
The Western Canon by Harold Bloom (2011) - keiferski
http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtbloom.html
======
EdwardCoffin
For what it's worth, he disavows this list, which was in the appendix of his
book [1]

 __Bloom __: _But can we make an agreement? Let’s forget that damned list._

 __Interviewer __: _Ha. Do you mean the appendix in the back of the book that
lists all the canonical works?_

 __Bloom __: _The list was not my idea. It was the idea of the publisher, the
editor, and my agents. I fought it. I finally gave up. I hated it. I did it
off the top of my head. I left out a lot of things that should be there and I
probably put in a couple of things that I now would like to kick out. I kept
it out of the Italian and the Swedish translations, but it’s in all the other
translations—about 15 or 18 of them. I’m sick of the whole thing. All over the
world, including here, people reviewed and attacked the list and didn’t read
the book. So let’s agree right now, my dear. We will not mention the list._

[1] [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w4dk3/harold-
bloom-431-v...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w4dk3/harold-
bloom-431-v15n12)

~~~
keiferski
“Disavowed” is a misleading word to use. He had criticisms of his list, but
what the quote doesn’t mention is that Bloom was involved in a decades-long
battle on the value of the idea of a canon. I think he was just tired of
talking about it with people that hadn’t read the book in the first place.

~~~
EdwardCoffin
Well, _disavowed_ was my word, not his, but I stand by it. It seems pretty
clearly to be a disavowal to me.

~~~
rayiner
Right, but you’re misreading the context in which he said it. He disavowed
some of the specific choices, maybe the idea of comprehensively enumerating
them in a list. But he didn’t disavow the concept of a western canon or even
most of the specific books in the list. “I did it off the top of my head. I
left out a lot of things that should be there and I probably put in a couple
of things that I now would like to kick out.”

~~~
EdwardCoffin
The original post links to _the_ list, the one he is disavowing. That's the
context, that specific list.

~~~
keiferski
Your comment is misleading because it doesn’t mention that Bloom spent
virtually his entire career defending the value of classic literature. The
fact that he had minor criticisms of his list and didn’t want to talk about it
doesn’t mean that he disavowed it and that isn’t what the word _disavowed_
means.

 _Disavowed_ suggests that he is dismissive of the contents of the list
entirely, which again, could not be further from the truth. Quoting a brief
Vice article leaves out decades of context.

~~~
valvar
As I understand it, he was opposed to the idea of composing a list like that,
i.e. a definitive list of what the canon is and what you should read. There's
no contradiction with such a disavowal and defending the canon as such.
Obviously there are some works that are core to the canon, that I'm sure he
would urge everyone to read, such as the works he mainly discusses in the book
(Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Goethe, the Bible, etc). That doesn't mean that
he has to be a proponent of compiling them into a neat list.

------
ipnon
A similar category that has inspired my reading and language learning for
about a decade now is Alexander Arguelles "Great Books" list [0]. Arguelles is
a hyperpolyglot, he can read, speak and write dozens of languages. He
advocates for polyliteracy, the concurrent study of languages and their
associated literary canons.

[0]
[http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/great_books.html](http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/great_books.html)

~~~
keiferski
His biography is really fascinating and inspiring too:
[http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/about.html](http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/about.html)

------
johnnylambada
I can't imagine anyone having read everything in this list. It would take more
than a lifetime for me at my reading speed.

~~~
kerkeslager
Your reading speed would likely improve if you read that much.

EDIT: I'm a bit amused by the downvotes here. I've posted plenty of
controversial opinions on HN and rarely get this many downvotes. This one
seems pretty non-controversial by comparison: is there really some
disagreement that reading a lot will result in becoming a faster reader? I'm
genuinely confused.

~~~
vo2maxer
I am not sure either why you’re being downvoted on a non-controversial
comment. I’m also honestly curious. Is your statement being conflated with
‘speed reading’? A quick search finds plenty of similar recommendations. From
one of them:

“The more you read, the more you will be better at it. The better you are at
reading, the more you will increase your reading speed.” [1]

[1] [https://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/10-ways-
incre...](https://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/10-ways-increase-
your-reading-speed.html)

