Rating: 
Summary: It's Apparent...
Review: ...that Vergil, Homer, Dante, Chaucer, Marlowe, and Spenser were all just waiting for someone to come along and invent Falstaff. Before him, there was no personality. ;) Anyway, it's plainly obvious that Mr. Bloom loves Shakespeare--and who, as a serious reader, doesn't? The Bard is surely the finest writer in the English letters and one of the towers of the Western canon...but I don't think he 'invented' the human. One can easily find vast contributions to psychology and intellectual attitude within plays such as Hamlet and Othello (to name just a few), but to push these contribution to hyperbolic limits and claim that one man--Shakespeare, a man standing upon the shoulders of many literary giants--singlehandedly invented the human conception of self is a bit outlandish. Besides that, this is a fairly interesting discussion of Shakespeare's works, but nowhere near a definitive piece of critcism. For that, try Isaac Asimov's guide to Shakespeare, which contains none of the ivory tower musing that pollutes much of this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Good stuff, when he's not inventing theologies
Review: The idea that Shakespeare created every mannerism I possess is presumptuous in the extreme, but then again, you don't become one of the most prominent literary critics of our time without being presumptuous.In fact, all literary criticism revolves around the burning sun of presumption, and Bloom knows how to borrow that fire better than almost anyone. Do not be fooled, this is Bloom's attempt to permanently enthrone Shakespeare above all in the pantheon of history, even above his beloved Freud. Even if he suggests Freud's analysis can lead to us Shakespeare better than anyone, he is still lifting up Shakespeare above all. The man's arms must be getting tired from constantly trying to ascend already ascended figures. He spends a lot of time on Hamlet. A lot of time. And while this may be justified by the fact that Hamlet was the best thing Shakespeare ever wrote, there are other plays that deserve just as much space. He also ignores (basically) the sonnets, which accounts for 50% of Shakespeare genius. However, in terms of Shakespeare criticism, you will be hard pressed to find someone who has spent more time pouring over the material, thinking about it, publishing about it, and generally living it day to day. Bloom's grasp of Shakespeare has reached a level so far above others that he's no longer considered the best there is. I remember a few years above, Stephen Greenblatt was supposedly the cutting-edge in Shakespeare. No one wanted to talk to me about Bloom in the English department, they were too busy divorcing and remarrying each other. The problem here is that there is hardly any usefulness outside of pure inventive thought. Using this in your thesis on Shakespeare, in today's literary zeitgeist, is going to be met with a resounding groan. Bloom is too good, and he even seems to recognize this by establishing something called the "School of Resentment," which includes anyone who buys into modern literary theory. This excludes Bloom, of course, so you see the equation. The trouble is, who is being resented; Shakespeare for being so good, or Bloom for being so quick as to see how good Shakespeare really is?
Rating: 
Summary: An 800-page tomb that loses its way completely
Review: While Harold Bloom's high state of art and his throne at the top of the critic's pile are unassailable, his "Shakespeare: the invention of the human," is a disaster of probabilities and possibilities (if a graduate student had written this he/she would fail miserably for pouring opinion upon unrelated and unsubstantiated opinion): The "early" Hamlet - which he admits was never found - becomes a metaphor for the failure of this book; Bloom refers to this play so often "in absentia" (it would have....it might have....) that it becomes an imagined cornerstone for too much of his musing. The truth is that in this book Bloom tries to create his own reality, so that the years of one-on-one discussion between himself and Shakespears characters are not seen as madness but as some kind of ongoing dinner discussion each evening at home. The (real or wished for) similarity between Bloom and Sir John Falstaff is striking, and by the end of this book my response to Bloom is much like that of Henry V to Sir John: "I know thee not old man"!
Rating: 
Summary: Why is everyone threatened by Harold Bloom?
Review: I've read the book of course, and I've read reviews of the book in various mags and such. I'm astounded by the amount of comments that sound like this: "You don't have to agree with him; what's important is that you go back to the texts", or, "Bloom too often derides political correctness" . . . What's wrong with deriding political correctness? It clearly needs to be derided, and thank God Harold Bloom is here to do it. And, as far as not agreeing with Bloom and simply going back to the plays, I daresay that one needs to read "Invention of the Human" first before reading Shakespeare. In the dreadful cultural climate of 1998, an average reader doubtlessly brings an assortment of wrong-headed baggage to such sublime works of art. Read Bloom's new book: it will not only teach you how to read Shakespeare, but will teach you how to read, period. BTW, for all you defenders of the REAL Western Canon, out there, prepare to rejoice. To paraphrase the Bard: "Now gods, stand up for literary elitists!" --- Genius Rules ---
|
