Harold Bloom is found in my inner ear, the best guide there was and ever will be in our age of cynicism and other nonsenses. It feels awkward to really praise him as if he were not part of me myself, so I praise him and me because he is always with me and guiding me onward and onward helping me learn, know and live.
I once read that the reason Bud didn't use his left hand so much was that Oscar Pettiford would play all the bass notes possible on the upright -- so Bud basically no longer had to.
It just makes sense. “Song Of Myself” is a series of rhapsodic tangents, a zooming in and out along parts of a world which eventually culminate in a unifying climax.
Grass is the most evolved form of angiosperms or flowering plants, appearing fifty million years ago along with lagomorphs (rabbits), long after the dinosaur extinction. Angiosperms, flowers, first appeared a hundred and thirty million years ago during the Jurassic. Grass is new and simple. America is new and simple.
I would substitute jazz, with the broader term pop culture. Jazz, indeed American popular music in general, as well as film, dominates contemporary culture.
@@matthewgabbard6415 pop culture isn't culture at all. It exist as a culture, but is in no way cultural in the sense Bloom or Steiner would argue. One would have to be blind, dumb or both to bestow upon the senseless drivel and mindless entertainment that is now mainstream, the term 'culture'. That is not to say, however, that these things are not entertaining. It's just caught in a loop of the same, being constantly reproduced and modified to give the impression of it being new.
Bloom on Shakespeare, unassailable. On Jazz, not so much. Hart Crane undoubtedly also heard the music of Bix Beiderbecke, as lyrical and innovated as Armstrong. Don't take my word for it, Pops said as much himself. Bix passed away just a year before Hart Crane.
i'm always fascinated listening to this guy--and always wondering--can he be for real?... obviously he has incredible intellectual capacities, but listening at 18:20, i must ask: is it really possible to read a page in 3.6 seconds ... "easily"?
@@Le_Samourai Well… It does seem quite extraordinary. I suppose Glenn Gould was in a similar category-he committed thousands of piano pieces to memory..
I don't know where, but on youtube I saw an interview with Bloom shortly before his death where he states his absolute disdain for Trump the only thing I can remember him saying is "there is nothing funny about Trump" as if to say we shouldn't laugh him off, he is genuinely dangerous
"I am pretty much a relic, yet I believe the future - if there is one - will depend upon deep readers all over the globe. Without reading Dante, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Cervantes, and their few peers, we cannot learn how to think. And if we cannot think, then the future belongs to the Trumps of the world - that is to say, to the apocalyptic beasts from the sea."- Harold Bloom, 2019
Proves that just because you are brilliant in one area does not make you worth listening to. Bush II was far from either and to say so shows a deficit of historical understanding .
What year was this interview made? His comic genius, which is a bit wayward and unreliable, if considerably more serene and less awkward than the man, is in this interview palpably and steadily active throughout it, and at its happiest: He is really on a more-than-encyclopedic roll, and says so much in it that he is usually too restrained to say in his writing or in his interviews, and with great charm. Too bad the host, who put him so at ease, couldn't have let Harold go on for much longer. Bloom takes Johnson as his mentor, but I've always felt that his amiably ironic genius is more Goethe-like and lyrical than even he has noticed. A further irony is that this effect perfectly agrees with Bloom's own insights into creative misunderstanding. Try to imagine the forcefully leonine Johnson roaring about in the same room with the delicately winged and hypersensitive Bloom, whose voice, at least in this interview, is more like the susurrus of summer fields--much more rapid and minutely articulate. Then you'll begin to see what I mean. Set aside your preconceptions about the role of sex when it comes to the difference between seducer and seduced. Bloom is basically alluring--someone you pursue--while Johnson is basically compelling--someone who pursues you. At least this is how I perceive their core differences. Would he find the comparison startling? Probably, but so also are most of us when confronted by the responses of others. I think of myself as a rather tame little housecat, and am always a little surprised, and wounded with alarm, even when the ordinary run of congenital hypocrites tell me that my wrath's wild quality makes them physically uneasy. I always feel that I've confessed too much of my contempt for the deadness of their hearts--which is a very Johnsonean thing to do. Bloom is more self-conscious than Johnson when it comes to that, but then he couldn't have become so without Johnson.
