The Western Canon by Harold Bloom (2011) | Hacker News Reader

The Western Canon by Harold Bloom (2011)

sonic.net

45 pointskeiferski59 comments

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...

“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.

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

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.”

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

The list is the object of his statement, but it’s not the context in which he’s making the statement. When he says he “disavows the list” he’s talking about disavowing the idea that the list published as an appendix to his book is a comprehensive list of western canon. (It’s also clear that he’s gotten this question before and doesn’t want to debate the details of specific items on the list.) But it is clear from his statement that “I probably put in a couple of things that I now would like to kick out” that he’s not disavowing the idea that the vast majority of the books on the list (all but a “couple”) are in fact in his view part of the western canon.

You’re taking a narrow point made in the context of a discussion with literary nerds (“I don’t want to defend every jot and tiddle of this specific list”) and by presenting it without context, you’re making it seem like he’s rejecting that the list is in his view mostly accurate.

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.

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.

Seems like a clear disavowal of the list itself, although not of the concept of a canon altogether.

Bloom was one of the greatest proponents of the concept of the canon as such, but it is not my impression that he thought of it as some neat shopping list.

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

His biography is really fascinating and inspiring too: http://foreignlanguageexpertise.com/about.html

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

Bloom was famous for his reading speed and memory: 400 pages an hour for simpler material, and could recite most of Shakespeare's works word by word. For us mortals the canon is meant to take a lifetime to read.

I can't imagine anyone being anywhere close to an expert (meaning, highly familiar with the relevant scholarship) on more than a tiny fraction of this list - and do note that whole areas of world lit (East Asia, etc.) are entirely missing from the list, because they're so hard to even characterize in a useful way. Perhaps this is what illustrates the very real failure of this whole "canon" concept more than anything else could.

Well it is called “The Western Canon” and this is right at the top of the page:

“I have included some Sanskrit works, scriptures and fundamental literary texts, because of their influence on the Western canon. The immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart from Western literary tradition and is rarely conveyed adequately in the translations available to us."

If you’re looking for an Eastern-focused selection (although obviously from a Western perspective), I recommend these lists:

https://www.sjc.edu/application/files/7315/7307/1179/Santa_F...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Books_of_the_East

> ... because of their influence on the Western canon. The immense wealth of ancient Chinese literature is mostly a sphere apart ...

That's quite debatable though, it seems clear to me that the West did pay quite a bit of attention to Chinese culture, starting in the 18th c. or so. The inadequacy of relying on translations may be closer to the mark, but then again that's just another way that this literature turns out to be especially challenging.

That's why we have Harvard classics so we can skip nonsense that gets irrelevant overtimes

How does reading the classics shelter from engaging with ephemeral works?

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...

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.

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.

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!

English is for everyone, but as a degree it is really only for those that need concentrated experience with a vast amount of cultural wisdom and experience. I would recommend English to a wealthy student who is destined to oversee some sort of philanthropic, corporate, or political enterprise, but not the working class.

That said, we can all have a richer, more meaningful experience of ourselves and the world by spending time in great stories and myths, so I would still recommend it as an independent study for the average person, just not a degree.

Plus, in nations with high levels of social mobility, studying great works of literature may come in handy when you try to insert yourself into higher levels of society as an adult.

> I would recommend English to a wealthy student who is destined to oversee some sort of philanthropic, corporate, or political enterprise

Isn't that a rather old-fashioned and even pre-modern POV? A bit like the idea that you should memorize the Confucian classics before being allowed to join the Chinese state bureaucracy. These days, a degree in the social sciences, public policy or the like might be more appropriate.

The point of the English degree in this case is not to teach anything useful, it’s to inculcate one into a class. If you come from money and don’t need to develop any particular skills before being given a pile to manage any canon works as a shibboleth to allow people to distinguish whether someone else is of the “right sort”, whether the Confucian classics, the Western canon or Old Skool Rap.

Obviously social sciences or public policy work as well but the idea that they’re superior to the other methods is very weakly supported, at best.

> The point of the English degree in this case is not to teach anything useful, it’s to inculcate one into a class.

That's exactly what I meant by a pre-modern viewpoint. Where "class" or social background are more important than the actual work you're supposed to be doing, and the skills (even general-purpose skills - a social sciences degree teaches plenty of those) you're going to use to that effect. Let's just say that this is not how people or societies become successful - it anything, it's a marker of decadence.

Studying English or the Confucian classics will also teach you general purpose skills; essay writing, communication, how to form and structure an argument. It’ll give you a great many ideas, stories and concepts to draw upon. If you have any evidence that the general purpose skills from a social science or public policy degree are superior to those one learns from a humanities education feel free to share.

Regarding success and decadence I don’t see much in the way of evidence that humanist education is a cause of decadence rather than a marker of peace and wealth.

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...

[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.

> 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.

I dunno, I was required to take an introductory linguistics course for my Spanish degree and I assume that applies to English as well.

The parent category from the original posting is a list of Great Books lists. 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

Fadiman's book:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249186.The_New_Lifetime_...

"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.

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.

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

The Martin Luther translation obviously had a more significant impact on western culture on the whole, but the King James translation had an important influence on the English language and therefore it is fair to include it in a canon over English literature.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB963270836801555352

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/...

Basically a professional snob.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm a literary minded person and completely understand the draw of genre fiction; I'm currently burning my way through Jack Reacher 16-book set.

But I think it is a very different thing intellectually to literary works, and it shouldn't be dismissed as snobbish (I'm not referring to you or anyone else here) simply to point that out.

Sorry - I saw the archive prefix, and assumed an alternative for the same article.

Yes, in the article I read (the second), his tone is provocative at best, and reflects a personality defect at worst, but I think he is saying the same thing - the award was inappropriately awarded, and he has a point.

I don't think your original assessment of him is fair.

I'm sure he had other interesting qualities other than being a snob, and I'm not putting down his other contributions, not being familiar with them myself.

But I don't think classifying him as a snob based on that sample is unfair. It's the difference between "I don't like this work" and "people who like this work are wrong".

Criticize the criticism not the critic.

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-non-western-can... -- A Non-Western Canon (along with some words on Harold Bloom)

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062867889/the-white-mans-g...

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.

He omits a lot of philosophy, science, economics, and so on, that aren't directly relevant to the literary canon.

True, but he includes Nietzche - while Nietzche's literary status is beyond question, they are not so memarkable other than the fact that they were very influential. J.S. Mill's On Liberty is also included - not being particularly appraised for its literary status as much as its influence on all liberal thought.

Marx was arguably a literary genius in the same way Nietzche was, and influential in the way J.S. Mill was. He should be on the list by both accounts of what the list should contain. Not to mention, Bloom includes many authors who count Marx among their primary influences, like Walter Benjamin, Brecht, Orwell, Levi-Strauss, Sartre, Camus, and Bataille.

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.

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

Bloom cared about the canon for its aesthetic value, and was quite skeptical about the whole notion that literature (in a narrow sense) could be relevant to social change. From that POV, the absence of Marx (or for that matter, of many other non-fiction authors, who are included in other "great works" lists but missing here) might be quite understandable.

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...

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

This is definitely not unique to Harold Bloom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com