Rating: 
Summary: Aesthetic Idolatry
Review: Bloom adopted Giambattista Vico's cyclical theory of history for organization of the western canon. Vico proposed that history is divided into three ages: an age of gods, an age of heroes, and an age of men followed by a chaos out of which a new historical cycle will begin. After his introductory Elegy for the Canon, Bloom skips the Theocratic Age, proceeding to the Aristocratic Age, the Democratic Age, the Chaotic Age, and his Elegiac Conclusion. Each age has 6-8 chapters, each chapter devoted to an author or group of authors. The authors are, in order: Aristocratic: Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Cervantes, Montaigne, Moliere, Milton, Samuel Johnson, and Goethe; Democratic: Wordsworth, Austen, Whitman, Dickinson, Dickens, George Eliot, Tolstoy, and Ibsen; Chaotic: Freud, Proust, Joyce, Woolf, Kafka, Borges, Neruda, Pessoa, and Beckett. He begins with Shakespeare whom he calls the center of the canon. Bloom exalts Shakespeare almost to a godlike state in his aesthetic zeal. In fact, every other author in the book is related to Shakespeare in some way. For example, Chaucer's Pardoner, he says, was a prototype for Shakespeare's Iago and Edmund. Tolstoy, he says, could not handle the influence of Shakespeare in his works so much so that he had to disavow him in his essay What is art?. The reason Freud believed Shakespeare was really the Earl of Oxford is that he could not himself reckon with Shakespeare's greatness and Freud's reading of Shakespeare was really Shakespeare's reading of life. Bloom can appear at times a little too radical in some of his statements. For example he claims that the Jesus of the American religion is not the true Jesus of Nazareth, of the Crucifixion, or of heaven but only the Jesus of the Resurrection. He says that the Jesus Christians worship is a literary figure created by the writer of the Gospel of Mark. He exalts the search for aesthetic greatness above all else in canonical works, even dismissing morality in them past the point of serving its aesthetic purpose. But he can be forgiven some of his university gobbledygook. The real thesis of the book is that the feminists, Marxists, new historicists, deconstructonists, Freudians, and other ideologues that are taking over the universities are wrong that the western canon, just because it is made up of a bunch of dead white males, is outdated. He defends the western canon very effectively, especially against adding period authors just because of their ethnicity or gender. He argues for the aesthetic merit and place in the canon of each of the authors he covers in the chapters eloquently and justly. I dare anyone who reads this review to read this book and you will be converted, too.
Rating:
Summary: Worth Anyone's Consideration
Review: Harold Bloom has been, arguably, the world's best reader, the most wide-ranging and the most retentive. Some people believe his book, The Western Canon, verges on the audacious since Bloom dares to list what Western literary works are canonical as well as what ones will be. While the appendices, with their lists of books, are the section of The Western Canon that provokes the most argument, these take up relatively few of the book's 578 pages. Bloom begins with a "Preface and Prelude," then indicates the mood the book will assume in "An Elegy for the Canon." Adopting Giambattista Vico's theory of history, Bloom then goes on to discuss twenty-six writers from different ages of literature. From the Aristocratic Age: Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Cervantes, Montaigne, Molière, Milton, Johnson and Goethe; from the Democratic Age: Wordsworth, Austen, Whitman, Dickinson, Dickens, George Eliot, Tolstoy and Ibsen; and from the Chaotic Age: Freud, Proust, Joyce, Woolf, Kafka, Borges, Neruda, Pessoa and Beckett. Just before the appendices is the "Elegiac Conclusion," in which Bloom says he has "very little confidence that literary education will survive its current malaise," but he hopes that there will be "literate survivors." Early in the book, Bloom tells us that he is not interested in the debate among those want to preserve the Western canon and those who want to destroy it. Instead, Bloom is interested only in literary aesthetics and he claims that canonicity comes "only by aesthetic strength, which is constituted primarily of an amalgam: mastery of figurative language, originality, cognitive power, knowledge, exuberance of diction." Bloom