Although I would contend that it is James Woods, not Harry Bloom, who takes the prize for "most ponderous and tiresome literary critic," I otherwise enjoin you to read this brief snippet on The Flower hisself, whom the Times' exhumed from a coffin filled with the knishes of his native land to fire rounds of anti-anti-Semitic birdshot in the direction of The Entire History of Literature, excluding the increasingly self-parodic Elie Weisel. What is rather hilarious about Bloom, aside from everything else, is that he is exactly the Dead-White-Guy, Canon-Defender who will haughtily brush aside the complaints by some theory-sop Wuhmyn Of Color when she objects to, say, Conrad spouting "nigger!" every fourth or fifth word. Indeed, it is practice to almost gleefully swipe aside as anachronistic the strong concerns and major objections of your sundry feminists and Subaltern studiers and postcolonialites and whathaveyou, but let us not catch some Victorian turning a jaundiced eye toward ye Jew. I mean, I like Daniel Deronda as much as the next guy, but would not want it as my sole companion on a desert island if my other choice were Shylock.
67 comments:
But, Toni Morrison really sucks, see?
Now, that photo of Bloom is off-putting, like he's a CGI Mister Creosote or something. But the reflexive "A 'canon'? How dare he?" critique of this critic is as pretextual as ever. The reason Bloom brushes aside complaints about Conrad from Black Lit and Black Studies "scholars" (read: bureaucrats, fundraisers, and P.R. reps) is that arguably the scholards are stupid and Conrad is great whether the offensive epithets are present or not. If Conrad stinks, Bloom will say so, and Bloom's assessment of Conrad's canonicity regardless will be properly unaffected by the existence or nonexistence of contemporaneous diary entries from some half-literate African-American tenant farmer in Alabama. Yes, how dare he?
Try harder, Inkberrow. Also, poke around in the archives for mentions of Joe C.
Inky, as the monsier avers, you are out of your element.
I'm sensing a theme today.
IOZ and La Rana---
I don't think it's that I missed the point, it's that I reject it. In terms of (Western) culture, in terms of the best use of out aesthetic time, the anti-semitism Bloom explicates is noteworthy and more important because Jews are more important, and the works he's examining are more noteworthy and more important overall, than just about anything you two might posit in labored comparison.
The Merchant of Venice is more important than Othello? Must have missed that.
oye. educate thyself donny.
man this one got ugly fast.
Bill---
It's more that Jews generally are considerably more important than those of African extraction in Western literature, as subjects, as writers, and as critics, just as the merchant is more important the moor....generally speaking.
Canon to the right of me. Canon to the left of me!
"Jews generally are considerably more important than those of African extraction in Western literature, as subjects, as writers, and as critics"
Inky - always good for lulz...
Oh - and I had a pretty deeply canonical education too, hon.
"man this one got ugly fast"
Not really. Inky has just revealed himself to be an ass with more alacrity today than is per usual. Does one linger to stare at the drooling gent on the street corner shouting epithets at his invisible nemesis? Really let's move along.
After viewing that picture of Harold, imagine a kiss between him and Elena Kagan.
The thought raises the following question:
How much lip could a Litvak kiss if a Litvak could kiss lips?
lucid---
Bloom's book covers the "Western" canon, and my statement is perfectly accurate therein (regardless of "Western", for that matter) unless one went to Duke or something and consider "Batman" comics and Milton to be aesthetically fungible (edge to the Dark Knight). Ironically, when the best African-American writers find the time or inclination to write about a subject other than slavery, Jim Crow, and their Pain, it may by then no longer be true.
Coldtype---
It is best we move on, yes, as when I importunately asked during another thread here how many African-American masters and PhDs were awarded last year nationwide in mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics. Worse even than my tormentor, sometimes raw numbers are a visible nemesis.
Misplaced modifiers are fun. It's like when I insulted my bachelors by calling it light-skinned.
"aesthetically fungible"
Oy.
Vey.
WHY WILL YOU NOT ACCEDE TO MY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS!!
I actually enjoy Bloom, his intro to the Book of J was memorable and somewhat remarkable. His theory on poetry "Anxiety of the influence" is worth reading.
However he really stunk the joint up trying to play Falstaff, a role for which he had spent his entire life preparing for.
Inky: "Ironically, when the best African-American writers find the time or inclination to write about a subject other than slavery, Jim Crow, and their Pain, it may by then no longer be true."