@18:40 : he could read, when he was young, "easily 1000 pages an hour". Got a copy of Don Quixote here...it's 760-ish pages....so he can read Don Quixote in under an hour ? Have to call bullshit on that one ! Someone set me straight on this. Anyone out there read anywhere close to that fast ??
Speed reading was taught in the 1960s. I think one can learn to rapidly scan a document for its salient points and conclusions. I do not see any benefit, if it is even possible, in quickly reading a great poem or sentence of prose.
Though I will always differ with Bloom on writers like J.R.R. Tolkien, and J.K. Rowling; when he goes on about the downfall of the teaching of literature and the humanities in the universities he is right.
The Hobbit and Rings books I don't think will qualify for the Western Canon, but their merit lies in an area similar to The Wizard of Oz, in they are books written as metaphor or disguises of modern historical tale. The Wizard of Oz contains messages alluding to the economic and social conditions of its time and is still pertinent in this regard. Likewise, Tolkien's books are a metaphor for the deeds of the Khazarian mafia. All interpretable of course.
@@JustinSmith-yw3oe He was making the point that they are children's books, and are too lightweight for university level literature classes, I believe.
Oh come on. I find the people who defend Rowling as a great literary figure 120 percent of the time have 1) never bothered to read a great work of literature like Faulkner, McCarthy, Milton, etc. and 2) have never read anything but young adult fiction which is by definition geared toward kids. I'm a writer. Like I have experience with publishers and that world. YA is not an arbitrary genre. Authors are often asked by editors to "tone it down", to self censor, to hold back on literay technicalities that might confuse children. It is not great literature. Early children's works used imaginative allegory, metaphors, literary allusions, all to give true layers to simple folk tale. They had an intense sense of history. Harry Potter is a pulpy pop novel in the way that Katy Perry is pop. It's void of substance. It's a cute story. That's it. And yes, I've read the majority of her work... When I was in 4th grade. Came back to it as an adult and it read exactly the same way it did in Elementary school.
I'm resting by the fire, alone and warm. this conversation is enlightening; in a cold, dark, time of humanity - But not by my fire alone in my head There are no words left I'm going to bed
Bloom on Shakespeare, unassailable. On Jazz, not so much. Diz and Bird were brought together on the Massey Hall date by Mingus, Bird would be dead less than a year later, the plastic Grafton Alto was given to Bird, as he most likely hocked his own. In fact, even the plastic horn ended up in a pawn shop.
I like to think this reading is primarily his rereading of extremely familiar texts. Like Bloom probably read Hamlet hundreds of times of his life, as evidenced by him being able to pretty much recite verbatim entire speeches, and once, after finishing a lecture, even an entire act from Lear. He doesn't mean literally read that much, I think.
That is generous. I think his boasting does harm though. It makes the rest of us feel inadequate and perhaps not enjoy what we have. There is no virtue in reading at great speed or the massive accumulation of lecture. Do you know how Montaigne approached reading? Or Keats? By contemplating a paragraph or a page and enjoying the careful visualization of images, the mind's play. What is the point of reading if not for pleasure? Bloom's quotations are often from very famous passages and he makes small mistakes which ought to have mattered to him more than they seem to have done-I am thinking of the 'Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow' speech which he badly jumbles somewhere on UA-cam. If somebody said they could eat 200 strawberries in ten minutes would we admire them?
They teach Harry Potter and Steven King at universities. They teach Shakespeare in the middle school and Capote in Cold Blood in the high school. That is not how to teach kids to like literature.
I've been trying to find the Elias Hicks evidence and can't find it? Let me know if you have any leads. All pictures of him have him looking white and none seem to mention ethnic background
Bloom on Shakespeare, unassailable. On Jazz, not so much. Bird played alto, Trane tenor and soprano, his antecedent being Lester Young, who birthed an entire genre of tenor players in the 1940s and 1950s. Trane came together under Monk's tutelage, which led to the iconic work of the late 1950s. I'm not Scott Yanow, but have been to his old house in Burbank for bday parties. Not his real name BTW.
@@jackdugan5566 This is why this man's stupid boasting matters: because it discourages the rest of us. He is a disastrous influence and he creates anxiety wherever he goes. I'd rather listen to the Ramones-Gabba Gabba Hey- than this tyrant Bloom.
I would recommend skipping from 27:57 to 40:20, unless you want to hear Bloom rant about the Humanities departments and multiculturalism for the nth time. That being said the rest of this interview was interesting.
