Talk:Harold Bloom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Recent Writers

"Since Murdoch's death, Bloom has expressed admiration for novelists such as John Banville, Peter Ackroyd, Will Self, and A. S. Byatt." Are there any online links that illustrate Blooms admiration for these writers? They all seem like writers Bloom would like, but have only ever come across him discussing Banville. A reference would be much appreciated, did he talk about them in a televisual/newspaper interview not available online, or in a recent book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.2.80 (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] early discussion

I changed the paragraph concerning his judgments of recent american poets back to more or less the way I myself wrote it on September 28 - with a few names added. Crane, Frost, Pound, eliot, Williams and some of the others aren't really 'recent writers', Bloom does not like Pound or Williams, and I don't recall him singling out E.A. Robinson for any reason. - 66.190.242.110 December 7, 2003

[edit] Robinson

In "Genius," p. 714, he does indeed name Robinson, along with Pound, Williams, Crane, Frost, Eliot, Stevens, Merrill, Ammons and a few more, as one of the "superb poets" in American literature of the last century. To me it seems more reasonable to name the poets of the century rather than naming those who are "recent", as "recent" will mean something quite different to different people reading the entry at different times. -- Damion

It should be fairly obvious from the names mentioned that 'recent' in this context refers roughly to those appeared in the post-WWII period (Penn got started earlier, but Bloom only regards his later work), which is the period in which the canon appears to be completely unsettled, and the period of Bloom's professional life. The only reasons to include this section at all are that the writers Bloom favors are, for the most part, unknown or barely known to the average person (Ammons, Merrill, McCarthy, Saramago, Geoffrey Hill, etc.), and that some of his choices are unusual or controversial. By contrast, the probably canonicity Eliot, Frost, Pound, Hart Crane, Faulkner, Auden and others who were established before the war is so commonly known that there's no particular signifigance to the fact that Bloom also believes in it. - 66.190.242.110 December 12, 2003

If by "recent" you mean post-WWII, you should state so in the entry; otherwise, how is anyone to know? -- Damion

I clicked on a link to find allegations about Bloom's sexual misconduct with a student. It seems odd to have such a link without any sort of response... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.106.221.130 (talk) January 30, 2005

New comments on the bottom please, and please sign them, which you can do with four tildes (~). If there is a response from Bloom that you are aware of, please add it to the article. Gamaliel 20:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

Can we get a better image? I know he's not generally photogenic but it looks like he just witnessed a triple murder or something by that facial expression. --Tothebarricades 02:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about the one from the duskjacket of How to Read and Why with his smiling mug. Alas, I don't know the proper bureaucratic procedures to upload it myself. --24.131.209.132 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A better photo would indeed be good. (any year now ;) --Quiddity 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the picture was itself bad, but the quality was terrible. I've added a higher resoultion, better quality version of the identical image. And as far as Bloom looking depressed, I suppose the saying "the more you know, the less happy you are" is really proven in looking at Bloom. The man is a genius and knows far too much to be an average happy-go-lucky person. Rellman 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare

I couldn't find any better place to insert this comment, but there is a serious omission in this account: Shakespeare! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.83.158.68 (talk) July 11, 2006

[edit] Contacting Bloom?

I am in London, involved with the literary legacy of a significant 'christian' Jungian psychologist [the small 'c' and the single inverted commas are deliberate - I am a rabbi, which is why I am involved] David Holt, whose unpublished Zurich thesis in the late 50's/early sixties was on Persona-Actor, with particulat reference to Falstaff and Prince Hal, focussing on the 'rejection' scene. I would like to get this to Harold Bloom. How, please? I certainly am not interested in forwarding an unsolicited manuscript but for many reasons think he would enjoy the cited material, if he is still active. Thanks Jeffrey Newman 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could try his PR office or Yale U. But it's probably impossible. He's a celebrity. --goethean ॐ 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sending an unsolicited manuscript might not be such a bad idea. I can remember hearing him say, in at least one interview, that he reads at least some of all the mail he receives. You might try first sending him an explanation. But I don't think it would be so impossible to get him on the telephone: he's still teaching, and supposedly (I've only ever heard it from him, in interviews) very available to his students. Andrew123 30 June 2005 01:56 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for the complete quote

On the article there is a quote (from the context I assume it is from the preface to the Yates book) of Bloom saying about the poets that [he] "cannot be cannot be Adam early in the morning. There have been too many Adams, and they have named everything." Such a wonderful quote, but I wonder if this is the complete quote? I am unable to find a proper copy of the Yates book, so I can't check myself, so if someone would possibly give the complete quote and the page number it would be great. With best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.66.208.191 (talk) November 20, 2005

He says this somewhere in probably all of his books. --75.179.45.105 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated w/ "proteges" Kushner and Wolf?!