~~~
zozbot234
FYI, the Guidelines of this site state that one should not complain about the
voting on comments. It can change quite a bit over time, so early impressions
are likely to be misleading.

~~~
vo2maxer
I know the guidelines well, nevertheless, thank you. But I’m truly curious why
such a straightforward comment by kerkeslager would get downvoted, it would
honestly satisfy my intellectual curiosity. It also raises the issue with
reading speed and its connotations. Examples: Is reading faster better? It
depends on the material; Is speed reading as the extreme form of it of any
value or just a gimmick? A gimmick of no value to me.

------
ixtli
He died recently and I found that the new york times did a pretty good job of
not making him out to be some sort of god in his obit:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/books/harold-bloom-
dead.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/books/harold-bloom-dead.html)

------
voidhorse
Bloom is one of my least favorite literary critics. I find his writing to be
snobbish, presumptuous, and self-assured. It makes for a quite frustrating
read. There's plenty of writers in the field that manage to do just as much of
an effective, if not better, job without constantly sounding self-righteous.
James Wood, for example, is also a popular literary critic (his books likewise
find their way beyond the academic gates) that makes for far more pleasant
reading.

To give an example: it's been some time since I've read it, but while I
remember the general theory proposed in _The Anxiety of Influence_ sounding
reasonable enough, I found the overall tone of the work far too arrogant. I
suppose it was somewhat of a polemic at the time, which maybe excuses the tone
some, but still--I've never read Bloom and not felt that, had I met him in
person, he'd annoy me to no end and he wouldn't be tons of fun to be around.

~~~
blueboo
The only thing worse than reading his writing was being his student. He was
the ultimate bureaucratic academic, skimming off his students' research and
undercutting their futures. Oh, and fucking them (or trying to), if they were
pretty enough and female.

His "literature of resentment" codifies the outgoing generations irritation at
insufficient worship and gratitude.

RIP, he won't be missed, and his ideas are sinking ever-further into
irrelevance.

------
BossingAround
If I'm overly simplistic, this seems to be 1/3 of an English degree. The
remaining 2/3s being linguistics and history with cultural studies of the
times.

I'm still undecided how much I'd recommend someone else studying English (full
time, as their only major). I enjoyed the studies though!

~~~
barry-cotter
In most of the English speaking world a degree in English would include no
linguistics[1] and courses in historical literature would not be offered in
the History department nor would the History department accept them for
credit.

Look at the Oxford curriculum. All literature.

[https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate-
admiss...](https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate-
admissions/english-reading-list)

[1] Unless you think studying only English grammar, morphology, syntax etc.
qualifies as studying linguistics, in which case you’re wrong. Linguistics is
about the study of language, not the study of a language.

~~~
BossingAround
> Unless you think studying only English grammar, morphology, syntax etc.
> qualifies as studying linguistics, in which case you’re wrong

The idea that as soon as you're studying linguistics of a particular language,
you're not studying linguistics at all seems deeply flawed. Does studying
applied math not count at studying math? Or, is studying the physics of light
in crystals not really studying physics?

What I agree with is that if you decide to study linguistics, that doesn't
mean you speak foreign languages (a common misunderstanding in largely
monolingual countries, such as the USA). You study how the languages function,
and how they are formed, linguistically speaking. But, studying linguistics of
English surely counts as studying linguistics.

------
gshubert17
The parent category from the original posting is a list of Great Books lists.
[http://sonic.net/~rteeter/greatbks.html](http://sonic.net/~rteeter/greatbks.html)

I like Clifton Fadiman's _New Lifetime Reading Plan_. This has a larger number
of selections, each with a shorter (two or three pages) context and review.
Teeter's list from Fadiman is here:

[http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtfad3.html](http://sonic.net/~rteeter/grtfad3.html)

Fadiman's book:

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249186.The_New_Lifetime_...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249186.The_New_Lifetime_Reading_Plan)

------
goto11
"English Canon" would be more precise.

For example he specifically mentions the King James version of the Bible
(rather than just "The Bible" in general). This translation had a large
influence on the English language - just as say the translation by Martin
Luther had on the German language.