believes in the existence of canons, he says, because the very brevity of life prevents us from reading more than a fraction of the literature created by various authors throughout the centuries. The Western Canon is more than an interesting book; it is also very thought-provoking. Some of the questions raised include: Is canonicity always the result of one writer's triumph over a great literary ancestor? Do not canons, to some degree, depend on the choices of the wealthy as well as on chance, luck or other devices of caprice? Does Bloom put too much emphasis on cognitive difficulty, choosing books that few readers outside of universities would ever want to read, much less reread? Then there is the excessive praise of Shakespeare as the entire center of the Western Canon. Is this perceptive criticism or does it cross the line into idolatry? There are those who believe Bloom is too quick to dismiss the moral value of literature. Shelley, they say, went too far in his Defence of Poetry in praising great literature for enlarging a reader's imagination and thus leading to moral improvement. But Bloom, say the same critics, fails to go far enough in acknowledging the moral implications inherent in all great literature. The greatest arguments, however, are reserved for the lists at the end of the book. How could Bloom leave out this author and include that? Why is this book included and that one is not? But even the critics have to praise Bloom for the breadth of his lists; his idea of the Western canon includes authors from the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Asia, Africa, the West Indies and South America. Bloom even notes The Mahabharata and the Ramayana and says that "ignorance of the Koran is foolish and increasingly dangerous." Bloom has also included English-language works by writers whom one would not necessarily think of as Western, for example: R.K. Narayan, Salman Rushdie and Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. Another source of controversy has been the (almost) exclusion of female authors. Bloom does mention Alice Walker even before he gets to his lists, but he refuses to say anything good about her. Regarding the works of Toni Morrison, Bloom sees fit to include only Song of Solomon in the canon. He omits all works by Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Adrienne Rich, Ayn Rand, Bobbie Ann Mason and Pearl Buck. To be fair, Bloom leaves out a number of male authors as well, authors whom one would have assumed would have been included such as John Gardner, John Updike (represented only by The Witches of Eastwick) and Arthur Miller (represented only by Death of a Salesman). Although some have accused Bloom of composing a canon made up of Dead White European Males, he does include several American authors in his lists as well as devoting half chapters to Jane Austen and George Eliot and full chapters to Emily Dickinson and Virginia Woolf, all of whom he praises lavishly. The Western Canon will never be beyond argument and debate, that is simply an impossibility. People will always disagree with Bloom on one point or another. In the final analysis, Bloom, this century's greatest reader, has treated an enormously important topic with tremendous expertise. And, although an eccentric par excellence, Bloom has definitely compiled astute reading suggestions and critical opinions that certainly deserve anyone's careful consideration.
Rating: 
Summary: Bloom is right and wrong
Review: He is dead on right about the university system collapsing into madness. At my college alone(U of Iowa), they have 5 classes about african american Literature, and one devoted to the epic poem(homer, virgil, ovid, beowulf, etc.). Epics like this are infinitely more important(and more influential) than toni morrison or whatever. Luckily i did get into that one section they offered.
Bloom is wrong when he devalues religion and morality. Those are central issues to many great books(pretty much all I'd say).
Bloom is also sadly wrong about Shakespeare. Shakespeare has been surpassed by many writers of the last few centuries. He isn't they end all be all.
He is all way wrong about Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Sure Tolstoy denounced Shakespeare in "what is Art", but he also denounced War and Peace and Anna Karenina-his own books!! I don't think that means he couldn't handle his own writing!
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Best Books First--But What Are They?