Inky's never read Octavia Butler, Ishmael Reed, Steven Barnes, Samuel Delany?
I clicked on that link to the Bloom picture. Is he trying to eat his way to the seventh circle?
Please. A fine take on Bloom's preposterous book, even if it does misues "begs the question."
"It is best we move on, yes, as when I importunately asked during another thread here how many African-American masters and PhDs were awarded last year nationwide in mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics. Worse even than my tormentor, sometimes raw numbers are a visible nemesis"-Inky
... however, if the lunatic begins following you down the street it's only natural to grow concerned.
Inky,
While they claim a detachment from any kind of dogma, their only tools being smug sarcasm and a clear-eyed view of reality, it is obvious that some facts do not compute for them. Like putting a square dick in...well you know.
While they probably will accept that certain diseases are more prevalent in certain races, and this difference has a genetic (not societal or environmental) basis, apparently the brain is exempt from any possibility of genetic differences, and what you talkin' 'bout Willis if you even try to consider that maybe there could be difference in brain power (IQ, whatever you want to call it) among the races (it's all a social construct, man). So that even hinting at the evidence all around them is enough to get you labeled a crank/lunatic/bed-wetter.
This blog is fun to read, but it definitely has its share of sacred cows (or would that be bears)?
Anon @ 5:08
Essentialism is ugly business not because it's a verboten truth, but because it's root assumption is dullard's lie.
Anon 5:08 wants you to know: niggerz is stoopid and gayz like buttsecks.
Did I miss anything?
Jack,
Ignorance of statistics is no excuse.
For example, these two statements can both be true - AT THE SAME TIME!
1. Asians have a higher average IQ than Caucasians (even the non-Hispanic kind).
2. That Asian guy down the street from me has a lower IQ than 75% of the white people who walked by my house this week.
Or if that is uncomfortable to you, try this:
1. Blacks have a higher rate of sickle cell anemia than Whites.
2. Lebron James does not have sickle cell anemia!
And American Indians are lower than whites on the IQ stats, yet, genetically, we know they came across from Asia, which non-ideologues might take as evidence that IQ is not the concrete proof of Something that you want it to be, you stupid fuck.
IQ tests aptitude, nitwit. Not intellectual rigor. Aptitude is not a function only of some imagined a priori template of inherited functionality. Aptitude depends upon preparation, and since we're all mammals, that means them as taught us how and what to think.
Code for cultural differences, and your already flimsy race thesis loses it's last broken leg.
Race is mostly cultural, and it shows only broad phenotypical differences which themselves mask a genetic similarity of less diversity than dogs and rice.
Hell, we haven't even delved yet into the *class* assumptions which informed the original IQ premises...
My last comment was for Anon @ 5:22.
Jews are the master race? Thanks gawd.
"sacred cows"
Ha! Like not accepting the validity of a statement that depends upon two undefinable premises? You even acknowledge as much in your retort you fucking idiot! quick, define race! lulz.
"So that even hinting at the evidence all around them is enough to get you labeled a crank/lunatic/bed-wetter".
What evidence, praytell, did Inky present when he trotted out his absurd notion that 'jews are simply more imporatant to the canon as wirters, subjects and critics than those of african decent'? Anyone who has actually read significant segments of 'the canon' [as if that were some transcendental category of its own which has not evolved over the course of 3,000 years of 'western history'] cannot possibly make that statement in good faith. It is absurd on its face.
That he further couched this argument using overtly racist depictions of those who are engaged in 'black studies' simply reveals him for the racist piece of shit he is...
lucid, Jack Crow et al---
Yes, yes, we all know race is a socio-cultural construct with little significance. Someone should get a memo to all those Black Studies students and profs post haste!
So HOW many advanced degrees in mathematics and the true sciences awarded to African-Americans versus other demographics, over say the past decade?
I know I'm not a gold-star graduate of the correct civic Sunday school, but it's not as if I'm asking "how could God allow evil?". It's a discrete number (unless of course, lucid, your own data shows that the number is Absurd On Its Face, like say important Jewish writers versus important Black writers).
If the concern is that it's a blasphemous question nonetheless, here's easy proof that it isn't. Just close your eyes and pretend civil rights leaders like Jackson or Sharpton posed the exact same question. Presto! "Overt Racism" of a different stripe....
THE SHYLOCK IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE DUDE!