Right on, Harold! Whitman is NOT A GAY POET, give it up San Francisco, That gay men think Whitman is "gay" speaks to the poverty of their understanding of the erotic.
found this. even if true, it doesn't mean he's gay. "Oscar Wilde came to America because he wanted to sleep with Walt Whitman, and then did exactly that." m.ua-cam.com/video/E9ecAFwDSTU/v-deo.html
Bloom himself argued Walt was gay in the 1980s. His argument here is that the very FACT that Whitman was most likely homosexual oughtn't to be the only thing said about him. Bloom is not your ally, he would have hated you.
1000 pages an hour? Thad doesn't sound very pleasant and what is literature for if not for pleasure? Reading 1000 pages an hour...it's like participating in one of those contests they put on at county fairs where people compete to see who can eat the greatest number of hot dogs in a given unit of time.In this guy's case it would be like doing the hot dog thing every time you sat down to eat. How dreadful.
Is he seriously comparing Whitman to ...Shakespeare? 500 years on and Shakespeare is everywhere: school, universities, plays, movies, poetry, writing, dance, visual art in practically every country and language. And many words used in English are Shakespearian. And Whitman?
It's a common thing discussed in detail in writing classes. Phrasing like this can be ineloquent (as opposed to "went for a walk", which is what the character actually does from the third-person narrative perspective), uninsightful (the good old "show, don't tell"), and can get extremely repetitive if the writer overuses it even slightly.
It doesn't make sense. You don't "stretch your legs" when you go for a walk. It means nothing in its context. Its lazy writing. Like all of the Hogwarts hogwash
Whitman would have some disdain for Bloom. Bloom, as great as he was in his chosen field, couldn't do anything but critique. Whitman was a creator, a man who did many things. They are so God damn antithetical.
Damn. At once so delightful and so disappointing lol. It's a bit ironic his speaking of Walter Stevens dislike for jazz being a circumstance of his misunderstanding jazz while simultaneously flaying the talents of more modern writers whose work he does not like (read: understand). Though his points on the progression (or digression?) of criticism in modern academia ring somewhat true, and there is much to be said about a want of nuance and depth in discussions on the 'canon'( that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater etc etc), I find so odd his inability to see beyond his own aesthetic sensibility. He doesn't seem to consider that these writers might be adhering to a tradition or style outside of his purview. Instead, as brilliant as he might be, he remains stuck measuring the rightness of the current literary world against his own tastes and perspectives as the supreme ruler. Just as jazz may not make sense to the one for whom the Western classical musical canon is supreme (jazz often intentionally inverting this Western classical music language) there must be room for the same in modern literature. But to each his own I guess... I still enjoy is take on Melville's Moby Dick, but this was hard to listen to lol
Just comes off as what white hipster bros will sound like in 50 years my god But at the same point appreciate someone standing strong in the pov. Strong and wrong !
20:45 This man really judged Harry Potter, a children's novel, based on his Walt Whitman fandom. I just can't make this guy seriously all the sudden. That's like judging some werewolf romance novel based on the fact that it's not Lord of the Rings. I just am not ready to deal with this pretention-- which Whitman would have openly laughed at-- about a _children's novel._
I probably like most of the same writers Bloom likes--Melville, Joyce, Faulkner--and dislike most of the same people he dislikes--RK Rowling, Bob Dylan, Stephen King. But there is an intellectual problem here. There are some really horrid writers in the Canon, but that is my subjective judgement. When I pick up the Gospel of Mark which Bloom raves about and I read the line, "and they were amazed," I see a narrator jumping out of the text proclaiming his opinion on the reader. Also, as a competent guitarist I can hear Ph Ds rave about musicians who are talentless strummers like Dylan and ignore musicians who are among the finest on the planet, like Feliciano. I believe humanities departments are mostly filled with talentless tasteless people, Ph Ds who rave about Bob Dylan's preachy cliches "blowing in the wind," "times are a changing" and horrid guitar strums It has always been a sham profession. We were too dumb to learn our Math, Physics and Chemistry, so we went into Literature.
I love listening to Bloom, except when he goes on about his contempt for George W. Bush. Why must he always go on about his hatred of Bush? Bloom can also be annoying when he goes on about the downfall of Universities and political correctness.. He should stick to literary criticism and drop the political nonsense. It always gets in the way of a good talk.