Someone needs to alter the stuff about Kushner being Bloom's protege at Yale. Kushner didn't go to Yale, and though he went to NYU he later (90s) spoke of being afraid to meet Bloom in person when someone set it up, which implies he never knew him. His work and Bloom's aren't particularly closely associated either.

And someone *really* needs to axe the remark that Bloom's work is associable with Naomi Wolf's. She was his student, sure, but as we know that didn't work out so good. I guess the comment about Paglia is valid enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.250.157.180 (talk) March 28, 2006

[edit] Is he jewish?

In the article he says he is jewish, but in the bottom of the page there is not the "Jewish American" box. Why? Is he not jewish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.20 (talk) June 3, 2006

Bloom is outrageously Jewish. In a secular sort of way. --24.131.209.132 01:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Affiliations & Employment

For an undetermined period of time, this article asserted that Harold Bloom, literary critic, is currently a "Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Professor in English and American Literature at New York University." This is not the case. Bloom currently does not hold this endowed professorship. He was employed by NYU as a professor of English some years ago; however, this relationship terminated in a very conclusive manner. Again, Bloom currently does not hold this endowed professorship, nor does he hold any other professorship, endowed or unendowed, in NYU English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NYUballer (talk • contribs).

Though some websites of NYU's College of Arts and Science do list Bloom as an employee, this is more of technicality than a reality. As stated above, Bloom maintains no substansive relationship as a scholar, teacher, researcher, or academic with NYU's English Dept. Though he most likely maintains a residence somewhere in NYC, he is a faculty member of NYU only insofar as a web page (which may be out of date) states this. For viewers of his entry in Wikipedia (99% of which are not clued into the vagaries and politics of the highest echelons of academia), this point is crucial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NYUballer (talk • contribs).

That may well be the case, but Wikipedia cannot make unsourced claims. The claim that HB is a visiting prof at NYU is sourced, so it is acceptable. Currently, your claim does not, and unless that changes, your claim will therefore be deleted. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bloom has said, and I think in a few interviews linked at the bottom of the article, that he's quit NYU. --24.131.209.132 20:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYU professorship

As far as New York University's College of Arts and Science roster is concerned, Harold Bloom still, indeed, holds the position of Berg Professor of English and American Literature. This is a position of a visiting professor. Though it is not as concrete as the one at Yale, this article still must include this information. I would like to see evidence for what someone, or some people, have otherwise stated. I am sure that NYU keeps up-to-date the list of individuals who hold positions there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.120.168 (talk) June 19, 2006

[edit] Behavior as a Professor

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Bloom has somewhat of a personal reputation on the Yale campus as an almost flirtatious man, referring to both male and female students as "my dear" and "my child". Additionally he has been known to make sexual advances on some female students, as can be seen in the case of Naomi Wolf, recalled with the stories of other female students in her article "The Silent Treatment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.167.198 (talk) August 3, 2006

Any such claim wuold have to be sourced to a media document. — goethean ॐ 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Silent Treatment" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs).
We have to cover his career of sexual harassment as well. http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/haroldbloom.html Skinnyweed 21:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
By all means, if you feel it is notable, add in a few sentences about the allegations. Just make sure that it is sourced and accurately reflects the reality of the allegations (i.e., let's not exaggerate it into a "career of sexual harassment"). Levi P. 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a chapter title "Sexual Harrassment of Naomi Wolf" which slyly changed an unproven allegation to a fact. First I tried changing it to "Sexual Harrassment Allegation" but that left this article disproportionately divided into Early Career, Late Career, Sexual Harrassment Allegation. So I just blended the charge into the late career. Nobody wants to sweep the charge under the rug, but be fair, it never went further than an allegation. Judging by the Clinton case, if it's real, and one speaks up, soon others are jumping out of the woodwork. I believed Wolf, at first, but it's been years now and she's still a lone voice. But leave it on the record. Profhum 09:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare.

