Rating: 
Summary: Shakespeare: the Rancidity of the Human
Review: Prof. Bloom's rancid study of Shakespeare is sure to sound in the cosmic abysses of self with cognitive music. Why Shakespeare? Bloom asks. The answer seems to be that no other writer is quite as . . . rancid.The writer employs his pen with proleptic zeal about all the plays, but most especially *Hamlet* and the *Henry IV* duo. The characters of Hamlet and Falstaff are whom principally matter, according to Bloom. He even goes so far as to suggest that each character represents some sort of abyss within Shakespeare himself. Iago (and for some reason) Rosalind also get copious ink, but their selves just don't have as much, well, "abyss" as Hamlet and Falstaff. (Perhaps they're not "abysmal" enough?) After all, Hamlet utilizes the cognitive music of "let be" -- and Falstaff has Titanic Wit. Who else can compare? Well, according to our Johnsonian critic, Edmund is an icy nihilist, which may have surprised Edmund because after all nihilists aren't particularly interested in political power but whatever. Iago has mucho abysses of self, so he scores pretty high. He also OVERHEARS HIMSELF THINKING, which is damn important, apparently. Macbeth is really proleptic. Cleopatra is more cognitive than Antony. The problem plays are appropriately rancid -- or, as Bloom would put it, they have a high level of rancidity. The cameo part of Barnardine sends Bloom into orgiastic reverie -- Barnardine is super rancid. Shakespeare in his early career was having an "agon" w / Kit Marlowe. "Agon" must be a bookworm's version of either hissy-fit or outright plagiarism. Now all this gave way to the cognitive, titanic wittiness of Falstaff, Prince of Play, "mortal god of my imaginings", sez Bloom. The critic despises poor Prince Hal, who is having his own agon with the Fat Knight. All this goes on for 50 or so more pages. Now don't ask me what the *Hamlet* chapter was about. I think it was about the rancidity of the Danish court and Hamlet's abysses of self, along with the cognitive music bit, but I'm not really sure. Get the idea? If you can take it, it's all yours, baby. The best thing about the book is its criticisms of career academics who kinda invent stuff about Shakespeare and literature in general in order to get tenure. For that alone, Bloom does deserve two stars. But on the whole, I found the book too . . . rancid.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Much Bloom; Too Much Shakespeare
Review: Mix feeling between a compliment and a critic. Falstaff and Hamlet as role models of all western literature? And why not Raskolnikov or Don Quixote? What about Yourcenar's Hadrian? The book is a tour-de-force, but sometimes Bloom let us show (hey Harold, we know) how intelligent he is. Like in the Western Cannon, his opinions are more than that, are inequivocal truths. Reading other reviews, the word "opinionated" blurts out, like a critic. Why are someones so afraid to listen and learn what other really think? In my country, Argentina (and in Latin cultures) is a must
Rating:
Summary: Ultimately, a failure
Review: This book is an interesting read, but it fails in its state aim of establishing Shakespeare as the inventor of "Western Man" as we know him. I suspect that this is because the book is based on a very shaky premise. I'd be the first person to acknowledge the contributions of the Bard to thought but I dispute the claim that he invented the modern human personality. My other complaint lies in the fact that Bloom resorts to pedantry and verbiage to present his tenuous ideas. Particularly tiresome are his long expostulations on Hamlet and Falstaff (two of Bloom's favourite characters). The only reason I give this book 2 stars is that it presents a grand overview of Shakespeare's works. It contributes little to our understanding of the human being or literature. I'd just lump this book along with the countless others that indulge in empty and verbose Bardolatory.
Rating: 
Summary: hugely ambitious and worth reading
Review: I appreciate all my fellow reviewer's criticisms about the book: yes it's true that Bloom was opinionated, non-politically correct, and a bit of a wacko at times. Still, he's one of the few 20th century critics who has the self confidence not to fall into lit. crit. jargon to express himself -- he manages to avoid the snobbiness that often accompanies Shakespeare studies. The word I would use to describe this work overall is uneven. Some chapters are so insightful that you may ask yourself how you could have ever read the play without reading the essay and still appreciated it. Others are small ruminations on intersting points which are much less earthshattering. Sure, there are much more "scholarly" essays out there on Shakespeare, but these are all READABLE essays, all well-written. I happen to enjoy Bloom's lack of tight structure. It's like sitting down with Bloom at a coffee house or bar and hearing him ramble on about his thoughts and lifetime reflections on Shakespeare. But remember, Bloom was not just your average guy chewing his cud -- he's probably the most well-read and brilliant reader of our generation. Due to a sleep disorder that he had, he often would stay up all night and would typically consume several volumes of literature in one evening. So, when forced to listen to his musings, there are many kernels of brilliance that make their way to the surface. Many professors have begrudged him his popular success, but by avoiding jargon, Bloom does us all a service by popularizing Shakespeare for everyday readers and making us want to go back and read and reread Shakespeare. At the very least, these chapters will make you run to a bookstore to read more Shakespeare -- how can you criticize anyone who instills a passion for literature? I have read all of Bloom's major works and enjoyed them for many of the same reasons I list above. Buy this one and read a chapter or two at a time along with the plays. It's a book to be savored over a long period of time.