Does he really "go on" about those necessarily awful topics? What does "go on" mean? Does it mean he just warbles incessantly about it or does he just take literally seconds to make a mention. When Bush and the rest of his ilk, the economic and military oligarchs, ruin this place for us, you can look back and ask, "What did he say again?"
His almost objectivist outlook on poetry and literature and his inflammatory views of contemporary writers and ravings of "rampant political correctness" and his narcissism betray his education and his work. No one is right about everything and harold bloom is certainly no exception. While he's certainly done some good work, he talks about poetry more like J. Evans Pritchard than John Keating (dead poets society). I find that with old coots who are stuck in the past like harold bloom and people like him are you really have to understand that while half of what they says is going to be golden knowledge the other half of it is going to be excrement. Such is the nature of pompous assholes like that I suppose.
Bloom misses his own fallacy -- if you attempt to read 1000 pages an hour, then yes it's highly important to REread. Since you would have likely missed a lot of material in your neurotic haste. And his explanation for this skill is that it's hereditary?? Couldn't have anything to do with conditioning haha what a narcissist. No one is born a genius
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
Professor Harold Bloom's voice speaks volumes of a life absorbed by literature, music, and art.
🙏❤️🌎🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
Harold Bloom is found in my inner ear, the best guide there was and ever will be in our age of cynicism and other nonsenses. It feels awkward to really praise him as if he were not part of me myself, so I praise him and me because he is always with me and guiding me onward and onward helping me learn, know and live.
Beautifully put, Billy!
What does he think of ChewbaccaMom
Such a delight to hear your conversation with Prof. Bloom. An astonishing mind and decisive command of language. Thank you for uploading this!
Thank you sweetie:)
Love this. I’m nodding my head at times, shaking it in disgust at other times.
41:47 is when they finally discuss Jazz
thanks
thank you!
I once read that the reason Bud didn't use his left hand so much was that Oscar Pettiford would play all the bass notes possible on the upright -- so Bud basically no longer had to.
Jazz sayest thou ?
Bloom was a man of great memory and imagination.
One of his most lucid and straightforward discussions.. Thanks so much.
God I love this guy
It just makes sense. “Song Of Myself” is a series of rhapsodic tangents, a zooming in and out along parts of a world which eventually culminate in a unifying climax.
I just finished reading Leaves of Grass, so I appreciate Mr. Bloom taking the time to give this talk!
if this man is not endlessly fascinating no one is
Grass is the most evolved form of angiosperms or flowering plants, appearing fifty million years ago along with lagomorphs (rabbits), long after the dinosaur extinction. Angiosperms, flowers, first appeared a hundred and thirty million years ago during the Jurassic. Grass is new and simple. America is new and simple.
Harold Bloom is a master of his craft. You must listen for what you agree and throw out the rest. e
Yeah..I agree..but there is a lot of bull to ignore first..
ditto. he's a horrific "moldy fig".
I agree very interesting man also much crap
When it comes to professional critics, i tend to just listen to their positive takes. Helps you find great art without all the snobbiness.
Beautifully presented / observed
"The two great American contributions to the world's art in the end are Walt Whitman and after him; Armstrong and jazz."
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Props to Neil A.
I would substitute jazz, with the broader term pop culture. Jazz, indeed American popular music in general, as well as film, dominates contemporary culture.
@@matthewgabbard6415 pop culture isn't culture at all. It exist as a culture, but is in no way cultural in the sense Bloom or Steiner would argue. One would have to be blind, dumb or both to bestow upon the senseless drivel and mindless entertainment that is now mainstream, the term 'culture'.
That is not to say, however, that these things are not entertaining. It's just caught in a loop of the same, being constantly reproduced and modified to give the impression of it being new.
@@JoostJGJ Shakespeare and Dickens were popular culture in their days, just like movies and music are in our time
@@JoostJGJ wOw yOu'Re sO sMaRt
1000 pages an hour!?! How could he turn the pages that fast?
(Fernando)"Pessoa was neither mad nor a mere ironist; he is Whitman reborn…"
Harold Bloom: The Western Canon
Bloom on Shakespeare, unassailable. On Jazz, not so much. Hart Crane undoubtedly also heard the music of Bix Beiderbecke, as lyrical and innovated as Armstrong. Don't take my word for it, Pops said as much himself. Bix passed away just a year before Hart Crane.