The bard isn't mentioned once in the text of the article. Just FYI. I might take it upon myself to update this in the next week. --24.131.209.132 01:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I have rearranged, added parts, and revised the organization of the article, particularly the new section about Shakespeare and a little more about The Western Canon and Bloom's criticisms of the "School of Resentment." I've also learned never to edit an entire article by first pasting it into Word... There are probably some errors of italics, etc, left in the article, as I had to redo it all. Possibly, in the future I'd like to add more about Bloom's own influences, like Johnson, Emerson, Nietzsche, and Freud, the last two of whom I find it strange to be still unincluded.

Let any feedback be added here. --24.131.209.132 20:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit This Obviously Biased and Bloated Verbose Self-promotion

This whole article looks suspiciously like a blatent attempt ay self-promotion, or promotion by a close cohort. This guy is simply not important enough to warrent an article of this size, nor of the detail of biographic information. There are dozens of vastly more important writers, academics (and even critics) that have a fraction of the space and content devoted to them. The PhD title in the first paragraph is a dead give-away; these mediocre poseurs, desparate to canonise themselves amongst the legends of human endeavour always fall into an ego trap of their own construction such as this. This article reads like a verbose application letter - a self-congratulatiory and feverishly self-aggrandising prose version of a resume! I mean, look at the trivial things this pathetic little man has actually said during his "career" in a desperate attempt to attract attention to himself, or annoint other B-graders in a lme attempt to have "discovered" the next revolutionary genius.

Precis this article's bloated drivel down to a size and scope that is actually relevent to Blooms small importance, and without further hesitation!!! It is unrestrained self-promtional nonsense like this article which is causing Wikkipedia to be increasingly rubbished in many quaters, and will see the rise in closed-to-publisc, moderated, "expert administered" rivals, as is already beginning to occur.

Chop it down to an appropriate size, or I gladly will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.248.119 (talk) November 15, 2006

Is that you, Ms. Woolf? I'm the person who most recently wrote and reorganized much of this page, and while I am a great admirer of Bloom, you'll need to supply some direct quotes from it before anyone agrees to your claims of NPOV... or whatever it is that you're claiming. Wikipedia works so well because people who care deeply about something, either positively or negatively, contribute the articles about those things. Rereading this, I don't see any instances of bias. Perhaps it appears this way to you because you merely like Bloom's ideas in the first place. It would be hard, in other words, to write an article about flowers without someone thinking they're pretty. Your entire premise, however, that Bloom is "not important" is entirely scurrilous (as you know), since has been cited as "the most eminent literary critic in the world" by a number of important people. --76.188.161.254 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this guy indirectly responsible for Ashraf Marwan's death? If so, I think it deserves mention.-----Sorry, apparently there was a misprint in the online article I read that credited Harold Bloom for writing Italic textEve of DestructionItalic text instead of Howard Blum. Sorry Mr. Bloom. Here is the exact article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1996680.ece —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.27.220.226 (talk) June 28, 2007 and also —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.44.215.195 (talk) June 28, 2007

Personally, I think the article is fitting size for someone who has been able to irritate people just for standing up for what he believes in. But this isn't the only time Wiki's gone long. Look at Thomas Pynchon's article, there's a whole section on his 'supposed' whereabouts and the man hasn't been identified in public for over thirty years! --Sontag12 (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations NECESSARY

This article fails the style guide requirements for Citing Sources and Weasel Words. I've added the {{unreferenced}} template. Will the original author please clean up the quotations. RCanine 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased and unsourced

This article was obviously written by a huge fan which is fine, but there is a lot of criticism left out. The guy has often been criticized for being a pompous, condescending windbag,[1][2][3][4][5] and for being out of touch. This needs to be integrated, and not one or two isolated sentences--the alternative view needs to represented fairly evenly. Aaron Bowen 12:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a comprehensive section under 'criticism' would be a good idea; after browsing the articles cited above by Aaron Bowen, they seem to imply he he isn't held in high regard by a number of journalists and writers - his supposed pretentious and pompous tone being called frequently into question. - EAM91 31st August, 2007 14:47 (GMT). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.165.112 (talk)