For the non-English works, it is clear he has selected the ones which are
known and influential in the English-speaking world, not necessarily the ones
which are most influential in their home country.

Nothing wrong with that - he was en English professor after all - but calling
it the _Western_ Canon is a stretch.

~~~
xixixao
Do you think the Martin Luther translation had a more significant impact on
the Western Canon than the King James version? Also presumably the list’s
biggest value is in allowing someone to go and read all these works to get a
better understanding of the Canon. Would you suggest people read both
versions? (presumably further translated to their own language)

You do have a good point, but I think it’s more against the notion of the
Canon than this list.

~~~
DubiousPusher
The most important translation of the Bible for "Western" society is probably
the Vulgate. The most important for English speaking society is probably the
King James though the ubiquity of the NIV today may be giving it a run for its
money.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate)

------
ikeboy
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB963270836801555352](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB963270836801555352)

[http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/...](http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/)

Basically a professional snob.

~~~
mellosouls
It's unwise to base your assessment of him on a single article. (Edit: I
wrongly assumed the two links were to the same article, one archived).

It's not unreasonable for a _literary_ critic to view the bestowal of
_literary_ awards on _commercial_ writers with distaste.

Those writers have more fame and wealth than they will ever need; it's fair
enough to query why acclaim, publicity and awards - that would benefit less
populist authors far more - has been directed in this way.

~~~
ikeboy
I had two links, from years apart, in which he denigrated two authors.

He's making a different argument than you. He's not saying King shouldn't have
gotten the prize because others would have deserved it more, he's saying he
shouldn't have gotten it because he's trash.

~~~
zozbot234
Literary-minded folks often don't understand what might make 'genre'
literature compelling, intellectually worthwhile etc., that's why they're
sometimes inclined to regard it uniformly as trash. The reverse also happens,
of course. I'm not saying that pure snobbishness does not play a role, but
there's also a real divide in aesthetic outlook behind these attitudes.

~~~
ikeboy
Even so, Harry Potter is a broader phenomenon than just that.

That should have been clear already in the early 2000s, after the first few
movies.

There is an interesting question about where the line gets drawn. I'm inclined
to exclude works such as 50 Shades of Grey, but that was also tremendously
popular (although not nearly the scale of Harry Potter) and I could easily see
someone call me a snob for drawing that distinction.

On the other hand, if 50 Shades won some kind of award I wouldn't be
inveighing against it, so there's that.

------
svat
[http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-non-western-
can...](http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-non-western-canon-what-
would-list-of.html) \-- A Non-Western Canon (along with some words on Harold
Bloom)

------
moomin
[https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062867889/the-white-
mans-g...](https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062867889/the-white-mans-guide-
to-white-male-writers-of-the-western-canon/)

------
pram
The idea of a canon might be controversial, but you really can’t go wrong with
anything on the list. Although the lack of Marx is questionable considering
his immense influence.

~~~
camelNotation
Marx is absolutely canon, one of the most important writers in history. I'm
not sure how anyone can claim to understand the western tradition without
Marx.

~~~
goto11
It doesn't have Darwin or Newton either. It is a list of literature, not
overall influential works.

------
caiocaiocaio
I just got a copy of The Western Canon by Bloom from the library, and I think
it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my life. He is a very
convoluted writer that goes for as much high emotional impact as possible,
because his theories are generally ridiculous and only make sense when you're
lost in his fog of anger and disdain for everything. He also has a weird
tendency of using "Western Civilization" and "America" as synonyms, even
though most of his pet authors died before the US existed. It's like reading a
book by a cartoon parody of an English professor, and it's hard to believe
that he was even a real person. It all seems like an elaborate joke.

If you want the actual story of the Western Canon - which includes things like
Euclid, Fourier, Darwin, etc., not just the fiction that American English
professors like - try "Great Books Of The Western World":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_Wor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World)

~~~
qgjdvcggd
>He also has a weird tendency of using "Western Civilization" and "America" as
synonyms

This is definitely not unique to Harold Bloom.