37:00 love this rant
18:20: Bloom's reading speed.
The 1855 Leaves of Grass is still the best American book.
Well I don't know about that but I agree that it's the best edition of Leaves Of Grass
What about The Grapes of Wrath?
Nah, it's hands down Moby Dick. No, wait, it's Blood Meridian. No, hold up, it's got to be---
Moby Dick?
Moby Dick.
18:37: Goals.
i'm always fascinated listening to this guy--and always wondering--can he be for real?... obviously he has incredible intellectual capacities, but listening at 18:20, i must ask: is it really possible to read a page in 3.6 seconds ... "easily"?
yes, if you are Harold Bloom. The man has read everything so it makes sense
@@Le_Samourai Well… It does seem quite extraordinary. I suppose Glenn Gould was in a similar category-he committed thousands of piano pieces to memory..
@mrblue99999 I need more time to SAVOR what I have read.
@@pepperco100 it took me at least 3.6 seconds to read your sentence.
@@mrblue99999 lol
He calls Bush a fascist and compares him to Nero or Calligula (I agree) . What would he think of the current pres?
I don't know where, but on youtube I saw an interview with Bloom shortly before his death where he states his absolute disdain for Trump the only thing I can remember him saying is "there is nothing funny about Trump" as if to say we shouldn't laugh him off, he is genuinely dangerous
@@dl5272 I guess Mr. Bloom had a very sharp eye for people and plot.
"I am pretty much a relic, yet I believe the future - if there is one - will depend upon deep readers all over the globe. Without reading Dante, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Cervantes, and their few peers, we cannot learn how to think. And if we cannot think, then the future belongs to the Trumps of the world - that is to say, to the apocalyptic beasts from the sea."- Harold Bloom, 2019
@@BobbyMack I can’t agree with this more! Totalitarianism and despotism relies on an ignorant and uneducated population to embrace their dogma.
Proves that just because you are brilliant in one area does not make you worth listening to. Bush II was far from either and to say so shows a deficit of historical understanding .
Who is the interviewer, and when was this done?
What year was this interview made? His comic genius, which is a bit wayward and unreliable, if considerably more serene and less awkward than the man, is in this interview palpably and steadily active throughout it, and at its happiest: He is really on a more-than-encyclopedic roll, and says so much in it that he is usually too restrained to say in his writing or in his interviews, and with great charm. Too bad the host, who put him so at ease, couldn't have let Harold go on for much longer. Bloom takes Johnson as his mentor, but I've always felt that his amiably ironic genius is more Goethe-like and lyrical than even he has noticed. A further irony is that this effect perfectly agrees with Bloom's own insights into creative misunderstanding. Try to imagine the forcefully leonine Johnson roaring about in the same room with the delicately winged and hypersensitive Bloom, whose voice, at least in this interview, is more like the susurrus of summer fields--much more rapid and minutely articulate. Then you'll begin to see what I mean. Set aside your preconceptions about the role of sex when it comes to the difference between seducer and seduced. Bloom is basically alluring--someone you pursue--while Johnson is basically compelling--someone who pursues you. At least this is how I perceive their core differences. Would he find the comparison startling? Probably, but so also are most of us when confronted by the responses of others. I think of myself as a rather tame little housecat, and am always a little surprised, and wounded with alarm, even when the ordinary run of congenital hypocrites tell me that my wrath's wild quality makes them physically uneasy. I always feel that I've confessed too much of my contempt for the deadness of their hearts--which is a very Johnsonean thing to do. Bloom is more self-conscious than Johnson when it comes to that, but then he couldn't have become so without Johnson.
James Roach 2007
James, do you know the interviewers name?
as everybody knows, its one equal temper of heroic hearts
so much for memorizing
it's...
@18:40 : he could read, when he was young, "easily 1000 pages an hour". Got a copy of Don Quixote here...it's 760-ish pages....so he can read Don Quixote in under an hour ? Have to call bullshit on that one ! Someone set me straight on this. Anyone out there read anywhere close to that fast ??
I absolutely agree. I suspect he had to of been confused. Maybe he meant 100.
Speed reading was taught in the 1960s. I think one can learn to rapidly scan a document for its salient points and conclusions. I do not see any benefit, if it is even possible, in quickly reading a great poem or sentence of prose.