Here's four more:[6][7][8][9][If no one gets around to fixing this I'll work on it this weekend.Aaron Bowen 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Are you telling us that we should seriously consider adding under a criticism sub-header that Harold Bloom has been called a "pompous, condescending windbag"? If he's been criticized for flawed judgement, that's one thing. But why bother adding the shit flung around the crib of a nursery-bound sophomoric journalist? It's as asinine as putting in a George W. Bush article that "some groups like MoveOn.Org have likened President Bush to Adolf Hitler". 68.88.201.21 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
As the article header says, being opposed to feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, etc. etc. types of criticism seems to bespeak a political perspective or alignment that is worth emphasizing. You might think of it as a Straussian bias. I don't think attempting to identify or describe that element is asinine. If the wording is sophomoric to you, perhaps I could find you some citations along that would be more satisfactory. I'm sure they're out there. Perorative

Do it in a sub-section labeled "Culture Wars". This is a living person. We need to be respectful. Bloom is very influential and strongly opinionated, he has made enemies who attack him personally, as those "pompous, condescending windbag" type statements show. Keep his bio clean of that stuff and spin off his involvement in the American "culture wars" (1980s to present) to a separate section - there is not much to say about it other than his position on "political correctness" and his detractors, it is not very complicated, Bloom is not saying much original or new, he's just more vocal about it. A whole bunch of external links detailing every single person who is angry with him doesn't really help and would turn this article into a yet another useless ideological battleground. -- 71.191.47.120 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH ME!--Velanthis (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You suspect Bloom of neoconservativism and "Straussian bias?" Is this the same Bloom who reveres the likes of Blake and Shelley above almost all others? He refers to himself as "personally a partisan of the extreme left" somewhere in the Western Canon. --75.179.45.105 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hegelian influence

Since Hegel is listed as an influence, can anyone specifically show how Hegel influenced Bloom? If we're lucky, there might might even be a citation to Hegel's own writings, not the notes of the lecture notes of his students.Lestrade 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Poetic phrase

Is the phrase "aura of election" original with Bloom or is it a reference to literature?Lestrade 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I wouldn't be surprised, "election" seems to be one of his favorite words, taken in the more archaic sense. --147.126.46.166 23:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush

Apparently, he's been a major critic of the Bush administration. See, for instance [10]. The article currently mentions his parody MacBush, but further mention might be useful. Superm401 - Talk 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what does it matter? His political affiliation doesn't have anything to do with his work. --Sontag12 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "checking for neutrality"

Well, I saw the tag that the article had been "nominated to be checked for neutrality" and I've answered the call. It looks quite fine to me as it stands. In general, WP:BLP is easier on the positives than the negatives, but still I don't see too much puffery. Bloom's a pretty significant figure and the article does a good job of establishing that in a factual context (i.e., through looking at his publications and the reactions to them from notable figures.) To tell the truth, the article is good enough that I was first worried it had been copied wholesale from a "real" source -- we could really do with this kind of detail on, e.g., Helen Vendler.

Bloom has had some controversies, Naomi Woolf's weird allegation is the famous one. I suppose we could cover that if people really wanted, but actually, apart from Woolf's own statements there's no factual information, and no third-party source, court case or anything, so I think leaving it out is fine.

69.17.73.214 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, see the above comments and sources I mentioned. Aaron Bowen (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

nothing about naomi wolf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.92 (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There was something about Naomi Wolf there, but it has since been removed. I, for one, am for putting at lest one or two sentances into the article about Bloom's controvercies. Sontag12 —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual harassment allegations

This ought to be included: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/index4.html

Specific allegations from a well-known named source (Naomi Wolf) in major media (New York). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.129.124 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the allegations came 20 years later, when it would be only a "he said, she said" type deal. There is no actual evidence in terms of the Lewinsky/Clinton ordeal. I've read the article, too, and she essencially blames him for the fact that she was failing at Yale, when he had nothing to do with it.

[edit] The Western Canon page?

The Western Canon really ought to have a page of its own. The Anxiety of Influence exists and I'm actually surprised not to find The Western Canon anywhere. I put the links in this article and the [[Western Canon] article, but I don't have the time to fill in the details right now. I'll put this on my to-dos, but would be great if someone started a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophygeek (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

--Sontag12 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that and am equally surprised. Will also put on my todo-list... (Filt (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

I suggest placing it at The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages in order to distinguish it from Western canon. — goethean ॐ 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)