dude has a lot of fucking gall after making a movie like "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle"

Harold Bloom is a truly valuable voice in American culture; one of the few who are willing to stand against the rising tide of cultural mediocrity. Amidst the many -- myself included -- who are somewhat indifferent to the increasing elevation of King (whom I've barely read) or Rowling (whom I haven't read at all), Bloom brings a needed element of outrage. When I read the Rowling piece you quoted, it didn't strike me as odd that he noted how many times characters "stretched their legs"; the first thing that came to my mind was why he was the first to say so. For all the praise Rowling has received, why hasn't anyone offered up a howl over the paucity of language?

There aren't that many people who can any longer work up that much concern that Americans feed mostly on offal and that English departments aren't doing one hell of a lot to reverse the situation; Bloom can, and he's the perfect person for the job.

It's ALSO true that all this poor-mouthing has become a bit of a standup act on his part, in which he casts himself as this ancient mariner prophesying doom on Western civilization, which seems to be whatever he says it is. Much as I was deadset against your general animosity toward Bloom, it's hard even for a fan not to reluctantly nod his head in agreement now and then.

There's more to Bloom than all this, though. When he's truly excited by a writer -- like Wallace Stevens or Joyce or Whitman or Ferdinand Pessoa -- he's a terrific read, and he makes you think, makes you re-examine, makes you want to make for yourself the same discoveries he has.

C'mon, didn't you just giggle a bit when, egged on by Neal Pollack, Stephen King used his psychic powers to crucify Bloom with salad forks at the American Booksellers Association awards dinner?

That, my friend, was pure literature.

I guess I'll be happy mediocre medium in all of this. I can see the importance of "literary work" in expanding the tastes and minds of people. Otherwise we would be stuck with a bunch of love stories and the good guy always wins crap. "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" is one of my favorite books and it's partially because of it's sense of poetics.

The flip side is this is that that "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" is one of my favorite books because it's good storytelling. Go figure it's a little bit of both.

Stephen King is a better writer then perceived. Hell even better then he perceives himself to be. He's got a deft hand at humor and clarity for one. For another he's also into the habit of having themes for each of his stories. Hows that for college bound english.

What moves people is what moves people. Final cliche. You know Shakesphere also had a habit of writing for the entertainment of people.

Like it or not Stephen King is the Shakespeare of the 20th and 21st century. This of course says more about our values as a culture than King's literary skills. King was an engrossing pulp writer who even approached literature a couple of times (The Stand, Dead Zone), but he's been running on fumes for twenty years now. He deserves the award just by virtue of the fact that he's motivated so many non-readers to read. However, King is far from good or ( I shudder to say) high art as anyone with a basic knowledge of literature can attest to. Bloom is just another keeper of the literary flame who refuses to go quietly into that pop culture nightmare. Granted, there really never has been a period in which the masses clamored for high art but why should that stop those of us who believe in intellection, sophistication and the beauty of language from continually striving for its supremacy? Yes this is written with bias and I and Mr. Bloom have that right, nay that duty as long as Madison Ave. and the rest of the culture vultures sell off our written word like a commodity. Right on Mr. Bloom.

the Bloom is off the rose, or vice versa

I'm nearly done with my 5th(? losing track, I guess) reading of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. Funny. I only noticed one character stretching his legs, one time. That hardly filled up an envelope. I actually think Rowling has a gift for clever language. I also think it prudent, Rodney, actually to read a piece of literature before you spout off. At least Bloom did that much.

Perhaps Mr. Bloom has the editor's syndrome described by Robert Heinlein: after he pees in something, he likes the favor better.

ahhh..Robert A. Heinlein....the 20th century's answer to Mark Twain for american literature, IMHO...

but very few would think to mention him

for that, DrPat ...

/golfclap

the Moon is a Harsh Mistress should be required reading for any would be political pundits...and the "lowest" of his juvenile novels is a far greater work of literature than 95% of the drivel published...

check Neal Stephenson for a wonderful new Voice...his Baroque Cycle should redefine the "historical novel" genre in a way not seen since James Clavell took on the Orient...

but i digress...

Excelsior!

You're right on the mark, Gonzo. But you know, Bloom is also right. Stephen King is an absolutely terrible writer in every possible way. If you have any awareness of grammar or the English language in general his writing is literally painful to read.

