3 ms·

The original post links to the list, the one he is disavowing. That's the context, that specific list.

keiferski 7y ago
Your comment is misleading because it doesn’t mention that Bloom spent virtually his entire career defending the value of classic literature. The fact that he had minor criticisms of his list and didn’t want to talk about it doesn’t mean that he disavowed it and that isn’t what the word disavowed means. Disavowed suggests that he is dismissive of the contents of the list entirely, which again, could not be further from the truth. Quoting a brief Vice article leaves out decades of context.
- valvar 7y ago
  As I understand it, he was opposed to the idea of composing a list like that, i.e. a definitive list of what the canon is and what you should read. There's no contradiction with such a disavowal and defending the canon as such. Obviously there are some works that are core to the canon, that I'm sure he would urge everyone to read, such as the works he mainly discusses in the book (Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Goethe, the Bible, etc). That doesn't mean that he has to be a proponent of compiling them into a neat list.
rayiner 7y ago
The list is the object of his statement, but it’s not the context in which he’s making the statement. When he says he “disavows the list” he’s talking about disavowing the idea that the list published as an appendix to his book is a comprehensive list of western canon. (It’s also clear that he’s gotten this question before and doesn’t want to debate the details of specific items on the list.) But it is clear from his statement that “I probably put in a couple of things that I now would like to kick out” that he’s not disavowing the idea that the vast majority of the books on the list (all but a “couple”) are in fact in his view part of the western canon. You’re taking a narrow point made in the context of a discussion with literary nerds (“I don’t want to defend every jot and tiddle of this specific list”) and by presenting it without context, you’re making it seem like he’s rejecting that the list is in his view mostly accurate.

Your comment is misleading because it doesn’t mention that Bloom spent virtually his entire career defending the value of classic literature. The fact that he had minor criticisms of his list and didn’t want to talk about it doesn’t mean that he disavowed it and that isn’t what the word disavowed means. Disavowed suggests that he is dismissive of the contents of the list entirely, which again, could not be further from the truth. Quoting a brief Vice article leaves out decades of context.

valvar 7y ago
As I understand it, he was opposed to the idea of composing a list like that, i.e. a definitive list of what the canon is and what you should read. There's no contradiction with such a disavowal and defending the canon as such. Obviously there are some works that are core to the canon, that I'm sure he would urge everyone to read, such as the works he mainly discusses in the book (Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Goethe, the Bible, etc). That doesn't mean that he has to be a proponent of compiling them into a neat list.

rayiner 7y ago

The list is the object of his statement, but it’s not the context in which he’s making the statement. When he says he “disavows the list” he’s talking about disavowing the idea that the list published as an appendix to his book is a comprehensive list of western canon. (It’s also clear that he’s gotten this question before and doesn’t want to debate the details of specific items on the list.) But it is clear from his statement that “I probably put in a couple of things that I now would like to kick out” that he’s not disavowing the idea that the vast majority of the books on the list (all but a “couple”) are in fact in his view part of the western canon. You’re taking a narrow point made in the context of a discussion with literary nerds (“I don’t want to defend every jot and tiddle of this specific list”) and by presenting it without context, you’re making it seem like he’s rejecting that the list is in his view mostly accurate.