« Hillary Clinton and the Gender Wars | Main | Your Desert Island Books »
March 06, 2007
Bloom on Books, Bibles, and Harry Potter
If you had five books, and only five books, that you could take on a desert island for the rest of your life, what would they be? Yale University literary critic Harold Bloom is interviewed about his picks for five most important books in this week's Newsweek magazine. What's not on the list: the Holy Bible and Harry Potter.
It is little surprise that Bloom was willing to give up the Bible, since the unbelieving scholar has been an advocate for a resurgent Gnosticism (a Gnosticism he sees, interestingly, in contemporary Mormonism and in the "soul competency" beliefs of Southern Baptist moderates). Bloom tells Newsweek the Bible has "gotten all mixed up with questions of belief" in this "insanely religious" nation. Shakespeare, on the other hand, Bloom says, is "the beginning, the middle and the end." Bloom's list includes, in order, the complete works of Shakespeare, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Dante's Divine Comedy, Cervantes' Don Quixote, and Homer's Iliad.
As for children's literature, Bloom commends the two Alice books by Lewis Carroll, which he calls "the finest literary fantasies ever written." Bloom says: "They will last forever, and the Harry Potter books are going to wind up in the rubbish bin. The first six volumes have sold, I am told, 350 million copies. I know of no larger indictment of the world's descent into subliteracy."
And, in case you're wondering if Professor Bloom is sure of himself on these recommendations, I'd say he is. When asked by Newsweek to disclose an important book he's not yet read, Bloom replies, "I cannot think of a major work I have not ingested."
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 12:17 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8351f432569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bloom on Books, Bibles, and Harry Potter :
Comments
"When asked by Newsweek to disclose an important book he's not yet read, Bloom replies, "I cannot think of a major work I have not ingested." "
Ingested, perhaps, but not digested. I suspect the reason Bloom doesn't include the Bible is because, unlike the other books on his list, the Scriptures judge him and not vice versa.
Posted by: Bill R | Mar 6, 2007 12:22:45 PM
Of course, if the great professor has not yet "ingested" the work, obviously it isn't great.
Posted by: Kamilla | Mar 6, 2007 1:55:59 PM
Strange to hear that the Bible has "gotten all mixed up with questions of belief." How ever did that happen?
And it amazes me that one can so appreciate Dante and Chaucer while rejecting their fundamental beliefs. Poor Dr. Bloom.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Mar 6, 2007 1:58:29 PM
Harry Potter is just plain good literature, with enough symbolism, allegory, and Truth-with-a-capital-T to suit anybody. Any Christian argument against them holds no water unless the arguer is equally prepared to apply his criteria to Lord of the Rings as well, which none ever is.
The books will not end up in MY rubbish bin.
Posted by: Annie | Mar 6, 2007 1:59:25 PM
Annie -- I love the Harry Potter books too, but Truth with a capital T?
There really isn't all that much Truth in Potter. Plenty of knowledge, and some wisdom, but Truth?
There are good messages in Rowling, but there are questionable messages, too -- the way we ought to relate to authority, for one. I don't object to Potter's magic, but his character needs a bit of maturation.
(Something he has in common with Mr. Bloom, I might add...)
Posted by: Daniel Propson | Mar 6, 2007 2:13:26 PM
Daniel,
It is the books' ongoing exploration of Love (transcendent, ultimate, unconditional Love) that I find to be most edifying. If you click on my name in the comments, it will take you to my wordpress site, where I recently quoted an entire passage that I found to be particularly moving. Of course, it's in a different context (Love affords no special protection against Dark wizards, as far as I know), but the idea is there.
Posted by: Annie | Mar 6, 2007 2:23:13 PM
I think y'all are being a little rough on Professor Bloom. I find him an insightful critic, though not infallible. Maybe some of you should read his work before you take him to task. Granted, I find his comments about Christianity (my tradition) and Judaisism (his tradition) more than a little goofy; but his insights into literature are always worth a look. Both liberal academics and conservative Christians detest him. Talk about strange bedfellows!
As for Harry Potter, I'm with Bloom. Tripe.
Posted by: m&m | Mar 6, 2007 2:59:19 PM
Translation of Bloom's comment on the Bible: "I love the leaves but I don't like the roots."
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Mar 6, 2007 3:30:41 PM
What is curious too is that Bloom's list consists only of works of fiction -- no science, no history, etc. Perhaps that's another reason the Bible didn't make it onto his list. While fiction is a wonderful vehicle for truth, it is also subservient to personal imagination in a way that factual material is not and can not be.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Mar 6, 2007 3:57:59 PM
"Translation of Bloom's comment on the Bible: "I love the leaves but I don't like the roots." "
Or perhaps, Bobby: "I like the roots, but detest the Bloom." ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Mar 6, 2007 4:02:54 PM
>>>What is curious too is that Bloom's list consists only of works of fiction -- no science, no history, etc. Perhaps that's another reason the Bible didn't make it onto his list. While fiction is a wonderful vehicle for truth, it is also subservient to personal imagination in a way that factual material is not and can not be.<<<
Then, again, maybe it's because Bloom is a teacher of literature...