Review: There is nothing better than a good book discussion. Everyone who takes reading seriously has ideas on what the best and most important books are. Certainly Harold Bloom is a serious reader and in this book he offers us his insights into some of the highlights of the past 500 years in Western literature. Even so, in 500 pages he is able to give us only about 25 authors. Fortunately, he also gives us a number of appendices listing many others. At the head of Bloom's "western canon" is, not surprisingly, William Shakespeare. In fact, I would probably agree with Bloom on the basic fact of Shakespeare's importance to Western literature; however, if there is a weakness in Bloom's book, it his constant references to Shakespeare throughout the book. I admire Shakespeare as probably the single greatest dramatist in English but I do not think everything written since is simply a homage or reaction to Shakespeare. Shakespeare changed all of literature after him but he had his sources. Shakespeare was a source for writers after him but Cervantes, Montaigne, Whitman, Kafka and others altered our literature in ways that have no relationship to Shakespeare. I also have trouble with the idea that Falstaff is the most important Shakespearean character or that King Lear is the most important play. When Bloom focuses on these ideas he reveals his prejudices. He also reveals himself as an old man. We all relate most closely to those characters in which we can see our reflection. I somehow doubt that Falstaff was Bloom's favorite when he was in his twenties. Still, despite his obsession with Shakespeare, Bloom's intellect and experience range wide. He has a number of wonderful insights into the various authors he discusses and I admire his belief in the importance of literature. It is a belief that I share. Additionally, I enjoy Bloom's digs at feminist, Marxist and Freudian criticism. Though I feel they have made some important contributions to literary criticism, I would agree with Bloom's assertions concerning the damage they have done as well. I agree strongly with the idea that a book must earn a place in the canon by its brilliance and originality; not simply because it was written by a woman or a minority. But, ultimately, we need not worry too much about the canon, I think. Books are suffering these days, it is true, but reading will never become obsolete and so literature will survive. And the canon will constantly reinvent itself as books are rediscovered and authors go in and out of vogue. (Even Shakespeare's popularity waxes and wanes.) Still, whether in a peak of popularity or a trough, some authors and their works will always be read and studied and this is how an author makes it to the canon. It is not a position granted by literature professors, no matter how much they wish it might be so. But it's nice to have professor's like Bloom to keep us talking about it.
Rating:
Summary: A good, if difficult to approach, book.
Review: If there is a problem with this book, it doesn't sit in any of Bloom's arguments, but rather in the fact that the underlying assumption about the canon is you've already read it. At heart, Harold Bloom's book is basically a series of essays on the best works of the best authors Western Literature has to offer. Unfortunately, few people will have read every author listed. Without at least a passing familiarity with the authors Bloom talks about, the book is useless. Everyone will have quibbles with the exact authors chosen, and I'm no different. I have doubts about the place in the cannon of Borgas and Neruda. But to really get anything out of this book, you have to look beyond that. Even if you disagree with his choices, you may benefit by at least listening to and considering his opinions. But in the end, what's most thought provoking is the argument against the politicization of literature. I've repeatedly heard Harold Bloom called a "conservative critic." Hogwash! The books and authors he advocates seem to take care to write works that aren't about politics, but instead strive for a thoughtful art form.
Rating:
Summary: Thank God I read this book
Review: When I think of the crackpot, marginalised trivia that was served up to me as "literary theory" at University... at times I wondered why we did not simply bin all our novels, plays, and poetry collections, and just sit in circles of mutual reassurance discussing teenage/feminist/homosexual angst. Bloom urgently draws our attention back to the fact that the Canon is all about LITERATURE. (Perhaps someday we will find out how they entered the classrooms and covertly escorted literature off the premises). When I read a great work, I expect to find excellent craftsmanship and profound insights into human nature, along with exquisite choice of language, aesthetic sensibilities, imagery, plot, allusions, and all the subtle pleasures of a deeply satisfying read. If only "dead white males" (and females) have succeeded in producing work to this standard, then so be it. (I often wonder why the dead-white-male mantra brigade have deliberately written Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, George Eliot, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Willa Cather, etc., etc., etc., out of history). We don't need anarchic, intentionally disruptive voices interrupting the work every two minutes. Clearly, the "dumbing down" movement has taken a grip on all areas of our great culture. But to mount so blatant an attack on the bastions of the masters of our heritage, as some of the reviewers here have done, either indicates that rashness has replaced subversive stealth, or else the threat is greater than we thought, and that we need to bring even greater literary cannon to bear...
Rating:
Summary: Essays aren't much to shout about - the list has been useful
Review: I discovered this book in high school, and was pleased to find someone who thoughts books were as important and exciting as I did. He also succeeded in communicating this excitement in a way that few teachers do, and pointed me in the direction of many books that proved to be genuinely great. But honestly this book is not worth the time it takes to read. Other than a few rants against multiculturalism, Bloom just picks some masterpiece and says, Man is this a good book. Then he moves on to another masterpiece: Whoa, this is real good too. They are useless as either criticism or as a guide to the books he recommends; there is little that is helpful or insightful. The books he chooses are all classics, and I doubt many people are arguing with him about the fact that they're good. As far as I can tell, most of the books he has written after this are pretty much the same. The Western Canon is at least more useful because the list at the back contains some good information on translations of choice and other stuff I wouldn't know anything about. Plus every once in a while I get curious about an author or a book that I'm unfamiliar with, and discover something wonderful. Maybe xerox the list, but otherwise save your time for those books of the ages instead of The Western Canon.
