Rating: 
Summary: Academic Elitism
Review:
In this book, Harold Bloom attacks the fact that some critics want to politicize literature. One of the great English writers George Orwell stated in his essay "Why I Write" that, "The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude."
Although it is true that a book should not only be looked at for its political content, it's impossible for a work of art to completely hide its ideology.
Bloom blames "multiculturalism" partly on the dumbing down of our literary institutions. I'm not so sure our institutions are becoming less advanced simply because they incorporate more material from writers from a non-white background, and I seriously doubt Shakespeare is in danger of fading away, simply because universities now allow African American literature to be learned along with Shakespeare. Universities will always have canonical works in their curriculum.
One of the great things about American culture is its diversity. There is no single literary standard, and if there was, the literature of America would be dull and boring. In American literature, you can discover the inner working of many cultures and subcultures. Diversity is a blessing.
In his "Elegiac Conclusion" Bloom states that Shakespeare and Dante are literature, and everything else is what they absorbed and what absorbed them. I disagree. Writers have influences, but the great writers, all are innovators. Shakespeare was a great writer in his time, but it should also be remembered that he was very innovative.
Overall I found Bloom's tone to be snobbish, and this did not make me want to reread Shakespearean sonnets, or "Pride and Prejudice."
Rating: 
Summary: The classics in a different light
Review: The author, Harold Bloom has the distinction of being one of the foremost defenders of the literary classics, and to some of his critics he has become the primary upholder the writings of "old dead white men". Mr. Bloom makes quite a case for his literary choice of monumental books that constitute a Western Canon. Shakespeare reigns supreme in the author's estimation because his writings touched upon so many things universal in human nature. After Shakespeare no other author comes close to having such a widespread appeal to all of human nature and this is the author's point. The first author to write, touch upon or pioneer the use of literature in a unique way, that has a lasting affect upon society. The fact that the author's choices are almost all "dead white men ", may have been a product of the society in which they wrote, but it does not diminish the affect their written texts have had upon succeeding generations. Ignoring this argument this reader thought it was a rewarding experience to discover just what the author thought was noteworthy about some particular classic. A classic, put in the historical perspective of its time. It spurred this reader onto reading a few classics I had missed. The books sounded more interesting once I knew the significance of the work... Bloom's criteria and reasoning for a Western Canon is educational, interesting, and rewarding to the reader.
Rating: 
Summary: Make the bad man stop!
Review: All right, I like classic literature as much as the next guy, so I thought this would be an interesting book to read.
Turns out, not for me, and maybe not for you.
If you are a hard-core student of english literature with a substantial pre-existing background, I could see this being an engaging book. However, if you, like me, enjoy reading classic literature and are just looking for something to point you in a good direction and give you a better appreciation of what you are reading, this is not it. I suffered through the minutiae and (to me) incomprehensible analogies only because I have a psychological barrier around stopping a book once I've started, but I warn off all but the most ardent students of literature.
To those of you with the education and knowledge to appreciate this book, you have my admiration and you can also have my copy.
