61–64 of 64 posts
I can't imagine anyone having read everything in this list. It would take more than a lifetime for me at my reading speed.
That's why we have Harvard classics so we can skip nonsense that gets irrelevant overtimes
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 academi…
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 scienc…
> 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 sa…
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.