DerangedRanger1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You leave no doubt about your ability...namecalling is the hallmark of intelligence...perhaps you could have actually refuted the argument...i guess i ask too much...you need to understand that people can disagree with you and the heros you worship...good luck with whatever it is you do...

Toffusaurelius (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You make me wonder how many logical leaps a person can take in four sentences without being considered retarded.

frege666 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Whoa. Just because Bloom's views are heavily indebted to a few of Freud's insights doesn't commit him to everything Freud advocated, much less to Freud's bigotries. As for supposed elitism, Bloom's view is that great literature is for anyone who has the ability to appreciate it, though not everyone can. Whether one has such an ability is not determined--and Bloom makes this clear in writings--by race, gender, sexual preference. This is true and not in the least bit culturally insensitive.

DerangedRanger1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Jeannette - Freud is who Bloom bases his theory of "anxiety of influence" on. You are not confronting what we are talking about but trying to dismiss it.

juaneclariond (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Freud, who is Freud? it all depends who reads him. I try to read myself. And I let other poets read me. Just as painting and music, it is not what we see or hear but the way we are seen or heard. Jeannette L. Clariond

DerangedRanger1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Listen at the beginning. I find it interesting that Bloom thinks that his ideas are not somehow political. The Freudian psychology he relies on posits subjectively determined norms created by societal authorities. Anything too far away from the norm is considered "deviant" and will be grounds ostracization of the offender. In the patriarchal-capitalist society, this means men and specifically rich men are those in power. He is basically defending the status quo, which is a political act.

DerangedRanger1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Jeannette, What I'm really interested in are your thoughts on Freaudian psychology. Is it a valid way to analyze everything, even if we just limit it to poems? If you think that Freud's theories are valid, I must assume you have a low opinion of women, which somehow I doubt. What you seem to be arguing is that Bloom is a master of a theory that posits value judgment, and defends it through elitism (e.g. his comment "people in no way interested in aesthetic value.")

DerangedRanger1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Jeannette, True, Bloom's theories were designed for poetry analysis, but musicians (especially in the 19th century when the study of music history was invented, starting with Mendelssohn's Bach revival)could also be said affected by "anxiety of influence" since they too have predecessors and must clear artistic space. The aesthetics of the 19th c Western culture are present in more than just poetry.

juaneclariond (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

His theories --as far as my knowledge encompasses-- deal more with poetry than with music. He starts off with the Bible (Ruin the Sacred Truths).I find difficulties trying to link his theories to music. Bloom teaches his reader how to read her or himself. As a music lover, is reading music the same as reading poetry? Or, can one relate notes to words? Are notes introduced in the Genesis? Can you read the Notes in The Psalms? Jeannette

DerangedRanger1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Jeannette - Thanks for the reply. To be clear, I do not completely reject Bloom's ideas. I have a BS in psychology, am a musician and now working on my PhD in musicology , and we borrow his theories too. However, I would limit the (musical) repertoire that his theory is able to cover nothing earlier than 19th century, and possibly nothing outside if the Romantic aesthetic. You have disputed one of my points (Bloom's competence), but you have said nothing about the other two.