There are few people who've read so widely and deeply as Harold Bloom. For all his idiosyncrasies as a critic and for whatever personal flaws he might have had, he inspired a generation of readers to read more and explore the classics of Western civilization. His books are valuable guides to the vast world of Western literature, and if they help preserve even a fraction of that heritage for the next generation of readers I think Bloom has achieved his purpose.
He only read deeply or widely when it came to the "classics" of Western Literature. He was incredibly biased towards Western literature and especially English language literature. He had an irrational hatred for anything that became "popular" such as Harry Potter, Tolkien, or Stephen King. He couldn't handle novels which (in his opinion) weren't difficult or erudite that the "average" person could understand easily.
Thats completely fine, since there are a endless number of critics who fill in the gaps in Bloom's preferences. Few take seriously his canonical approach to literature anymore, but that doesn't make his critical approach to given works, or the appreciation he communicates for literature any less valuable.
My favorite commentary from him is on 'Frankenstein' which is not a difficult read. In fact he wrote about several 20th century books like 'Catch-22' and 'Death of a Salesman'. But yes I don't think he analyzed John Grisham etc if that's what you mean.
Comments
There are few people who've read so widely and deeply as Harold Bloom. For all his idiosyncrasies as a critic and for whatever personal flaws he might have had, he inspired a generation of readers to read more and explore the classics of Western civilization. His books are valuable guides to the vast world of Western literature, and if they help preserve even a fraction of that heritage for the next generation of readers I think Bloom has achieved his purpose.
We've lost a great mind today. RIP
He only read deeply or widely when it came to the "classics" of Western Literature. He was incredibly biased towards Western literature and especially English language literature. He had an irrational hatred for anything that became "popular" such as Harry Potter, Tolkien, or Stephen King. He couldn't handle novels which (in his opinion) weren't difficult or erudite that the "average" person could understand easily.
Thats completely fine, since there are a endless number of critics who fill in the gaps in Bloom's preferences. Few take seriously his canonical approach to literature anymore, but that doesn't make his critical approach to given works, or the appreciation he communicates for literature any less valuable.
My favorite commentary from him is on 'Frankenstein' which is not a difficult read. In fact he wrote about several 20th century books like 'Catch-22' and 'Death of a Salesman'. But yes I don't think he analyzed John Grisham etc if that's what you mean.