<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Accurate
Review: Albeit expensive, this compilation of criticism is worth every penny solely because of Mr. Bloom's pessimistic assessment of what he calls the "King phenomenom."(Not verbatim) Stephen King marks the death of the Literate Reader in America.
Rating: 
Summary: Bloom Is Off the Rose
Review: If literacy is dead, Bloom killed it. Bloom never understood the simple fact that since the Vulgate edition of the Bible, it has been the popular culture that animates literature; and it is the popular genres--mystery, fantasy, horror, science fiction, and so on that energize it. Bloom wants all literature to be the mundane, vapid tomes of the academy. This is the kind of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that turns off even the most disciplined of young minds to literary pursuits. If Bloom doesn't get why King is a master storyteller, or why J. K. Rowling has everybody reading about Harry Potter, he's hopeless. Put him out to pasture. Don't waste your money on this book.
Rating:
Summary: Salute to the King!
Review: Stephen King will not be read in hundred years, huh? A good example of staying power is H.P. Lovecraft, who published a few things before his death. No one knew who the heck he was. Now, close to a hundred years (close enough) from his first publshed work, he is still widely read and revered in many circles. Stephen King has been named in the top 100 Pop Culture Icons, and films inspired by his work will live forvever. "Shawshank Redemption", "Dolores Claiborne", "The Green Mile", "Stand by Me" films will last. He will last. He has won the most awards of any author alive! King is celebrated throughout the world because of his unique writing. Without him...my these critics just do not know how much he has influenced writers from all genres. Dennis Lehane, Michael Connely, James Patterson, Stewart O'Nan, Ray Bradbury, Richard Matheson cite King as an influence. "Literary" authors of all countries count him as an influence. What he has contributed is your opinion Harold Bloom/others, but my God, King just received the National Book Award for DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN LETTERS. The highest honor. Walter Mosely introduced him at the awards ceremony! Saying that King will not survive and be around a hundred years from now is like saying Harry Potter won't be read a hundred years from now. Sour grapes. Read King's books. Find out for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Bloom has a point, despite what we may think
Review: Ultimately you can't refute Harold Bloom. He is too powerful and astute a literary critic to be chastised by the common reader. Let me tell you why. I grew up loving Stephen King, and I still enjoy him now and again, but what the reviewers below me fail to realize is that King has nothing of extraordinary value to add to literature. He may be the world's absolute best-selling author, but one hundred years after his death no one will be reading his works. Why? Because, as Bloom indefatigably argues, only strength can join itself to strength when it comes to literary survival. King doesn't have the aesthetic brilliance, originality, or strange figurative language to sustain his legacy for long. He can only represent and be represented by his space and time, and for those of you who say that it is popular culture that determines the success and trascendence of any product, then I can only shake my head in dismay that American Idol, Britney Spears, and pornography represent the best of our culture. Popular culture is transient, and, thus, King is transient. Shakespeare may have been popular culture, but that is incidental to his literary supremacy. While the masses may have financially supported him, he was still a genius. The masses only ensured that he would write all his plays without having to worry about economic conditions. While I still read King every once in a while, I attribute this penchant of mine to my inchoate taste and general immaturity. Eventually, my growing sense of discrimination will force me to leave King in favor of others: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Tolstoy, etc. It is sad that this must happen, but finally necessary. We occupy a small bit of time on this vast Earth, and there are too many writers across too many years to focus on the mediocre ones.
Rating:
Summary: What an utter load of rubbish!
Review: Why Harold Bloom has a bug up his keister is beyond me. Having earned a PhD in English literature, and having studied King at the university level in Britain from the early 1990s onward, I have to say that this man is too old now. He's lost his touch with literature. The classics are great, but for a man who never contributed earth-shattering literature to the world while he was alive, I can begin to understand why he would feel the need to slam younger, more successful, and better-looking writers. To people who feel that you need to read books by Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Tolstoy, I have two things to say. 1) Join the living! 2) Shakespeare didn't write books, he wrote plays!
<< 1 >>
| 