Rating:
Summary: There are better books about the plays
Review: Don't be fooled by the hype. Bloom has received a lot of press lately. He's old. He's a character. He's opinionated. But these facts do not make his book on Shakespeare worth buying. In presenting essays on each of Shakespeare's plays, Bloom copies Harold Goddard's The Meaning of Shakespeare. But, Goddard's book is much better, and the essays are all thoughtful and beautifully written. The same is not true of Bloom's book. He concentrates on Hamlet, Henry V, Othello, and others at the expense of providing thoughtful comments on each play. Some essays are so brief they seem either to have come from less of a lover of Shakespeare than Bloom professes to be, from someone too lazy to deftly treat each play, or from someone who really only wanted to write about some plays but felt obligated to include all plays. This would have been a better book if Bloom had concentrated on only those plays needed to prove his thesis. Get Harold Goddard's book instead. Also try Jan Kott's Shakespeare Our Contemporary. They are better.
Rating:
Summary: A reading gusto, but...
Review: ..not entirely satisfying. I won't elaborate on the structure of the book ( other reviewers have done this,IMO, satisfactorily ). I'll just try to tackle Bloom's magnum opus major failures, originating from the central "idea"/leitmotiv of the book. So, it's not plot, characters, or Shakespeare's literary/cultural eminence in question. It's Bloom's ignorance & preposterousness when it comes to extraliterary generalizations. And these misfires lie in the few central theses of the book: 1. The very notion of "personality" Bloom credits Shakespeare to have invented remains virtually undefined through the entire work. Of course, one can cut good Bloom some slack, but even such "non-scientific" psychologies like humanist or existentialist ( not to speak on transpersonal ), have done a pretty well job in delineating this ( for Bloom, at least ) incomprehensible & frightening mystery. Annoyingly, Blooms sings dithyrambs to Hamlet's self as "cosmological abyss", ..etc,etc. Anyone conversant either with traditional/archaic spiritual psychologies/pneumatologies, be it Christian ( with Gnostic & Alchemical undercurrents ), Sufi/Islamic, Kabbalistic/Jewish, Vedantist or Buddhist Tantric traditions; or "modern" probings of Jung, Assagioli, Wilber, Gerda Walther,..can only find this ( or similar other ravings throughout the book ) simply a statement of naive faith & diagnose a chronic Bard-addiction. Being a Shakespeare- junkie is not a bad thing ( I myself am, to a degree, exactly this ); however, an ignorant adulation ( re Bloom's "the invention of the human" lunatic megaidolatry ) is simply out of touch with reality ( or "reality principle", as Bloom's another fixation, Freud, would put it. ) 2. Although frequently addressing "Western" approach to personality, Bloom fails to inform his readers where the difference between "West" and "East" re that personality ogre lies. Fortunately, Joseph Campbell has presented this clearly in the 2nd book of his magisterial "The Masks of God"- "Oriental Mythology". Also, Neumann's work "The History and Origins of Consciousness" remains the cornerstone for all those wishing to separate the wheat from chaff in Bloom's obsessions, delusions & sharp insights. 3. At the end, three hunches: a) I find in Bloom's cautious evasion of Dostoevsky & Jung a sign of his "anxieties". The twain would ( one as a prophetic novelist whose throngs of unforgettable characters enact visionary pneumatological dramas surpassing earthly family/blood/sex human condition; the other a wisdom writer, indeed a blend of prophet, sage & "guru" ( the last aspect I'm least favorable of )) have reperspectived Bloom's Shakespeare in such a way to dwarf & reduce Bloom's Bard-worshipping to a case of personal quirkiness. b) In Bloom's insistence on Shakespeare as a Neo-Pagan with shamanistic potential for psychic dissociation, having very little in common with Christian sensibility, lies much truth. But, alas, not fully to Shakespeare's advantage. While his secularism is a healthy antidote to brainwashing fundamentalisms that threaten average (wo)man's mental sanity, Shakespeare remains forever enclosed within confines of the "natural" world. I'm forced to say, against my will- an admirable feat, but....not enough, not enough. c) The last ( and, of course, not least ): Bloom's faith in imaginative literature ( his Jeremiah-like laments notwithstanding ) as the chief agens in reshaping global "consciousness" and culture ( what's that ? ) is, IMO, a touchy example of professional delusion & wishful thinking. Given contemporary cultural trends, one could reluctantly and uneasily surmise that Shakespeare ( along with Plato, the Bible, Dostoevsky & the rest ) will vanish, at least for a time, as a wider cultural influence. END
Rating:
Summary: For Serious Shakespeare Lovers
Review: This literary analysis of Shakespeare's plays is for people deeply into Shakespeare. It is a fine adjunct to the plays but not a short-cut to them. You can enjoy it (whether or not you agree with its sometimes-controversial conclusions) if you are intimately familiar with each play or, as another review suggests, have read the play immediately beforehand. If not, you will understand little and learn less. (If you simply want a one-volume reference to the plays' characters, plots, etc. then get Asimov.) The author is a professor of literature and, like many such, expresses himself in ways that sound good spoken aloud but often seem to come up just short of making sense; decide for yourself. His thesis - that Shakespeare "invented the human" - is a stretch but agreeing with it is not essential to appreciating the book.
