RARA-AVIS: Re: Goodis...

From: jacquesdebierue (jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com)
Date: 28 Feb 2009

  • Next message: Brian Thornton: "Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Goodis..."

    --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Brian Thornton
    <bthorntonwriter@...> wrote:
    > Mario-
    > You're attacking what you perceive to be the centrality of Bloom's
    > while in the same breath, saying that you're not commenting on his
    work as a
    > teacher and critic.

    I was referring to his influence on curricula. His teaching is between him and his students. I understand that the students were quite satisfied for many years. His specific writings on literature I am putting aside because they are not the point, I think. It's natural that he wrote about what he liked. All critics do that.

    > I also find the notion that he is "Anglo-Centric" laughable.

    To me, it's quite obvious in his writings.

    > How much of his stuff have you read? The guy wrote one entire book
    > dedicated to a lauditory treatment of the "J" writer from the Old
    > Testament. He raves about such non-English writers as Borges and
    > realists like Marques and then turns around and singles out Stendal,
    > Dostoevsky, Calvino and a host of others who didn't write in English for
    > high praise.
    > True, he thinks Shakespeare and Jane Austen were the two greatest
    > ever, but so what?

    So what? It's a pretty strange notion. Especially Austen.

    He's got company there, including myself. I like Jim
    > Thompson's work a lot, but if you want to talk about a genius level
    work of
    > individual character studies and a further vision of what happens
    when these
    > full-bodied characters interact, THE KILLER INSIDE ME has nothing on
    > Again agreed that he's a snob and that many of his ideas are so
    > old-fashioned as to define hide-bound. He's a terrific writer who
    > himself better than most fictions writers I've read. I've learned a ton
    > from his work, even the notions that I reject have spoken to me.
    Now that's
    > a powerful experience.

    Of course you can learn a lot from him. That's not under discussion.

    > And while it's true that one need not read a word of Shakespeare to
    lead a
    > nice life, I can't help but think that to go through without the
    > would be something akin to going through life colorblind: to be the
    > for want of the ability to see in the full spectrum of color.

    Consider this: Shakespeare was literally an accident (as we all are). The world would have the same colors without him. You would revere some other writer. Life is not defined by writers... it's not defined by anybody, it just is.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 28 Feb 2009 EST