Makes sense why he would reread something 40-60 times.
one equal temper of heroic hearts (Not minds!)
the end of Ulysses is the best part how does the Capacious Bloom misspeak on this!
Minds=/=Hearts
:P
Somewhat shocked by this as well, also misquoted the first line "Though we are not now that strength which in the old days moved heaven and Earth..."
Though I will always differ with Bloom on writers like J.R.R. Tolkien, and J.K. Rowling; when he goes on about the downfall of the teaching of literature and the humanities in the universities he is right.
The Hobbit and Rings books I don't think will qualify for the Western Canon, but their merit lies in an area similar to The Wizard of Oz, in they are books written as metaphor or disguises of modern historical tale. The Wizard of Oz contains messages alluding to the economic and social conditions of its time and is still pertinent in this regard. Likewise, Tolkien's books are a metaphor for the deeds of the Khazarian mafia. All interpretable of course.
@@JustinSmith-yw3oe He was making the point that they are children's books, and are too lightweight for university level literature classes, I believe.
Oh come on.
I find the people who defend Rowling as a great literary figure 120 percent of the time have 1) never bothered to read a great work of literature like Faulkner, McCarthy, Milton, etc. and 2) have never read anything but young adult fiction which is by definition geared toward kids.
I'm a writer. Like I have experience with publishers and that world.
YA is not an arbitrary genre.
Authors are often asked by editors to "tone it down", to self censor, to hold back on literay technicalities that might confuse children.
It is not great literature.
Early children's works used imaginative allegory, metaphors, literary allusions, all to give true layers to simple folk tale. They had an intense sense of history.
Harry Potter is a pulpy pop novel in the way that Katy Perry is pop.
It's void of substance.
It's a cute story.
That's it.
And yes, I've read the majority of her work...
When I was in 4th grade.
Came back to it as an adult and it read exactly the same way it did in Elementary school.
I'm resting by the fire, alone and warm.
this conversation is enlightening;
in a cold, dark, time
of humanity -
But not by my fire
alone in my head
There are no words left
I'm going to bed
Second rate
He's strangely way off at times, but mostly worth the wait through those moments.
@B. K. Neifert not his problem.
@B. K. Neifert and Hitler loved his dog.
37:08
RIP
Walt Whitman and William Shakespeare.
Bloom on Shakespeare, unassailable. On Jazz, not so much. Diz and Bird were brought together on the Massey Hall date by Mingus, Bird would be dead less than a year later, the plastic Grafton Alto was given to Bird, as he most likely hocked his own. In fact, even the plastic horn ended up in a pawn shop.
That’s totally what screwed.
"Benito Bush..."
Id be happy with 50
None of my English Literature professors were at all inspiring. I think I was gypped.
He reads a 1000 pages an hour and missed the "Age of Fission" on page 1.
????????
damn I thought you were talking about the creeping
AI Deep Mind
He reads 100 pages every six minutes? 1000 pages an hour? How is this possible?
there’s no way he did that
Literature was his job. Not surprised he could be many times better than a layperson.
Don't be naive. No one could read War and Peace in an hour. Boastful macho men like Bloom actually put a lot of people off reading and literature.
I like to think this reading is primarily his rereading of extremely familiar texts. Like Bloom probably read Hamlet hundreds of times of his life, as evidenced by him being able to pretty much recite verbatim entire speeches, and once, after finishing a lecture, even an entire act from Lear. He doesn't mean literally read that much, I think.
That is generous. I think his boasting does harm though. It makes the rest of us feel inadequate and perhaps not enjoy what we have. There is no virtue in reading at great speed or the massive accumulation of lecture. Do you know how Montaigne approached reading? Or Keats? By contemplating a paragraph or a page and enjoying the careful visualization of images, the mind's play. What is the point of reading if not for pleasure? Bloom's quotations are often from very famous passages and he makes small mistakes which ought to have mattered to him more than they seem to have done-I am thinking of the 'Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow' speech which he badly jumbles somewhere on UA-cam. If somebody said they could eat 200 strawberries in ten minutes would we admire them?
Horowitz would give anything to NOT moan and snort during his recordings.
They teach Harry Potter and Steven King at universities. They teach Shakespeare in the middle school and Capote in Cold Blood in the high school. That is not how to teach kids to like literature.
elias hicks was african American and native?? bloom can read a page in three seconds??
