4 ms·

Harold Bloom has written extensively on this subject calling the profession Literary Sudies nothing more that a "rabblement of lemmings" running off the cliff t

Harold Bloom has written extensively on this subject calling the profession Literary Sudies nothing more that a "rabblement of lemmings" running off the cliff to their own destruction. Literary Studies used to mean the study of great works as great works by their own literary and aesthetic merit. It valued the unimpeachable greatness of Shakespeare and Dante and Milton. It believed in genius, the author, aesthetic value, and literary beauty. Today, Literary Studies is more cultural studies. It is collage of different perspectives: queer, feminist, marxist, ect, that treat the work nothing but a product of some external force with no intrinsic value. Any sensible person, of course, would run away from that.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
When would to describe the scope of this changing? Milton himself wrote literary essays on cultural topics of his times (areopagitica in 1644 was a pamphlet protesting the banning of unlicensed works, which was already a fairly debated and settled topic within the literary sphere by the time he published it). Death Of the Author itself was written in 1967, which debates the merit of analyzing literature on the authors intent and not what is literally on the page regardless of the authors intent. At what point we things not cultural discussion?
- rjkennedy98 7y ago
  Yes, Milton wrote political and cultural topics, so has Harold Bloom. That is far different from believing that works of art are merely the product of cultural forces.
yummypaint 7y ago
The experience of a work is entirely dependent on cultural context. I think the modern focus on perspectives/lenses is a natural reaction to this fact. I also think this didnt happen until recently because the utter lack of diversity in early humanities blinded us to that truth. "Litterary and aesthetic merit" has always been code for stuff old white dudes like.
- xamuel 7y ago
  >"Literary and aesthetic merit" has always been code for stuff old white dudes like. You are confusing one thing for another. Until fairly recently, cultured, well-read people tended to be old white dudes. If history had been different and the upper classes had consisted of (for example) nothing but Pakistani women, then those Pakistani women would love Milton and Shakespeare, and people would say, "Literary and aesthetic merit has always been code for stuff Pakistani women like". No. No matter how fashionable it is for postmodernists to shriek otherwise, the fact is, there is objectively good literature. Well-read, world-wise people will gravitate to this objectively good literature. Doesn't matter if those people are old white dudes, or middle-aged East African women, or whatever group it is that happens to occupy the upper classes. Shakespeare has genuine structural qualities inherent in it that allows it to stand the test of time. Kafka contains genuine truth that will stand the test of time. There's no evil conspiracy to promote Homer undeservedly. These works stand on their own, and they're stuff well-read, intelligent people like, whoever those people may be.
  - apocalypstyx 7y ago
    Interestingly enough, if there were such a thing, then objectively good literature would be the first thing taken over by AI. It would be that very ability to be objective that would make it definable in a way that could be machine produced. Of course, this flies in the very face of thing because something very different is afoot here, as the names demonstrate. And a comparison and a question arises: name who wrote Little Red Riding Hood. Which, of course, is an inanswerable question. One can name many famous author who have written versions, but past that one quickly becomes lost in the diffusion of oral tradition. So, here, what arises of importance is the contents, the flow and interplay, the fluxuations of intersecting generalities and particulars attached to nothing. Yet with the names one speaks not of 'Titus Andronicus' or 'The Penal Colony', one speaks of Kafka and Shakespeare. The question is has one read name, is not name truth. And it is the name that is the primary. The question is why can truth not seem to arise from anonymity? Why can it not arise from plurality? Why can it not arise from diffusion? Because those are the very opposite of the name. So are they truth then or are they sigil? If not, where are the anonymous truths?
bilbo0s 7y ago
I don't know man? This sounds like more of the same rationalizing that the article posits as the reason for the decline. "Oh, our ludicrously obtuse screeds on Arethusa, her couch of snows, and the Acroceraunian mountains is not at all viewed as valueless in society. It's our ludicrously obtuse screeds on Morrison that people don't like. Let's write more ludicrously obtuse screeds on the Romantics! That'll fix everything!" I guess there may have been more snark there than necessary. I guess I just want to throw out there the possibility that Literary Studies has a problem with respect to perception, accessibility, and utility that is at a lower, more fundamental, level. If people in Literary Studies are unwilling to accept this fundamental issue as a problem, unwilling to start addressing it in earnest, well, there is little that can be done to help them.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

