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.