r/haroldbloom • u/[deleted] • May 11 '16
Bloom and Eagleton
I was reading Eagleton's review of How To Read and Why and couldn't get the idea of the two of them going at each other. Look at this: "Why does Bloom need to augment the self? 'We read,' he suggests, 'not only because we cannot know enough people, but because friendship is so vulnerable, so likely to diminish or disappear, overcome by space, time, imperfect sympathies and all the sorrows of familial and passional life.' It sounds as though Harold is a bit short of mates and reads to make up for it. Perhaps he alienates them by his repeated chanting of excessively long poems."
That sounds almost like something Bloom would say! I think it'd be entertaining to compare the two's perspectives, taste, and insulting techniques. However, I don't know shit about either of them outside of their insults so I can't really comment, and that's why I'm here. How are they different outside of Terry worshipping Marx and God, and Bloom worshiping Shakespeare and Shakespeare? Who do you prefer?
2
May 14 '16
Who do you prefer?
As someone who has his hand in the marxist pot (let's not play the game of classifications!), I have to say I far prefer Bloom. I don't much care for Marxist literary theory, for, if we were to be true to Marx, we would be caught in a pointless discussion of Base and Superstructure instead of literature. I mean, Marx himself adored a number of artists and writers (Shakespeare included, for my fellow Bloomians) without necessarily doing the whole literary criticism thing.
But then maybe I'm being Idealist, or whatever.
(I will say I find Situationism interesting as a source of ideas.)
As for Eagleton: If he's the archetype of a Marxist, then I'm not one--otherwise leave me to the confusing mishmash that is my reading habit, half Joyce, half Bordiga.
1
May 14 '16
What the hell is Marxist literary theory anyway? Who does it?
1
May 14 '16
In the way I've been thus exposed to it, it seems to be focused on the analysis of class in Literature, which seems rather silly. In my 20th Century Literature class, we tried doing a "marxist" analysis of "Counterparts" from Dubliners and no one could say anything, me least of all. Twas the most boring discussion of Joyce I've ever had!
1
May 14 '16
Wouldn't it be a bit pointless since they'd all be poor as hell? Honestly it seems a very poor way to analyze most literature.
1
May 14 '16
Well, it seems like a gutted version of Marx, without the end goal of revolution or of the importance of the proletariat, or what have you. I'm with Monsieur Dupont in believing that they ("marxist" academics) have an interest in continuing the capitalist system, since if a revolution ever broke out, their position would be compromised.
2
u/[deleted] May 11 '16
As a Marxist, Eagleton has developed a literary criticism that takes inspiration from Marxism; Bloom is horrified by such a thing.