Dave

i stopped reading King after "It"

but i OWN every Heinlein..some in both paperback and hardcover...some signed...some the work published after his Demise..

and you, Dave, know how picky i am about how i spend my $$

Excelsior!

While I agree, Dana, that it is important to read a book before criticizing it, I'm not sure even Harold Bloom did that much. See this quote from an article entitled "The Joy of Reading" at www.hca2005.com:

"In July of 2000 the staff of the Wall Street Journal asked Mr. Bloom to write an op-ed piece about the Harry Potter phenomenon.

'I went to the bookstore and got the first book, and read as much as I could bear,' he says. 'It was unbearable. I started putting checkmarks on a piece of paper every time someone, instead of going out for a walk, "stretched their legs".'"

This seems pretty obviously to be a man who made up his mind about this book before he ever opened it, based solely upon its popularity. Exactly how much of the book could he bear to read? In the WSJ article he claims to have read the first 300 pages, but as a commentator above noted, only one person ever "stretches their legs," and for my part I can't remember lots of walks being taken in the first book. But then, maybe I overlooked any cliched metaphors due to being totally absorbed in the *plot*, a feature of writing so tragically absent from most "highbrow" fare that it's no wonder Mr. Bloom cannot recognize a good one when he's reading it.

Even the title of the 2000 Bloom article seems suspicious ("Can 35 million book buyers be wrong?") considering that in 2003, worldwide sales were actually 250 million.

Pretentious attitudes like this probably turn more people off of "high art"/snob-lit faster than any Harry Potter book ever could.

Look at this sentence: "He has the ability to grab the reader and never let go." Is it from a sixth grade book report? No, it was actually written by an adult, who is also a "writer:" Paul De Angelis. Enough said.

That's right, baby! Tell it like it is! Yahoooo!!! Burn, Bloom, Burn!!!

I seem to be quite late to this discussion, but thought I would throw in anyway.

I agree that Bloom has a way of tossing out judgments which smack of the transcendental authority of god. And that can be a bit annoying.

I disagree with Bloom's blind faith in the existence of a completely autonomous "literary worth" that exists outside history, culture and politics.

But, I do agree that the worth of literature has always, and will always rest in the language--the art of poetics, which De Angelis seems to think is not relevant today for the majority of readers.

I used to devour King when I was in highschool. But since then, I find it difficult to read him without wincing. Apparently, I grew up. My tastes have refined. And I do believe a certain standard of literary language exists, even if it is culturally created (and this obviously leaves texts open to historical dissection). But ultimately, I do share with Bloom a feeling of defeat when authors like Delillo, McCarthy and Pynchon are left out of the mainstream discussion of contemporary literature. The fact that Shakespeare and Dickens were popular writers is not an argument for King's canonization. It is an argument for the larger population's potential to value higher literary standards.

I think Bloom's point is not how shitty a writer Stephen King is, but that, in a time when so few great authors are being championed, awards are given to people who are already established and don't need critical acceptance. It's not like anything Bloom says will affect King's readership.

It's astonishing how many people read Clancy or King or Grisham or that awful DaVinci code guy, but that's the point--it's popular literature, not great literature. Imagine if someone suddenly said that, say, Britney Spears wasn't just a popular singer, but a great original voice in American music. To anyone who really cares about music, their reaction would be, "Wait a second..."

Stephen King has written some amazing stories--The Stand and Shawshank Redemoption among them--but there's really not much substance to his writing. Most of his books can be summed up as.. "An aging alcoholic writer meets X type of monster/disaster/haunted house." That's cool, but Bloom says we need storytellers AND literary writers. And when storytellers start winning literary awards, it pushes out really deserving writers like the Michael Chabons who don't sell King's quota of books, but who are great storytellers and literary writers in their own right.

What Bloom fears is waking up and having nothing great to read...sort of like turning on the radio and hearing nothing but crap. Sound familiar, anyone?

I might have a bit more sympathy for his arguments if he actually cited examples of what qualities the writers he praises as good have that the ones he bashes lack. I would also have more sympathy if it weren't true that every writer he praises is male, and every one he bashes (except King) is female.