In the past, Bloom has been labeled a conservative by some for his defense of canonical Western writers against postmodern and deconstructionist critics in recent years. (For the record, he calls himself a “left-wing Democrat, whatever that means these days.”)
Bloom went so far as to resign from the English department of Yale in 1976 for this growing schism in English studies, as well as the Modern Language Association and the English Institute “with a letter blasting them” for adherence to this trend.
Although his opinions have made Bloom, in his words, “the pariah of [his] profession for the last thirty years,” he sticks by his beliefs. He maintains that using gender, race, or any other personal characteristics of authors in evaluating the artistic merit or validity of their work is “a blasphemy against the arts…a horrible absurdity.”
Noting that he has “limped off too many canonical battlefields,” Bloom insists that he has only three criteria for what he reads and teaches: “aesthetic splendor, intellectual power, wisdom.” At this point in literary scholarship he suspects “the profession is pretty much split down the middle” between aestheticists like himself and more postmodern theorists.
When asked what undergraduates should be reading, he listed his quintessential canonical authors—Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope and Samuel Richardson, among them—“the great authors of the language.”
In terms of more contemporary authors, Bloom said “there’s no question about it, we have four first-class novelists writing at the moment,” Philip Roth, Don DeLillo, Thomas Pynchon and Cormack McCarthy, whose Blood Meridian he said was “so savage and splendid there’s been nothing as good since Faulkner.”
Bloom affably deflected references to his esteemed reputation. “Obviously I am not unique,” he said, “there are in every generation remarkable people who are teaching English and other literatures all over the world.”
Shrugging and joking throughout the interview, Bloom bantered with others in the room in a self-effacing and familiar manner, and seemed to enjoy himself, laughing regularly. At one point, when I affirmed that I didn’t disagree with him about his political views, he wryly concurred, “we have very few arguments, Joe.”
After the reading, Bloom did not hold a question and answer session, which is unusual for a Harvard Book Store author event. In explaining his reasoning he said that in spite of his “palpable amiability,” some people have taken “the entire audience—not to mention my sad self—captive with an oration rather than a question.” He added that he would be happy to answer individual questions as he signed books, and complied with a line that stretched to the back of the church.
—Staff writer Joe DiMento can be reached at dimento@fas.harvard.edu.