Rating: 
Summary: Joke
Review: Just one question: where is T.S.Eliot?.Hate this book.Bloom is not a serious critic and if you want one, i can give you now: T.S.ELIOT. End of story. Hell, The Western Canon without Eliot?Hahaha
Rating:
Summary: Is it still paranoia if you are right?
Review: Like those in Blake, Dostoevsky, and Dickinson, the ideas in The Western Canon caused me great mental strife. I had given little thought to the disintegration of literary criticism in America and other places. To hear that it was all coming down made me think of schizophrenic prophets ringing bells in Central Park. It sounded insane, but due to the tremendous intelligence and goodness that shine through these pages (the best reason to read this book is Bloom himself), I couldn't easily dismiss it. Two years and one hour later, having just emerged from a contemporary literary criticism class, I sat down to write this review and say, yes, Bloom is absolutely right. The end of sane criticism may very well be near.
Well, he isn't right about everything. He rails against ideology and claims that aestheticism escapes the classification. It doesn't. Maybe at one time it did, but it can't possibly exist not in oppostion to those trying to deconstruct it.
This book gave me more mental adventure that any ten criticism texts I have read (several since my class). Bloom is beautiful. Agree with everything he says or no, he is the most thought provoking and outright fun (doesn't that matter anymore?) critic writing today.
P.S. If you think paranoia isn't justified check out some of the "overlooked" pieces cultural critics want canonical status for. I argued with my (very intelligent) professor over Edward P. Mead's travesty "The Steam King" almost the whole hour.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth looking into, but seriously flawed...
Review: This book amounts to a survey of Western literature since Dante and Shakespeare, and is a typical Bloom-book in being very thought-provoking. His central message is a very important one -- Western civilization is apparently at some risk of abandoning its literature. However improbable this may sound, I hasten to assure you that our radicalized universities have done everything in their power to neglect and abandon our literary masterpieces. At a large state university in California, the standard reading list for the "Great Books" course (formerly several dozen books) has been reduced to:
1. Plato's "Symposium"
2. Thoreau's "Walden"
3. Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj"
4. Alice Walker's "The Color Purple" Even more melancholy is the fact that this list evidently includes one "gay" book, one "environmentalist" book, one "pacifist" book, and one "feminist" book. That three of them are bilge seems not to have occurred to the nominating committee. (Many would deny Thoreau that palm -- I urge them to re-read this idiotic pretentious crack-pate in the company of "Saint Gandhi" and his lunatic prescriptions for India: "Get rid of all the trains and all the doctors," indeed!) So, the current situation in American universities is chilling, reminiscent of the Chinese purges during the "Cultural Revolution" (which was actually neither cultural nor a revolution, come to think of it, since it was a counter-revolution instigated by Mao against his enemies, and was explicitly anti-intellectual and anti-cultural. A mob attacked and destroyed the birthplace of Confucious during those palmy days.) Nevertheless, although Bloom is fighting the good fight, and is extremely erudite and thought-provoking, I must note two very serious objections to this present work. First, the Greeks and the Romans are mostly absent. I really don't see how you can even pretend to discuss "The Western Canon" and leaveout Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles and the rest of the Greeks and the Romans. Especially since Bloom is extremely fond of the Old Testament
("the Yahwist"), this omission is startling. Second, I strongly object to the presence of Freud in this book. This mountebank first demanded our attention as a scientist -- as a man of medicine. To find him transmogrified into a Literary Artist -- at Bloom's whim -- simply boggles the imagination. If you put these two faults together, and conclude that Freud has been included at the expense of the Greeks, then the result is a tremendously flawed book. It becomes a presentation of the "Western Canon" which is almost whimsical. Not highly recommended!
|
