Is this worth reading?
>>23825635He was right about everything and now almost everyone worships at the church of resentment.
Yes, a very illuminating read.
yeah he is hecking based
>>23825635I read the entry on Proust. It is like a really basic overview of what Proust was about.
>>23826411its about the western canon not proust. He is trying to convince you of the value of the Canon, and thus also Proust.
I used to date an English major back in the day, and it was a pretty wild romance, she actually dropped out of college and moved in with me before she went back to school and got her Masters in English, and eventual JD.. anyway I told her I was reading this and she got real mad and started talking about how he's racist and misogynist.. anyway I'm a toothless bum and she's a lawyer now, lol, divergent paths.
>>23825635I'm glad I get to be the one to burst your guys' bubble>Harold Bloom interview
>>23826556Nice selective editing, jew.
>>23826502Only in here can you find someone who makes less out of life than some complete nitwit who deadass thinks the Western Canon is whatever buzzword slop they at uni
>>23825635It's worth reading if you want to discuss literature on 4chan where everyone is just pretending to read the classics while really they should focus on treating their debilitating addiction to pornography, but everyone who's studied literature/works in the field/has read actual books on theory will tell you that it is absolute trash tier analysis devoid of any rigour or interest or insight.
>>23827608Ok, what are some>actual books on theory that are not>absolute trash tier analysis devoid of any rigour or interest or insight.?
>>23825635I don't like his writing style at all. It assumes absolute familiarity with every author and basically all intellectual history.
>>23829274Frederic Jameson, The Political UnconsciousFrederic Jameson, The Antinomies of RealityGyörgy Lukács, The Theory of the NovelRaymond Williams, Culture and SocietyRaymond Williams, The Country and the CityCleanth Brooks, The Well Wrought UrnFor a general approach to theory there are countless handbooks, the Terry Eagleton's one is still considered pretty much alright. If you're into it, Barthes, Derrida, Kristeva, and Deleuze and Guattari are also insightful, particularly on notions of language and the 'literary'.De Man is also an interesting read for classic modern analysis.Then for scholarly approach to authors it would depend which author interests you.
>>23829991>Frederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious>Frederic Jameson, The Antinomies of Reality>György Lukács, The Theory of the Novel>Raymond Williams, Culture and Society>Raymond Williams, The Country and the City>Cleanth Brooks, The Well Wrought UrnDo not read any of this books. Total waste of time.
>>23830024Ok, what are some>booksthat are not>Total waste of time.?
>>23830024>this booksGood morning saar
>>23826502Sounds like you dodged a bullet. At what point was Bloom ever racist?
>>23829991If you read all of these names you listed you get tools to interpret literature, but these texts dont really develop your taste. This kind of theorycel approach is only productive if what you are after is producing breadtube literature analysis slop or getting undergrad pussy.
>>23829991wow what a loser you are!
>>23831440The Western Canon by Harold Bloom
>>23831814>don't help you develop your tasteIs it that hard to pick up the garden-variety anthology of literature if you want to do that?
>>23827557nta but being able to at least lie your way through making your colleagues believe that you share their worldview is a most fundamental working skill than any effective competence you may have. Being smart comes with burdens, being incapable to lie about what you find bad or stupid comes with even worst ones.t. vertiginously well read toothless bum with a PhD working in a restaurant.
