The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages
Ratings5
Average rating3.8
15
Ratings5
Average rating3.8
The literary critic defends the importance of Western literature from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Kafka and Beckett in this acclaimed national bestseller. NOMINATED FOR THE NATIONAL BOOK CRITICS CIRCLE AWARD Harold Bloom's The Western Canon is more than a required reading list—it is a “heroically brave, formidably learned” defense of the great works of literature that comprise the traditional Western Canon. Infused with a love of learning, compelling in its arguments for a unifying written culture, it argues brilliantly against the politicization of literature and presents a guide to the essential writers of the western literary tradition (The New York Times Book Review). Placing William Shakespeare at the “center of the canon,” Bloom examines the literary contributions of Dante Alighieri, John Milton, Jane Austen, Emily Dickenson, Leo Tolstoy, Sigmund Freud, James Joyce, Pablo Neruda, and many others. Bloom's book, much-discussed and praised in publications as diverse as The Economist and Entertainment Weekly, offers a dazzling display of erudition and passion. “An impressive work…deeply, rightly passionate about the great books of the past.”—Michel Dirda, The Washington Post Book World
Reviews with the most likes.
It's not all bad.
There's some great stuff in here, but it is too often drowned out by Bloom's incessant sniping at the supposed wicked Marxist-Feminist-Christian-Minority Voice critical-industrial-complex of the so-called “School of Resentment.” He makes compelling points in favor of the aesthetic value of literature, but never demonstrates that or why this should be considered superior to the “School of Resentment”'s perspective, a perspective which (insofar as it actually exists) seems more interested in whether the literature makes true or insightful statements. In Bloom's vision of these modern critical theories, I am reminded strongly of C.S. Lewis' arguments in An Experiment in Criticism or in The Abolition of Man that this question of whether or not a work makes true statements about reality is more important than its aesthetic value alone.
More accurately, perhaps, it is not novel to place “politics” over aesthetics—Lewis bemoaned prioritizing aesthetics over Truth. In many respects the past was the same, but the politics were then those of Empire, now of whichever ideology/ies) predominate/s in the academy.
Bloom insists on recognizing aesthetic value when he sees it—but this is then entirely arbitrary. I trust his expertise and what he sees in a work—but I am in no way obligated to agree, nor do I find that “newer canons” of the “School of Resentment” somehow exclude the above. His rejection of Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, and others seems deeply arbitrary here. Bloom is facially correct in claiming that a work is not good simply because it is written by the oppressed-but this is clearly a strawman of his opponents.
If you're interested in Bloom's arguments on the canon, the introduction is excellent for this, particularly p. 22-24 in the edition I read. For more on the aesthetic value-and the reasons why Bloom rejects certain forms of Great Books curricula, see p. 28. If you're interested more in his critical analysis of specific major works (the best part of the book), his insights are generally good if you're prepared to roll your eyes on occasion (on frequent occasion) when he rants about Marxist-Feminist-Christian-Minority Voice scholars.
Bloom's elegy for the canon seems ultimately misplaced. The momentary acceptance of bad art in the academy shouldn't really have concerned Bloom greatly—for if the canon is ultimately based on aesthetic value and influence as he believes, then it will endure. The canon-such as it even exists-seems more likely to ultimately be broadened than to be abrogated.