Posted by: m&m | Mar 6, 2007 4:41:12 PM
I don't mean to be rough on Dr. Bloom. The professor I TA'd for at Wheaton was one of his assistants for a while at Yale, and found him both a fine critic and a agreeable fellow. He's certainly head and shoulders above 95% of literary critics nowadays; at least he cares about the tradition, even if it is partially for the wrong reasons.
For what I've read of his, I do find him a bit ostentatious in style. The sheer breadth of what he applies his name to (including a critical series assembled by other writers, in which he has only written the introduction to each volume) makes me a little hesitant. I wonder how much of his image as the number one critic of our times is a partial product of self-promotion.
Gnosticism is the besetting disease of our age (and maybe of every other age, too), but I think Dr. Bloom has caught a less virulennt strain than some others.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Mar 6, 2007 4:42:17 PM
James,
What M&M said. 'Course he could be a teacher of literature precisely because he prefers things to be "subservient to personal imagination." Or his long years of literary study might have led him to overvalue such subservience. It's sort of a chicken and an egg problem.
But I doubt too many literature professors, no matter how Christian, would have a desert-island list dominated by non-fiction works, with the exception of the Bible. I certainly wouldn't--unless I decided to go with a Boy Scout handbook and four manuals on raft-building. :-)
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Mar 6, 2007 4:47:42 PM
As much as I enjoy Harry Potter, it wouldn't make my list either. First off, there are more than five books in the series. :-)
But counting multi-volume works as single entries, I think my list would be something like:
1. The Bible
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. Beowulf
4. The Gormenghast Trilogy
5. The Divine Comedy (maybe on the island I'd finally have time to finish the Paradiso!)
Robinson Crusoe might be a good choice, too, for practical advice as well as art.
Anyone else have a list, fiction or otherwise? This ought to be more fun than more bagging on Dr. Bloom.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Mar 6, 2007 4:59:07 PM
1. Genesis
2. John
3. The Name of the Rose
4. Dune
5. Knots and Links (by Dale Rolfson)
Since some might combine 1 and 2 within the Bible let me add
6. A Canticle for Leibowitz
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Mar 6, 2007 5:24:15 PM
My only problem with Bloom's list (minus the missing Bible, but that has been covered) is that ONE of his books is the Complete Works of Shakespeare. I realize that you can get the complete works in one volume, but that is cheating the game a little, don't you think?.
Posted by: Ransom | Mar 6, 2007 5:25:51 PM
Well, if we're making lists... ;)
1. The Bible (73 books)
2. The Divine Comedy
3. The Chronicles of Narnia
4. 1984
5. The Phantom Tollbooth
I'd probably complain about not having enough to read, though....
Posted by: Annie | Mar 6, 2007 5:26:26 PM
Does the Encyclopedia Brittanica count as one volume? ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Mar 6, 2007 5:34:00 PM
I'd take just one book: "How to Escape a Desert Island." ;-)
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | Mar 6, 2007 5:55:17 PM
Chesterton said "A practical guide to ship building."
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Mar 6, 2007 5:56:58 PM
I wonder why he included the Complete Works of Shakespeare but not the Complete Works of Homer. Got something against the Odyssey, does he?
I haven't seen any evidence that Bloom is generally "detested" by conservative Christians. What we (or at any rate I) find objectionable is his arrogance. Ingested all of the major works? Please. Even Dante wouldn't make such a claim and we all know how high his opinion of his own learning was (and there were a lot fewer to read in his time).
Furthermore, the notion that illiteracy (or ignorance generally) is the primary problem our era is problematic. It is a useful insight, but it fails to explain how earlier -- and presumably wiser and better informed -- generations were so unwise as to allow their children to grow up ignorant. Without a robust acknowledgment of the biblical view of sin, no social commentary can be successful.
Much as I love the Harry Potter books, I have to admit he is right that they don't measure up to Alice or even the Narnia Chronicles. (The Lord of the Rings is in a completely different category and is not Children's literature, despite the presence of Hobbits.) I place the Potter books on a par with Edward Eager's Half-Magic quartet. Not quite classics, (or perhaps second-tier classics) but ripping good stories nonetheless. And similar subject matter, as well.