When would to describe the scope of this changing? Milton himself wrote literary essays on cultural topics of his times (areopagitica in 1644 was a pamphlet protesting the banning of unlicensed works, which was already a fairly debated and settled topic within the literary sphere by the time he published it). Death Of the Author itself was written in 1967, which debates the merit of analyzing literature on the authors intent and not what is literally on the page regardless of the authors intent. At what point we things not cultural discussion?

rjkennedy98 7y ago
Yes, Milton wrote political and cultural topics, so has Harold Bloom. That is far different from believing that works of art are merely the product of cultural forces.

yummypaint 7y ago

The experience of a work is entirely dependent on cultural context. I think the modern focus on perspectives/lenses is a natural reaction to this fact. I also think this didnt happen until recently because the utter lack of diversity in early humanities blinded us to that truth. "Litterary and aesthetic merit" has always been code for stuff old white dudes like.

xamuel 7y ago
>"Literary and aesthetic merit" has always been code for stuff old white dudes like. You are confusing one thing for another. Until fairly recently, cultured, well-read people tended to be old white dudes. If history had been different and the upper classes had consisted of (for example) nothing but Pakistani women, then those Pakistani women would love Milton and Shakespeare, and people would say, "Literary and aesthetic merit has always been code for stuff Pakistani women like". No. No matter how fashionable it is for postmodernists to shriek otherwise, the fact is, there is objectively good literature. Well-read, world-wise people will gravitate to this objectively good literature. Doesn't matter if those people are old white dudes, or middle-aged East African women, or whatever group it is that happens to occupy the upper classes. Shakespeare has genuine structural qualities inherent in it that allows it to stand the test of time. Kafka contains genuine truth that will stand the test of time. There's no evil conspiracy to promote Homer undeservedly. These works stand on their own, and they're stuff well-read, intelligent people like, whoever those people may be.
- apocalypstyx 7y ago
  Interestingly enough, if there were such a thing, then objectively good literature would be the first thing taken over by AI. It would be that very ability to be objective that would make it definable in a way that could be machine produced. Of course, this flies in the very face of thing because something very different is afoot here, as the names demonstrate. And a comparison and a question arises: name who wrote Little Red Riding Hood. Which, of course, is an inanswerable question. One can name many famous author who have written versions, but past that one quickly becomes lost in the diffusion of oral tradition. So, here, what arises of importance is the contents, the flow and interplay, the fluxuations of intersecting generalities and particulars attached to nothing. Yet with the names one speaks not of 'Titus Andronicus' or 'The Penal Colony', one speaks of Kafka and Shakespeare. The question is has one read name, is not name truth. And it is the name that is the primary. The question is why can truth not seem to arise from anonymity? Why can it not arise from plurality? Why can it not arise from diffusion? Because those are the very opposite of the name. So are they truth then or are they sigil? If not, where are the anonymous truths?

bilbo0s 7y ago

I don't know man? This sounds like more of the same rationalizing that the article posits as the reason for the decline. "Oh, our ludicrously obtuse screeds on Arethusa, her couch of snows, and the Acroceraunian mountains is not at all viewed as valueless in society. It's our ludicrously obtuse screeds on Morrison that people don't like. Let's write more ludicrously obtuse screeds on the Romantics! That'll fix everything!" I guess there may have been more snark there than necessary. I guess I just want to throw out there the possibility that Literary Studies has a problem with respect to perception, accessibility, and utility that is at a lower, more fundamental, level. If people in Literary Studies are unwilling to accept this fundamental issue as a problem, unwilling to start addressing it in earnest, well, there is little that can be done to help them.