Comments on: Upon reading The Anxiety of Influence

By: David Michael

David Michael — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:18:35 +0000

I’m impressed that Bloom is still attempting such ambitious projects at his age. I hope he gets well soon and finishes the book — it sounds fascinating.

By: Perscors

Perscors — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:19:24 +0000

BTW, Bloom is to release a book this fall titled “The Living Labyrinth.” Originally it was to be “The Anatomy of Influence” and was to chart influence from the Hebrew Bible to the present. The title was a riff off of Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy. I imagine he must’ve backed down from that undertaking due to the title change. He commented recently that the effort nearly broke him which is perhaps literally true since he had to cancel his Yale courses this semester due to medical reasons and is likely still rehabilitating in the hospital as we “speak.”

By: David Michael

David Michael — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:39:06 +0000

Thanks for alerting me to the Paul Fry essay – I’ve saved it for later. I definitely agree that Bloom’s theory is best thought of as a work in progress, even if I haven’t read the relevant books. One thing you can say of Bloom’s ideas is that they certainly are fun. One gets the impression that he takes delight in the intellectual pursuit, and that that’s more important to him than truth. Even if it is ridiculous to suggest that Shakespeare invented what it means to be human, yet I can’t help but be fascinated by the idea.

By: Perscors

Perscors — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:01:06 +0000

Enjoyed the post! Summarizing this dense book is not an easy task. Bloom’s theory is definitely a work in progress which he continues to clarify and modify in later books. I recently read an essay by Paul Fry called How to Live with the Infinite Regress of Strong Misreading (Decemeber 2008) where Fry argues that the proper perspective on Bloom is as a literary historiographer in the mode of the Russian Formalists. Of course Bloom also aims to write a kind of criticism that merges with poetry itself in the mode of Emerson and Freud, not to mention Samuel Johnson, Hazlitt, Ruskin, Pater and Oscar Wilde. Because influence is contingent on history it is difficult to give any solid theory since even so called canonical figures of our age may pass into obscurity (Bloom has mused in an interview somewhere whether Yeats might not last). I think the most enduring aspect of Bloom’s theory is the crossing of the strongest aspects of various poets works into what he calls an agon. However subjective such an exercise might be it sure is fun.