From
a cache of cuttings about Harold Bloom, mainly on his book ‘The Western Canon’
(1994) fell a handwritten letter, unsigned and unsent. For some reason Max
Richards (1937-2016) starts the letter, then leaves it alone. Maybe it’s a
draft for something else. The letter eloquently reveals the sorts of shifts
happening in Melbourne literary studies, Melbourne by then just typical of more
widespread changes in attitude and practice.
1/7/95
Saturday
Dear
Brian,
I was
at a loss for words on Bloom,
wasn’t
I? What I might finally have got
around
to saying is that I doubt Bloom
missed
much in the ‘theory boom’. His
earlier
criticism tended to be thesis-ridden –
I
remember John Butt saying as much to me in
Edinburgh
in 1964, and Norman Holmes Pearson
when
he visited La Trobe in 1968 or so.
But
they were old literary historians and
humanists.
Middle Bloom I find tiringly
complicated
– forcing his version of the Oedipal
struggle
on pairings of poets. I long ago
put
myself outside one academic pale by
my
persistent feeling that all I wanted
from
critics was personal interpretations
and
judgments – as part of the endless
conversation
of humankind about writing
and
theatre and all the other arts. I read
John
Berger & Peter Fuller not for their
principles
or theory but their appreciations
of
artists and their work. So Bloom’s intros
to
the Chelsea House anthologies of criticism
are
for me Bloom being pleasingly Johnsonian,
&
the parts of the ‘Canon’ book I’ve sampled please
me
when they are ‘practical’ & bore me when they’re
not.
My 1950s & 60s teachers were like that,
my
own practice dreams of being effective with a
vocabulary
accessible to undergraduates and readers
of
book-review pages: London Review of Books, say.
The
critics who are of most use to me are
artists
like D.H. Lawrence, Randall Jarrell, Seamus
Heaney.
At time Bloom is ‘with them’.
Since
the time of Northrop Frye, I’ve felt many
academics
care more for ideas than for writing.
My
devotion to poetry resents the interference of
theory
of most sorts. The interest for me is in the
nuances
in which theory is not interested – or is it?
Comments
Post a Comment