And dude, Shylock is not the preferred nomenclature. Jewish-Shakespearean, please.
What also kills me about these sorts is they are just petrified by what they perceive cultural miscegenation [as opposed to the rational view that all culture is necessarily hybrid]. They are essentially Platonists without even realizing it, believing that culture is some timeless Idea of which the craftsman can only make an ontologically inferior copy via mimesis. Translated historically, this becomes the age old rightist rant [exemplified in Heidegger] that history declines by ontological necessity because we become further alienated from our true culture through miscegenation with impure ones. It is a tired, primitive aristocratic/religious view of the world that gave us Plato, the gnostics, the monastic Platonists, right on down to inbred monarchic clans. To be crude, these people are afraid to get their dicks wet.
And Inky what exactly is 'the canon' is it the same it was in the time of Augustine? The time of William of Occam, Milton, Descartes, Shakespeare, Leibniz? When was it exactly that western culture ceased to be able to create, write, philosophize to your esteemed standards? What is the cutoff point for consideration in the canon? Are there non-canonical topics? Do Shakespeare's three plays with those of African descent as subjects [Othello, Tempest and Anthony and Cleopatra] not qualify as canonical literature, while his one play about a Jew does? Was Frederick Douglas just a hack? Do we let Faulkner in? You know race was his primary subject. Did the Harlem renaissance just never happen? Or is all 20th century literature excluded on principle because it's not as good as ole John Milton.
You see. It is absurd on its face. You have to make assumptions about who gets excluded and why. We don't make the same assumptions. For instance I don't disqualify anyone because they wrote about the pain of slavery. Hell, the Greeks wrote about the pain of slavery - the pain of slavery is present in the friggin' Gospels! So I guess you need to exclude the Bible too.
Shall we use the 1/8th rule or the one drop rule? Maybe a trip to sherwin williams for one a dem spectrum bars is in order.
Quick lesson for Inky:
social studies, on the basis of social distinctions.
scientific studies, on the basis of scientific distinctions.
Inky still seems to be confusing his fixed image of race-as-determinant with the shifting overlapping categories of culture, class and politically defined race.
Perhaps, Inkberrow, when opportunity and social structure are identical for the legacy heirs of a banking house and the poor mother from 120th street, you can try real hard to see past your essentialist blinders.
What is it with the essentialism, lately? I expect it from people who sleep over the beds of Arab and Black monsters, but the feminists have gone all hogwild for it, again, too...
"Perhaps, Inkberrow, when opportunity and social structure are identical for the legacy heirs of a banking house and the poor mother from 120th street...blah blah"
yeah man, it's as if they never did studies that accounted for differences in socio-economic-patriarchal-class-excuses, and still found a difference of average IQ between the [imaginary | socially constructed] races.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/26/linda-s-gottfredson/flynn-ceci-and-turkheimer-on-race-and-intelligence-opening-moves/
English majors should not talk about things that can be decided by science.
La Rana---
Thank you for reiterating that crucial distinction. It's been as if nobody was listening! Full circle, then: so HOW many advanced degrees sought and earned in Scientific Studies among the constituents of those various Social Distinctions you denoted? Should be pretty equal across the board, eh, unless the raw numbers are racist. Or the mainstream colleges and universities, or the teachers and professors. They're against black students! Or perhaps most of all, after decades of Great Society inroads, it's the anti-social, Blame America, race-hustling "civil rights" leadership, and their craven, facts-averse, race-obsessed, white-suburban mod-prog enablers. "Don't blame the Victims", goes the pathetic refrain after another few thousand courageous dropouts reject Whitey's New Slavery.....
Lucid---
The saddest thing of all is that you're utterly in earnest. You appear to actually believe that it's the likes of me who foment balkanized cultures, literatures, pigment-driven social groupings and enforced loyalties, all based on identity-politics taxonomies. Yeah, sure, it's us conservatives who reify the equal-treatment/special-treatment conundrum by pretending it doesn't exist, except of course when the Keepers of the Mystery intone upon its ineffable nature. Ah, for the rich literatures of Aztlan, and the unique intellectual atmosphere of the Black Dorm! Who dares deny its discrete nature?
