3 ms·
The idea of a canon might be controversial, but you really can’t go wrong with anything on the list. Although the lack of Marx is questionable considering his i
by pram 7y ago
The idea of a canon might be controversial, but you really can’t go wrong with anything on the list. Although the lack of Marx is questionable considering his immense influence.
- camelNotation 7y agoMarx is absolutely canon, one of the most important writers in history. I'm not sure how anyone can claim to understand the western tradition without Marx.
- zozbot234 7y agoBloom cared about the canon for its aesthetic value, and was quite skeptical about the whole notion that literature (in a narrow sense) could be relevant to social change. From that POV, the absence of Marx (or for that matter, of many other non-fiction authors, who are included in other "great works" lists but missing here) might be quite understandable.
- goto11 7y agoIt doesn't have Darwin or Newton either. It is a list of literature, not overall influential works.
- shantly 7y agoHe omits a lot of philosophy, science, economics, and so on, that aren't directly relevant to the literary canon.
- claudiawerner 7y agoTrue, but he includes Nietzche - while Nietzche's literary status is beyond question, they are not so memarkable other than the fact that they were very influential. J.S. Mill's On Liberty is also included - not being particularly appraised for its literary status as much as its influence on all liberal thought. Marx was arguably a literary genius in the same way Nietzche was, and influential in the way J.S. Mill was. He should be on the list by both accounts of what the list should contain. Not to mention, Bloom includes many authors who count Marx among their primary influences, like Walter Benjamin, Brecht, Orwell, Levi-Strauss, Sartre, Camus, and Bataille.