Rating: 
Summary: Big, fat, and beautiful
Review: Harold Bloom is the Marlon Brando of literary critics. You can love him or hate him (and there's plenty of room for both), but you can't ignore his energy. Start with one of his favorite quotes, from Oscar Wilde, that "criticism is the only civilized form of autobiography", and add to that his long-held contention that literary criticism is just another genre within literature, and necessarily has to be rather poetical and ambiguous, because that's the nature of the reading experience. Then you'll have Bloom's true theory of poetry -- even more important than any of that anxiety of influence stuff: that reading is a personal, solitary and in the end, selfish act, that one reads for oneself and no one else, to better understand oneself. It's all part of his strange hodgepodge of gnosticism and Emersonianism and whatever-elseism, but it all makes perfect sense. Bloom's critics criticize him for his unwavering, unflinching nature, his broad statements and supposed rejection of subjectivity, but he is the ultimate subjectivist, taking the idea to its very outer limits. He writes almost exclusively about those works which he loves, the ones that move him personally, while many critics out there continue to try to exercise their muscles by launching attacks at authors they don't like (most recently the weak-minded simpleton Dale Peck, the new king of insecurity). What's the point of literary criticism? To open people up to new areas or to close people off from them? Well, it might not be the first one, but it certainly shouldn't be the second one. In "The Western Canon", Bloom divides western literary history into four eras, the theocratic, the aristocratic, the democratic, and the chaotic, which I guess we're still supposed to be in. His canon is huge and generous -- I've encountered several folks who wrongly assumed that the 20 or so of Bloom's essays (on Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, Milton, Whitman, Austen, Tolstoy, Proust, Joyce, Woolf, etc.) are meant to represent his idea of the canon, but the canon is the vast index at the end of the book, and it includes hundreds of writers. And in the end, Bloom is the first to admit that any canon is simply an elaborate list, but after reading the book, you can't refute that if one is to choose randomly from a list as long-standing as the western canon, one's odds are better of coming up with something substantial. And Bloom's essays themselves are always provocative, sometimes difficult but very rewarding, heavy on quotes from the sources not because Bloom needs to pad his book or because he's scrounging for ideas, but because, like all great critics, he does not shy away from returning to the text. After all, all the information is there. The book can be funny as well, as Bloom is endlessly digressive and, against his better judgment, continuously stumbles into polemical arguments against the current state of literary studies and literary standards and all the rest of it. He can't help himself. A great work of criticism does not require that we agree with every idea or opinion expressed in it. At its best, it will send us back to those works in the spirit of re-evaluation, and we re-evaluate ourselves as well as the author. That too is at the center of Bloom's approach, that "there's no method but the self."
Rating:
Summary: Bloom is right and wrong
Review: He is dead on right about the university system collapsing into madness. At my college alone(U of Iowa), they have 5 classes about african american Literature, and one devoted to the epic poem(homer, virgil, ovid, beowulf, etc.). Epics like this are infinitely more important(and more influential) than toni morrison or whatever. Luckily i did get into that one section they offered.
Bloom is wrong when he devalues religion and morality. Those are central issues to many great books(pretty much all I'd say).
Bloom is also sadly wrong about Shakespeare. Shakespeare has been surpassed by many writers of the last few centuries. He isn't they end all be all.
He is all way wrong about Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Sure Tolstoy denounced Shakespeare in "what is Art", but he also denounced War and Peace and Anna Karenina-his own books!! I don't think that means he couldn't handle his own writing!
Rating:
Summary: Thank God I read this book
Review: I discovered this book in high school, and was pleased to find someone who thoughts books were as important and exciting as I did. He also succeeded in communicating this excitement in a way that few teachers do, and pointed me in the direction of many books that proved to be genuinely great. But honestly this book is not worth the time it takes to read. Other than a few rants against multiculturalism, Bloom just picks some masterpiece and says, Man is this a good book. Then he moves on to another masterpiece: Whoa, this is real good too. They are useless as either criticism or as a guide to the books he recommends; there is little that is helpful or insightful. The books he chooses are all classics, and I doubt many people are arguing with him about the fact that they're good.As far as I can tell, most of the books he has written after this are pretty much the same. The Western Canon is at least more useful because the list at the back contains some good information on translations of choice and other stuff I wouldn't know anything about. Plus every once in a while I get curious about an author or a book that I'm unfamiliar with, and discover something wonderful. Maybe xerox the list, but otherwise save your time for those books of the ages instead of The Western Canon.
Rating:
Summary: A good, if difficult to approach, book.