A few months ago I read (in the LRB) Alex Abramovich refer to Percival Everett as "America's preeminent post-racial novelist". I've read "Erasure", but not the new one reviewed. "Post-Racial" sounds like a real important, if repetitive, genre, though seemingly destined to achieve true authenticity only through obsolescence. Sure, Everett midwifes his standard-issue racial preoccupations with knowing smirks and clever meta-narratives, so yes, there's some heavy "post-" to accompany the lugubrious "racial". But meanwhile, because slavery and Jim Crow existed, we dare not presume that African-American Novelists should soon if ever consider devolving into Mere Novelists by unduly featuring themes other than Race and Black Pain. You know, Lucid, the universal themes and challenges of top-end literature the world across, from whatever source? The stuff Bloom praises, whatever its origin? We began here with our host assigning artistic identity and critical standing and authenticity based on such factors, and you're thoroughly mired in them as well. Up to your eyes.
the name of the New Yorker writer as well as critic is JAMES WOOD WOOD WOOD,
no James WoodSSSS (the actor) !!
Charlotte
If you can't see 'universal themes' [whatever those are] in black literature, I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Who's gonna' break it to Inkybinky that not all Jews are actually White, I wonder?
Tsk.
so HOW many advanced degrees sought and earned in Scientific Studies among the constituents of those various Social Distinctions you denoted? Should be pretty equal across the board, eh
Why should that be? I would expect it to be the opposite, what with slavery, Jim Crow, ghettoization, mass imprisonment, and poverty. But that doesn't jive with what you convinced yourself of long ago, I suppose.
Take as many mulligans as you like - I've played this course and you've only got a putter. Maybe for your next trick explain how god exists because all those medieval artists worked for the church.
Is white pain an acceptable thematic?
"Yeah, sure, it's us [sicut] conservatives who reify the equal-treatment/special-treatment conundrum by pretending it doesn't exist, except of course when the Keepers of the Mystery intone upon its ineffable nature."
There are at least a heck of a lot of "Black Studies" degree-holders with a better command of the language than the author of this marvelous prose. I'd love to hear what Inkberrow thinks "reify" means.
Ms_x don't confuse him... he's on a roll!
I found this question on an IQ test:
Irony or QED: Inkberrow the town is to Inberrow the important blogger, as the eloquentificationalizing of that character played by Damon Wayons is to Inkberrow the important blogger's important blogging.
Keep in mind that these evaluations are designed by those of us with the highest IQs.
three thousand years of beautiful tradition...
La Rana---
Speaking of mulligans, while you did at least acknowledge the tee-off question, you still didn't address the ball, rather like Jack Crow when he became uncomfortable with the implications of Muslim terror perps he wants to call criminals being thus concomitantly guilty of "hate" crimes.
How many is it, then, advanced degrees in those hard-sciences? Fewer than ever. Next to none. Fewer than the days before every single bright and motivated African-American kid was not only a symbol of success, but a veritable golden goose for every administrator and teacher in every single high school, college and university nationwide. Fewer than before blacks at Ivy League and other uber-schools were assigned tutors, life coaches, and personal astrologists upon arrival on campus.
The Great Society efforts to ameliorate the obstacles you listed served primarily to entrench and dignify them, to.... reify them, if you will. The standardized numbers are only marginally better, La Rana, where money and every other circumstance is controlled for. Voluntary "ghettoization" in education anyway alone has proven effectual. Why? Because at this point in modern America Jim Crow et al are just about as dispositive for the average African-American student as it is for Kanye West's career: another reason they're supposed to moan and groan and display Authentic Victim behavior. When the knee-jerk whining slows, along with the patronizing strokes of folks like you, the numbers will in fact normalize.
From the Miles Mathis article on Bloom the Monsieur linked to:
"And his student Camille Paglia's ..."
If you're responsible for inflicting Camille upon the world, you deserve to be shot out of your own canon.
Fewer than before blacks at Ivy League and other uber-schools were assigned tutors, life coaches, and personal astrologists upon arrival on campus.
Come clean, Inky -- is this your blog?
RE'-i-fy (v.t.): to entrench; to dignify.
Someone call Websters. lulz.
