4 ms·
It's too bad to read these reports about his lecherousness, because he was without question a giant in the US world of letters.
by teflodollar 7y ago
It's too bad to read these reports about his lecherousness, because he was without question a giant in the US world of letters.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoHow are these contradictory? He is obviously both.
- teflodollar 7y agoI don't think they're in any way contradictory. I think he was a genuinely great critic, and that can't be taken away from him. But that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed to learn he made female graduate students uncomfortable. Similarly I fully support Handke winning the Nobel this year, but it doesn't mean I can't deplore his support of Milosevic.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoI think this sense of cancel culture is overhyped. Harold Bloom’s importance will not be lessened due to his abuse (except perhaps of topical relevance). There is simply a dual importance like we both recognize.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoAlso stop supporting the Nobel Prizes. They’re bullshit.
- coldtea 7y agoWell, hitting on women (for men), hitting on men (for women), drinking, taking drugs, being tightwad, being lavish, being easily angered, and tons of other things, never stopped anybody from being a giant of letters or the arts, a great politician, a good scientist, a great athlete, a great actor, a great humanitarian, a great businessperson or any other thing... In fact it's probably more common in the great men and women, than in the puny average moralists who never achieved greatness, but also never dared go into any excess as people, and had far far less chances to indulge in such things...
- mannykannot 7y agoI see that you are employing the rhetorical device of diluting rather serious allegations by putting them in a list that also contains things of no importance, but nevertheless, I am in favor of judging a person's contributions independently from their personal attributes. I will not, however, accept that the contributions either justify or excuse harmful behavior.
- coldtea 7y ago>I see that you are employing the rhetorical device of diluting rather serious allegations by putting them in a list that also contains things of no importance, Let me add somethings of importance then: one can be thief and/or murderer (like e.g. Caravaggio, François Villon, Burroughs, Jean Genet, Cellini, etc.) and still be a great writer, poet, painter, sculptor, etc. >I will not, however, accept that the contributions either justify or excuse harmful behavior. Could be the worse, the harmful behavior could inform the contributions. Good people can still make great art (Bach for one), but they don't make great art of the kind bad people make, nor do they have the same access as bad people to express those impulses and that side of humanity.
- SquishyPanda23 7y agoPeople are entitled to like sex and to approach people for relationships that may become sexual. If female grad students were inviting him over for booty calls I think the tone of the conversation would be much different. But the claim is that he was making advances on people who didn't welcome them. This is especially a problem since he was an influential professor with power over their careers. Even for professors, where the natural state for many is social awkwardness, you have some obligation to read the signs of when your behavior is unwanted.
- coldtea 7y ago>But the claim is that he was making advances on people who didn't welcome them. That was part of my point. One can be crash or sexist like that and still a great writer/thinker/etc. The other ("If female grad students were inviting him over for booty calls I think the tone of the conversation would be much different") of course goes without saying!
- Gibbon1 7y agoIt's a warning. I know a bunch of people that are obsessively sexually promiscuous/bent. They don't mix it up with their professional lives.