I've been trying to find the Elias Hicks evidence and can't find it? Let me know if you have any leads. All pictures of him have him looking white and none seem to mention ethnic background
Bloom on Shakespeare, unassailable. On Jazz, not so much. Bird played alto, Trane tenor and soprano, his antecedent being Lester Young, who birthed an entire genre of tenor players in the 1940s and 1950s. Trane came together under Monk's tutelage, which led to the iconic work of the late 1950s. I'm not Scott Yanow, but have been to his old house in Burbank for bday parties. Not his real name BTW.
why do all of your comments start with the same two sentences
Art Pepper on Alto!😎
1000 pages an hour? What?
The beautifully melancholic Mr Bloom says he could easily read a thousand pages an hour into his mid 30s: a single page in 3.6 seconds, wtf.
impossible and that he would even say that is discouraging
is that even possible ? I mean, read with understanding... ?
@@jackdugan5566 people have been capable of stranger, borderline impossible things
@@jackdugan5566 This is why this man's stupid boasting matters: because it discourages the rest of us. He is a disastrous influence and he creates anxiety wherever he goes. I'd rather listen to the Ramones-Gabba Gabba Hey- than this tyrant Bloom.
I would recommend skipping from 27:57 to 40:20, unless you want to hear Bloom rant about the Humanities departments and multiculturalism for the nth time. That being said the rest of this interview was interesting.
Right on, Harold! Whitman is NOT A GAY POET, give it up San Francisco, That gay men think Whitman is "gay" speaks to the poverty of their understanding of the erotic.
i had similar suspicion. it seems the true nature of transcendentalism continues to evade many.
found this. even if true, it doesn't mean he's gay.
"Oscar Wilde came to America because he wanted to sleep with Walt Whitman, and then did exactly that."
m.ua-cam.com/video/E9ecAFwDSTU/v-deo.html
Bloom himself argued Walt was gay in the 1980s. His argument here is that the very FACT that Whitman was most likely homosexual oughtn't to be the only thing said about him. Bloom is not your ally, he would have hated you.
Wonder how Bloom would have felt about the last weeks of the trump presidency.
As a socialist, I'm sure he wouldn't have been a fan of Trump at any point.
1000 pages an hour? Thad doesn't sound very pleasant and what is literature for if not for pleasure? Reading 1000 pages an hour...it's like participating in one of those contests they put on at county fairs where people compete to see who can eat the greatest number of hot dogs in a given unit of time.In this guy's case it would be like doing the hot dog thing every time you sat down to eat. How dreadful.
I don't doubt that he knows what he is up to. I guess I am looking at it from the point of view of 'l'homme moyen sensuel', i.e., my own.
literature should challenge the reader, otherwise it,s just masturbation.
cuz you think he’s like you.
Misquotes Tennyson there :P Maybe he should have read it slower.
Is he seriously comparing Whitman to ...Shakespeare? 500 years on and Shakespeare is everywhere: school, universities, plays, movies, poetry, writing, dance, visual art in practically every country and language. And many words used in English are Shakespearian. And Whitman?
Agree. Can't say Whitman has any influence outside new England literary circles
1000 pages an hour!? Come on ...
3.6 seconds per each page. Yep very easy. 😂😂😂
Memory.
He said you can't read everything published even at 1000 pages an hour
I am certain Yiddish poetry beats Black studies, holocaust studies and cultural studies........ (about Walt Disney).
he ran into phrases like "stretched his legs"? so?
LOL I wish he had elaborated on that
It's a common thing discussed in detail in writing classes. Phrasing like this can be ineloquent (as opposed to "went for a walk", which is what the character actually does from the third-person narrative perspective), uninsightful (the good old "show, don't tell"), and can get extremely repetitive if the writer overuses it even slightly.
Cliche is banal
It doesn't make sense.
You don't "stretch your legs" when you go for a walk.
It means nothing in its context.
Its lazy writing.
Like all of the Hogwarts hogwash
wow you people are inflexible
Whitman would have some disdain for Bloom. Bloom, as great as he was in his chosen field, couldn't do anything but critique. Whitman was a creator, a man who did many things. They are so God damn antithetical.
What? Bloom has spent his entire career *celebrating* great literature. Can't be too familiar with Bloom to write this, jesus.