Posted by: Jack of Clubs | Mar 6, 2007 7:23:54 PM
"Alice" may live forever, but how many kids actually read the books these days? You really need Martin Gardner's "The Annotated Alice" for full appreciation (and I recommend it). And much of the stuff will be way over kids' heads, although perhaps it was not over the heads of Alice, her sisters, and other similar (I have to say it) privileged children.
Posted by: Jim C. | Mar 6, 2007 7:29:21 PM
>>The Lord of the Rings is in a completely different category and is not Children's literature, despite the presence of Hobbits.<<
I dare say. I consider The Lord of the Rings the greatest work of literature in the 20th century.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Mar 6, 2007 9:10:01 PM
I didn't mean to put LOTR on the same literary level as HP (though I prefer the latter, personal taste is all). I meant to (and thought I DID) imply that they equally contain "questionable material" and that you cannot condemn one for it without condemning the other.
Posted by: Annie | Mar 6, 2007 9:34:31 PM
"I dare say. I consider The Lord of the Rings the greatest work of literature in the 20th century."
Depending on whether or not one counts it as "literature" ion Ethan's sense, I'd put Solzhenitsyn's "the Gulag Archipelago" ahead of LOTR. I might also put at least "August 1914" ahead of it as well.
It is worth noting that vitually all of the works being suggested are orignally in the English language. I'm sure that e.g. a German would put aside many of our suggestions here for Goethe's "Faust," or a Frenchman might put forward Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past", etc.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Mar 7, 2007 6:57:55 AM
Yes, James, you may be right about Solzhenitsyn. I haven't read those works. What if I qualified it as "Best 20th century work originally in the English Language"?
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Mar 7, 2007 8:21:53 AM
It is not the works he ingests that defile him, but those he excretes.
Posted by: Joe Long | Mar 7, 2007 8:29:03 AM
Why would "privileged children" be a hard thing to say? My own children are privileged--not financially (ha!) but educationally. As I read Carroll to my youngest, my oldest laughs aloud: she now gets the "O Mouse!" joke (having had, herself, to memorize many a Latin form), much of the logician's humor (her father teaches logic--thus the lack of financial privilege), and the parodic poetry, having had to learn quite a few of the poems being parodied over the years.
We as a society at some point decided that such "privilege" was unimportant, and educational reformers forced the schools to abandon Latin, memorization of poetry, and logic as well as other serious mathematics. We're fooling ourselves if we look back at what children were once capable of and imagine it was only because their parents were wealthy.
Posted by: o.h. | Mar 7, 2007 8:59:04 AM
Annie wrote: "Love affords no special protection against Dark wizards, as far as I know"
Ah, Annie, but you're wrong there. Death Eaters think they can kill you and that's the end of it. We who believe in Love, know different.
Posted by: Mike Melendez | Mar 7, 2007 9:12:09 AM
Daniel says that Harry Potter neeeds to mature, and that he has trouble with authority.
He is a kid, so of course he needs to mature; that's one of the the ongoing themes in the book.
How does this make the books not suitable? The Red Crosse Knight needs to mature as well and he does, but not before he gets himself into a heap of trouble,takes a roll in the day with Duessa, loses sight of his goal, and nearly commits suicide.
Obedience to just any old authority isn't necessarily Christian. We must grow in discernment. If we followed authority blindly these days, or in any day for that matter, we'd pitch our faith in the ditch because the "authorities" in science and the humanities largely tell us it's nonsense.
(See Bloom's comments on the Bible; and there's hardly a bigger authority than Bloom in matters literary.) Potter is learning discernment.
Posted by: RAN | Mar 7, 2007 9:57:26 AM
I'm with Annie on Harry Potter. The one thing I have been tremendously surprised all the professional Christian critics of the Potter books have missed:
The power of sacrificial love.
Shame on them,
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Mar 7, 2007 12:15:43 PM
Dear Ethan,
I won't quibble with your revised description, though I wonder if it wouldn't face stiff competition from e.g. Sir Winston Churchill's Nobel-Prize winning history of WW II. But then, I'm a historian by training rather than a literature major. I was almost tempted to put David M. Potter's "The Impending Crisis 1848-1861" on the desert island list as a counterweight to Harry Potter -- possible the single best work on U.S. history I've ever read.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Mar 7, 2007 12:32:16 PM
The Impending Crisis is a masterpiece, no doubt about it.
Posted by: Matthew Stokes | Mar 7, 2007 12:47:21 PM
It is worth noting that vitually all of the works being suggested are orignally in the English language. I'm sure that e.g. a German would put aside many of our suggestions here for Goethe's "Faust," or a Frenchman might put forward Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past", etc.
Many of our suggestions, probably, but certainly not all. If I'm not mistaken, Germans recently voted LOTR as the finest work of literature of the 20th Century.
Apparently I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't visit any desert island without some Jane Austen.
Posted by: Nance | Mar 11, 2007 9:31:47 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004