Rating:
Summary: Samuel Johnsonesque -- Bloom as raconteur and provocateur
Review: Some readers need to lighten up! Pick from this bountiful and pleasurable book like you would pluck grapes from a bunch, and use it as a springboard to formulating your own responses to Shakespeare, whether in agreement or disagreement with Bloom the Bardolator. For all you readers who sniff about cant and fret that Professor Bloom ignores agendas dear to you -- I must say that Bloom's thorough zest for his subject completely annihilates your persnicketiness. (The book is neither jargon-laden nor disingenuous; I'm afraid I just don't see where it's cant.) Bloom does just what professors of high standing are best in position to do -- they are ultimately the ones who can relate deep subject matter in their fields to the widest general audiences while fearlessly advancing challenging and counter-trendy ideas. Obviously it is impossible to agree with everything said in such a book as this. The book needs to be treated like a trove of juicy lecture notes or a compendium of choice commentaries by a lively dinner guest. This is the venerable professor in full Sam Johnson mode -- unrepentantly provocative, with plenty of barbed responses for narrow or doctrinaire alternatives. Like Dr. Johnson, Bloom here is always unabashedly himself, fully aware that he may make certain others all hot and bothered, and always tossing off evidence of the depth of his readings at every turn. Dive into this one by all means -- get ready to argue with him -- at the very least engage yourself with this explosion of ideas about the Bard's works and for God's sake enjoy yourself!
Rating: 
Summary: Infuriating, Fascinating, Matchless
Review: Having read Bloom's resigned expectation that the politically petrified will go ballistic over his conclusions, I'm amused to see that he's struck nerves in feminists, modernists, and lots of people with "attitudes" about Shakespeare's plays. I've read dozens and dozens of books on Shakespeare, many good, many foolish, many better written, more condensed, occasionally more profound, than this. But I adore this book. Bloom's energetic love for the plays and the man who wrote them illuminates every page, even when he's fussing, complaining, or even (although seldom) missing points about one play or another. After all, he surveys every play Shakespeare wrote, a pretty mammoth achievement for anyone. And he does it with zest, wisdom, pithy commentary, occasionally brilliant flashes of genuine insight, frequent flashes of sheer good teaching, and all the flaws and frailties that flesh is heir to. It's a Falstaffian performance in every way (even though I totally disagree with his elevating Falstaff to the pantheon of "greatest characters.") I disagree with much of it and read every word. If you love Shakespeare, you have to love this wise, fussy, witty, infuriating old man who so obviously adores him too. And - as long as you leave your attitude at home and don't grudge him his - you'll learn a lot. I haven't read a book on Shakespeare like this in 20 years. In fact - maybe never. One of a kind!
Rating:
Summary: Its "Shakespeare for the Common Reader"
Review: If you enjoy reading Shakespeare's plays, this is a great companion volume. I read a play, and then read the relevant chapter in Bloom's book. The exercise made me think about Shakespeare's text and characters in ways I may otherwise never have done. Needless to say, this adds to one's appreciation of the Bard's works. Bloom's adoration of G. K. Chesterton is a good thing, but he cannot write Chestertonian prose, and fails when he tries. The chapters on Hamlet and the Henry IV plays are (paradoxically) the least satisfying because the author's obsession with Hamlet and Falstaff leaves little space for a serious discussion of many of the other characters. A revised, second edition would be welcome.
| 