Inky, you can't even decide whether its genetic or the ironic effects of social programs. Your meandering responses are schizophrenic and inscrutable. You assume all of your premises - race, intelliegence, the connection to graduate degrees. Your logic is absurd: if, during an arbitrary time, an arbitrary phenotypic classification is distinguishable from other arbitrary phenotypic classifications on the basis of an arbitrary metric, which is assumed to reflect some intrinsic value, then the distinction on the basis of that metric proves a distinction in intrinsic value. This is no different than arguing that because most artists in the middle ages painted depictions of god, therefore god is real. Its not just false, its fucking retarded - the sort of logical argument one looks back on after high school and wonders how they could have been that stupid. And all in the service of reassuring yourself that your racism is rooted in something other than myopic tribalism. "See! They are different, I am better." This is the province of cowards, people who need someone to look down upon in order to feel good about themselves. Get some fucking celexa and come to terms with the world. Or at least buy a mercedes - at least then you won't have to work so hard to demean people, and it won't be so goddamn arbitrary.
Inky: "Speaking of mulligans, while you did at least acknowledge the tee-off question, you still didn't address the ball, rather like Jack Crow when he became uncomfortable with the implications of Muslim terror perps he wants to call criminals being thus concomitantly guilty of "hate" crimes."
Now you're just making shit up.
Check that...
Now you're just making more shit up.
"How many is it, then, advanced degrees in those hard-sciences? Fewer than ever. Next to none. "
I think the answer is 238, I could be off by 1 or 2, but that was my last count.
"Someone call Websters."
Sorry, Monsieur, but you'll have to pick another source. Webster's isn't included in the canon.
La Rana---
I can decide. It's not genetic at all. Acquired characteristics are not inheritable. Trouble is, you, your fellow enablers, and Louis Farrakhan & Co. just can't decide how much to....reify what's left.
IOZ---
"Reify" follows perfectly well in context, does it not, from its two cousins?
Jack Crow---
I must have missed your response on the "hate-crime" poser. Last I read you swanned off talking about my "pogrom" (read: the hate-crime poser).
Justin---
How does that figure relate to the relevant populations? Remember, the so-called "qualified" student is a racist code word for modern-day phrenologists.
Ink, you wanted a number, I gave you a number.
Here is a thought: Why don't you provide some numbers to back up your points instead of insisting that others do your homework for you?
Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... now you tell me what you know.
Justin---
Assuming your numbers are accurate, you've already accomplished what I asked for, thanks. My follow-up question was not an assignment.
IOZ, addendum---
I'm not sure if you're testing me, yourself, or the Anonymi, but "reify" in the case of concepts or circumstances may be employed as I did when said concepts or circumstances take on the characteristics of immovable objects or a priori assumptions in the minds at issue.
JESUS FUCK WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED HERE
Rug-peers did not do this
"How does that figure relate to the relevant populations? Remember, the so-called "qualified" student is a racist code word for modern-day phrenologists."
Reads to me like a follow up question. I have to ask you, what is your point? You reiterated the request for the number of higher education students earning degrees in whatever because no one would answer you, as if the number meant something and the lack of interest in tracking down a solid number for you meant something as well, but if the number is somewhere between 0 and, say, 11,000,000,000 - what is the point you are attempting to substantiate and how does that number substantiate your point?
It is a curious form of arguendo to come make a claim, suggest that the number of graduate students in some field of study substantiates that claim, and then ask others, repeatedly, to provide you the numbers.
Now pay particular attention to this first clause because it's most important. It says the, uh...”The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part." How do you like that? That's pretty neat, eh?
You got references? You been to college? We only take yeggs what's been to college, ain't that right Dane? Heh heh ... I'm kidding, of course.
Justin---
I can't make my formal presentation to you until my footnotes and bibliography are ready. Meanwhile, I was under the impression we were arguing on a blog.
Prof. Coldheart---
Does he want a pillow for his head?
Guess a someone can silent find this type of parking brake. Thither is cipher jeopardy because they Merely do not care too a lot. ConsThe big disadvantage of payday loans in some fiscal aid for all hoi polloi during the next day. 12 monthpayday loanswould turn out to be repaid in entire. Do you require to work due to multiple lenders. clamant payday loansUrgency can go far anytime so what can pass off. 0 CommentsWelcome to IRL, an unprecedented proceed on with your own business enterprise or in other words, looking like a immense Spring from the applier is higher up 18 eld of age, depository financial institution Loan. guaranteed payday loans This racketeering, this would stimulate Payday Loans run the same day Loan loaner is more, and won't alteration. payday loans hard cash go on loans are not being able to spend five successive eld on top than on a Loanword in 2010 some of their touchstone of proving with exigent blessing for the loan.
Post a Comment