturally create anxiety because they overdetermine the new would-be-artist's own vision. Think of teenagers who read something they love (assuming teenagers still read anything today) and then are moved to write something themselves. Chances are that whatever those kids produce will wind up being thoroughly derivative, a pale imitation. As they mature, they have to work very hard and struggle with themselves to outgrow and overcome their predecessors' influence, to get out of their shadow in the same manner that, for example, an aspiring academic mentored by a towering intellect is necessarily in an agonistic relationship with his mentor, notwithstanding the mentor's formative influence on his would-be-successor. Most of those who try to escape the influence of strong predecessors will fail, of course. In this way, influence is a destructive force that robs people of their opportunities to create (in contrast to the traditional notion of benign inspiration). This is a deep and profound insight of Bloom's and not remotely "silly." It's fine to critique it, but you can't simply facilely wave it away. I value your perspective and agree with you in many respects, but you can do better than debating with lampooned versions of monumental theorists like Harold Bloom.
I stand by my assessment. I understand what he is opposing and am in full sympathy.
However, his defence of the tradition isn’t remotely traditional, and the psychological motive is embarrassing. It reflects his own therapeutic culture, and its tendency to begin with Romantic presuppositions.
Bloom never departs from his Romanticist origins, even as he moves to earlier authors
@@LitProf Well, I agree with you that his defense of the tradition isn't traditional, and I agree with your point about therapeutic culture (I assume you're referencing Philip Rieff's notion of "therapeutic culture" here). I wouldn't characterize the psychological motive as "embarrassing," as you do, but what I'd say is that it's incomplete. There's no question that art DOES serve an individually therapeutic function for us, but there's also no question that art serves MORE than a merely therapeutic function and, at its best, fruitfully engages with eternal questions of the same sort addressed by philosophy, mythology and religion. But Bloom doesn't entirely deny that (as I tried to explain with my mention of "cognitive power" and "wisdom," in addition to mere "aesthetic splendor," as his three criteria of artistic excellence). His take on these issues is more nuanced than what you portray to your students. My objection was to your flattening of and too-facile dismissal of his approach, both his approach to the canon and his groundbreaking theory of the anxiety of influence. If you'd said that his emphasis is PRIMARILY on the individual psychological or purely aesthetic function of art and then proceeded to point out that such a defense of art (any art, literature included) is inadequate because it already concedes way too much to what he calls the "schools of resentment," then I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. In other words, if I were making your point, what I'd be saying is that if you're trying to mount a defense of the tradition to a civilization that is already rapidly careening into an abyss of superficiality and meaninglessness, it's not going to save the day to say that great art will merely uplift you as an individual. You have to explain how it will save your soul and, more than that, how it is indispensable to save our collective souls, and Bloom doesn't quite do that. So I think my disagreement with you is not about fundamental assumptions but, as I said in my earlier comment, that you don't need to caricature or, more charitably, simplify Bloom's views in order to mount the worthy critique that you aim to mount. Hope that clarifies the issue.
Despite mentioning wisdom, he never really discusses it, however, and ‘cognitive power’ is a strange and subjective expression borrowed from the human sciences.
It is a weak defence of the tradition by a putative defender of the humanities.
@@LitProf See his 2005 book, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?
I have never read it. I will have a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is not an emphasis in his earlier work, of which I have read several volumes.
Do NOT get rid of the canon, people! Read it, understand the ideas in the classics, and equip yourself with that understanding (regardless of whether or not you agree) in order to better construct arguments for or against those ideas; along with ideas that might be floating around today.
The purpose of art is to refine our perceptions and deepen and broaden our sympathies. This is useful because it allows us to get more value out of life and become better people. The trouble is that they pull in opposite directions. The refinement of our perceptions can make us snobbish. But the deepening and broadening of our sympathies can also lead us to be kinder and more sensitive to the feelings of others.
The experience of beauty too has a positive moral effect because beauty, truth and goodness are intimately related. This can be seen from the fact that beauty without truth and goodness is just cosmesis, goodness without truth and beauty is hypocrisy and humbug, and truth without goodness and beauty is just a desire to shock. Therefore separated from each other they become allied to ugliness, lies and evil. Or perhaps even worse.
"Shakespeare wrote for Harold Bloom. That's absurd." This was not really a fair representation of Bloom's views. The point is that Shakespeare's characters explore universal aspects of human experience that transcend their historical setting, and Bloom reads Shakespeare in so far as it enriches his understanding of his own experience of life. And he believes that such an understanding is available to all of human beings regardless of historical context or identity.
A point that has been made for centuries. Everything that Bloom adds to that opinion is baseless.
I appreciate Bloom as one of the last defenders of the humanities in the liberal tradition. But his take on the great tradition is devoid of moral sense. It is pure aesthetics, which is a symptom of the general ailment.
Great lecture. I make sure to listen to it each year.
Greetings from Brazil! Thank you for this amazing lecture.
Obigrado.
Is there a podcast version of these lectures? Really enjoying this content. Excellent presentation.
I'm afraid not. I would need an assistant to do anything that ambitious.
Close your eyes, and you get a podcast :)
@@partialintegral Love it.
How much of canon problems remain outside university class format, for independent people who want as full an intellectual experience as possible? I appreciate exegeses that come from public profs like here, so the texts they choose can semi-determine my awareness of texts, but what about the list part of the canon?
Some Universities are actually eliminating Shakespeare from their curriculum. Milton is no longer required, and many universities don’t even offer much before the Enlightenment.
have really enjoyed it, thank you so much!
who else got here through Jordan Peterson's FB fan page?
Not me.
Not me , got here via Timothy Kenny
Is your approach not a Christian literary theory? It would seem the identity politics detest, you also espouse. Also, as a member of the liberal left I wish you would not conflate us with identity politics and literary theory. We mostly agree with Bloom--At least I do..
It is a Christian approach to literary theory. I make that plain.
But it is not that of identity politics, because Christ isn’t only the true God but the true man. In the latter respect he represents us all.
@@LitProfThat's quite a weak way to wriggle out of the criticism leveled at you.
China was not a Soviet ally :)
Was, for a while. Till Stalin's death.
Fully endorse John Martin's comments.
His statements present a clear and concise assessment of Harold Bloom's thoughts and writings. Bravo!
The Church was, is, and will always be the authority to decide what books contstitutes the Canon. You have no credibility to interpret that authority because you do not belong to the Magisterium of the Church. The standard you use for the literary canon cannot be applied to the Canon of Scriptures.
Indeed. I think it is a misapplied phrase.
The authors and genres seen to be canonical for secular literature were determined in the Hellenistic era though. See my lecture on Horace’s Ars Poetica.
And how do you justify this claim?