the western canon

[Anonymous No.14062198]

I found the Wester Canon for 3 dollars at a book fair and I bought it because of a post some anon wrote about time spent as an undergrad reading Bloom, and enjoying him even thought professors called him updated, and discovering so many interesting things thank to him.
I went through the preface and the first chapter yesterday, and I am liking it very much. I think the idea of basing literary criticism in literature alone is absolutely right, and that putting aesthetic criteria before ideological and philosophical criteria is the way literary criticism should be made. I have always enjoyed reading very much but I have been drawn away from literature departments exactly because I the drive to make every bit of criticism socially impactful - when nobody gives a shit about books in general, let it be literary criticism. I mean this guy could single handedly blow away each piece of catholic, nu-stoic, peterson-loving, ironic and non-ironic nazi, improvised fedora theologians, philosophy undergrads and other festering idiots in here. Can we just be the aesthetic over ideology board and shit on everyone's heads, like Bloom would have done? Can we just really go beyond cheap morality based in little more than reading wikipedia articles about the bible and Guenon and embrace this book as a wonderful (though imperfect, like all books) guide?

[Anonymous No.14062203]

>>14062198
Oh, I forgot: many thanks to the anon who told about his experience of reading this. I wish there were most posts like yours, you really got me curious and I am loving the book so far!

[Anonymous No.14062210]

>"the western canon"
>written by a jew
in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.14062221]

OP should put more time into geniuses and less into scholars. Link related.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

[Anonymous No.14062222]

>>14062210
The Jews are God's chosen people.

[Anonymous No.14062228]

>>14062222
Checked

[Anonymous No.14062234]

>>14062198
As great as it would be for aesthetic criticism to be primary, you're never going to get people to give up their ideology-driven criticism, because it's driven by emotion and herd mentality. That goes for religion, feminism, Marxism, neo-Nazism, or any other ideologically-driven criticism.

[Anonymous No.14062243]

>>14062210
why do you think you’re so boring?

[Anonymous No.14062258]

>>14062210
>orgyofthewill.net
That’s a good point
Adler, Bloom (and Bloom), et al.
Hutchins wasn’t a Jew
think Great Books started at Columbia, have to look up John Erskine...

[Anonymous No.14062298]

>>14062221
But I do, anon. This is literally the only literary criticism book I own together with Nabokov's Lessons on Literature. The rest of my knowledge on literary criticism is Foucault's chapters and other relativistic-minded idiots I was forced to read as an undergrad, which I skipped for the most part before migrating to a philosophy department, where the average professor laughs out loud when a French thinker of any kind is nominated in class.
Ironically, since he claims to refuse philosophical criteria, Bloom is more philosophical than most of the critics I had the misfortune to read, which are little more than failed attempts at writing an anthropology of literature. Bloom just says: I believe the criteria to judge literature is aesthetics, and I believe aesthetics is independent from morality and ideology of any kind. This is a debatable point of view, but it is philosophical, which means that at least it is not based in politicized categorization and other kinds of cancerous stuff that does not belong in the study of arts.

[Anonymous No.14062311]

>>14062222
>this gets quads
N-no... it can't be true... can it?

[Anonymous No.14062353]

>>14062198
Do you actually think Bloom is removed from ideology? He inserts his jewishness into everything, and frequently does so explicitly. Yet you have a problem with white people being proud that it is our culture this jew is critiquing and inserting his racial identity into while insinuating that the canon isn't rooted in our own when it obviously is?

[Anonymous No.14062553]

If you give a shit about literary criticism at all you should be reading what actual poets have written about a particular work. This being said the only non-poet literary critics worth reading are northrop frye, camille paglia, marshall mcluhan and bloom (to the lamentation of many)

[Anonymous No.14062636]

>>14062353
cringe

[Anonymous No.14062644]

>>14062198

[Anonymous No.14062688]

"Bloom just says: I believe the criteria to judge literature is aesthetics, and I believe aesthetics is independent from morality and ideology of any kind."

Nothing in the universe is independent of anything else, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the same universe. Orgy of the Will explains this so plainly that even morons who accept Bloom's imbecilities will understand it.

[Anonymous No.14062696]

>>14062636
Cringe posting is peak cringe.

>>14062644
>JediMaster
What a $oylent faggot.

[Anonymous No.14062700]

>>14062221
What is that website?

[Anonymous No.14062715]

>>14062222
BASED AND YAHWEH-PILLED

[Anonymous No.14062791]

>>14062198
American universities are fucking if immanentist approaches aren't taught first and foremost to dispel the banal contextualizing/politicizing thinking.
OP, I recommend read about formalism, structuralism and New Criticism, and Warren and Wellek's "Theory of Literature".
When you gain a good foothold in immanentism, you'll realise that it does not answer all the questions one might have regarding art, so you'll come back to certain contextual approaches - but hopefully with a much sharper mind, recognising and disregarding political and other sorts of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14062807]

>>14062791
*are fucking shit

[Anonymous No.14062808]

>>14062198
Does he talk a lot about in and outs of structured poetic verse? I caught interest in this a e s t h e t i c topic recently

[Anonymous No.14063074]

>>14062715
Where is this from originally?

[Anonymous No.14063081]

>>14062210
he was at lest not a shitty jew

[Anonymous No.14063093]

>>14062644
this has to be a troll post

[Anonymous No.14063169]

>>14062198
>Can we just be the aesthetic over ideology board and shit on everyone's heads, like Bloom would have done?
No because that's retarded and basically just giving in to mainstream

[Anonymous No.14063742]

>>14062791
thank you, anon

[Anonymous No.14063771]

>>14063169
actually this place is shit because ideology, catholic moralizers, guenon LARPers, fedora philosophers and similar, and the whole point is that we keep being flooded by cheap threads about whether god exists or whether there can be morality without god, made by people who have read no books at all, and which degenerate into discussions that are /pol/tier-shit.
So yes, if we got to discuss the aesthetic qualities of a book sometimes, such as why is the book beautiful or ugly and what makes it so, I think we would do the exact opposite of what is mainstream here, at the moment.

As for the mainstream outside the board, if that's what you were referring, it is highly politicized and spoon-fed propaganda in the form of video entertainment on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.14063789]

>>14062210
w-wot issit?

[Anonymous No.14063955]

>>14062222
Highly based

[Anonymous No.14063967]

>>14063955
Based on an inbred tribal delusion?

[Anonymous No.14064432]

>>14062553
>northrop frye
Peak midwit choice, and not even mentioning Eric Auerbach or Frank Kermode outs you as a dunning krueger dunce. Also Paglia is not bad but basically knockoff Walter Pater.

[Anonymous No.14065045]

>>14064432
>auerbach and kermode
ah I understand, you hate art. carry on

[Anonymous No.14065247]

>>14062688
Yeah, let me check that intellectual website
>951. Women are the original faggots. Compared to their level of faggotry, actual faggots may as well be straight.
Wow, so insightful.

[Anonymous No.14066137]

>>14062222
"in their vindictiveness they turned to narcissistic self-worship as a form of catharsis"