Damn. At once so delightful and so disappointing lol. It's a bit ironic his speaking of Walter Stevens dislike for jazz being a circumstance of his misunderstanding jazz while simultaneously flaying the talents of more modern writers whose work he does not like (read: understand). Though his points on the progression (or digression?) of criticism in modern academia ring somewhat true, and there is much to be said about a want of nuance and depth in discussions on the 'canon'( that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater etc etc), I find so odd his inability to see beyond his own aesthetic sensibility. He doesn't seem to consider that these writers might be adhering to a tradition or style outside of his purview. Instead, as brilliant as he might be, he remains stuck measuring the rightness of the current literary world against his own tastes and perspectives as the supreme ruler.
Just as jazz may not make sense to the one for whom the Western classical musical canon is supreme (jazz often intentionally inverting this Western classical music language) there must be room for the same in modern literature.
But to each his own I guess...
I still enjoy is take on Melville's Moby Dick, but this was hard to listen to lol
Just comes off as what white hipster bros will sound like in 50 years my god
But at the same point appreciate someone standing strong in the pov. Strong and wrong !
20:45
This man really judged Harry Potter, a children's novel, based on his Walt Whitman fandom. I just can't make this guy seriously all the sudden. That's like judging some werewolf romance novel based on the fact that it's not Lord of the Rings. I just am not ready to deal with this pretention-- which Whitman would have openly laughed at-- about a _children's novel._
I probably like most of the same writers Bloom likes--Melville, Joyce, Faulkner--and dislike most of the same people he dislikes--RK Rowling, Bob Dylan, Stephen King. But there is an intellectual problem here. There are some really horrid writers in the Canon, but that is my subjective judgement. When I pick up the Gospel of Mark which Bloom raves about and I read the line, "and they were amazed," I see a narrator jumping out of the text proclaiming his opinion on the reader.
Also, as a competent guitarist I can hear Ph Ds rave about musicians who are talentless strummers like Dylan and ignore musicians who are among the finest on the planet, like Feliciano. I believe humanities departments are mostly filled with talentless tasteless people, Ph Ds who rave about Bob Dylan's preachy cliches "blowing in the wind," "times are a changing" and horrid guitar strums It has always been a sham profession. We were too dumb to learn our Math, Physics and Chemistry, so we went into Literature.
I love listening to Bloom, except when he goes on about his contempt for George W. Bush. Why must he always go on about his hatred of Bush?
Bloom can also be annoying when he goes on about the downfall of Universities and political correctness.. He should stick to literary criticism and drop the political nonsense. It always gets in the way of a good talk.
bush deserves our hatred / its import not to forget
He also critiques books that are 'political' lol
Bush is a war criminal
Does he really "go on" about those necessarily awful topics? What does "go on" mean? Does it mean he just warbles incessantly about it or does he just take literally seconds to make a mention. When Bush and the rest of his ilk, the economic and military oligarchs, ruin this place for us, you can look back and ask, "What did he say again?"
you know you can read the classics without sounding so damn pretentious
not if you're harold bloom
As a lover of Bach, I just can't hear the appeal of jazz musicians like Bud Powell.
More is the pity. I love them both.
Take a long listen to what a victim complex and paranoia will do, even to an educated mind. The classics can console. But not enough.
His almost objectivist outlook on poetry and literature and his inflammatory views of contemporary writers and ravings of "rampant political correctness" and his narcissism betray his education and his work. No one is right about everything and harold bloom is certainly no exception. While he's certainly done some good work, he talks about poetry more like J. Evans Pritchard than John Keating (dead poets society). I find that with old coots who are stuck in the past like harold bloom and people like him are you really have to understand that while half of what they says is going to be golden knowledge the other half of it is going to be excrement. Such is the nature of pompous assholes like that I suppose.
Apparently, Bloom isn't aware that the brother's didn't call their music "jazz". Overrated, overfed and a bore..
Bloom misses his own fallacy -- if you attempt to read 1000 pages an hour, then yes it's highly important to REread. Since you would have likely missed a lot of material in your neurotic haste. And his explanation for this skill is that it's hereditary?? Couldn't have anything to do with conditioning haha what a narcissist. No one is born a genius
Bloom is so frustrating, he can’t seem to make a statement without referring to other adjacent things, you can’t follow him.
Harold Bloom talks too much.
Also reads too much. 😀