Review: If there is a problem with this book, it doesn't sit in any of Bloom's arguments, but rather in the fact that the underlying assumption about the canon is you've already read it. At heart, Harold Bloom's book is basically a series of essays on the best works of the best authors Western Literature has to offer. Unfortunately, few people will have read every author listed. Without at least a passing familiarity with the authors Bloom talks about, the book is useless. Everyone will have quibbles with the exact authors chosen, and I'm no different. I have doubts about the place in the cannon of Borgas and Neruda. But to really get anything out of this book, you have to look beyond that. Even if you disagree with his choices, you may benefit by at least listening to and considering his opinions. But in the end, what's most thought provoking is the argument against the politicization of literature. I've repeatedly heard Harold Bloom called a "conservative critic." Hogwash! The books and authors he advocates seem to take care to write works that aren't about politics, but instead strive for a thoughtful art form.
Rating:
Summary: A good, if difficult to approach, book.
Review: If there is a problem with this book, it doesn't sit in any of Bloom's arguments, but rather in the fact that the underlying assumption about the canon is you've already read it. At heart, Harold Bloom's book is basically a series of essays on the best works of the best authors Western Literature has to offer. Unfortunately, few people will have read every author listed. Without at least a passing familiarity with the authors Bloom talks about, the book is useless. Everyone will have quibbles with the exact authors chosen, and I'm no different. I have doubts about the place in the cannon of Borgas and Neruda. But to really get anything out of this book, you have to look beyond that. Even if you disagree with his choices, you may benefit by at least listening to and considering his opinions. But in the end, what's most thought provoking is the argument against the politicization of literature. I've repeatedly heard Harold Bloom called a "conservative critic." Hogwash! The books and authors he advocates seem to take care to write works that aren't about politics, but instead strive for a thoughtful art form.
Rating:
Summary: A breath of fresh literary air
Review: Much of my feelings have been expressed in the other 4-5 star reviews here, but I wanted to record my own after seeing four or five single star reviews from what appears to be the same user in a deliberate attempt at sabotage... The Western Canon has been a marvelous read up against the literary material my university is hopelessly married to. His style of writing is not difficult at all when compared to academic writing generally; it is fluid and quite playful at times. If your university/college is forcing Eagleton down your throat (also an entertaining writer I'll admit - like or loathe his position) then Bloom is great to read along side with.
Rating:
Summary: Moving in its appreciation of the literary masters
Review: One may not agree with all of Bloom's interpretations of the works of the writers featured in this book, but some of them are reasonably accurate and valuable (i.e. Shakespearean characters' unique trait of self-overhearing). And better discussions of the expansion of the canon to include inferior works out of political and social concerns can also undoubtedly be found in other works (Alan Bloom comes to mind). However, the main value of the Western Canon to me is the reverence which Bloom displays towards the literary giants of history, and which they rightly deserve.
Bloom is hardly a racist or elitist--four women are here (Austen, Eliot, Dickinson and Woolf), three Latin American writers (Carpentier, Borges and Neruda), and Bloom acknowledges deserving literary achievements of African-Americans at various times (Toni Morrison, whose "Song of Solomon" he discusses in "How to Read and Why," and Richard Wright). And he openly cites his lack of familiarity with Asian literature (I would nominate Yukio Mishima in that category). The Western Canon, and its helpful lists, truly demonstrates that there can be something for everyone in the world's greatest literature, and that to feed the young substandard and unchallenging works is unnecessary and does them a disservice.
Beyond Shakespeare and Dante, it is easy thing to take issue with some of the authors Bloom has selected, though they are all undoubtedly great, and Bloom acknowledges as much. Personally, I felt that Dostoyevski, the inventor of the psychological novel, was more deserving to represent Russian literature than Tolstoi. And Bloom commits an unpardonable sin in my eyes by failing to acknowledge William Butler Yeats, who was far more varied and comprehensive a poet than Eliot, as the greatest poet of the 20th century and indeed, one of the greatest of all time.
Read the Western Canon, not so much for the insights into the authors, but to rekindle your own desire to delve the great works of Western (Eastern or Southern) literature.
|
