A famous American critic takes on Shakespeare's Richard III

Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States, a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition of Newsweek:

"Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges in spiritual hypocrisy:

But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil.

This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist, yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."

Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for Sir Thomas More.

Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:

"Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe. Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death after all his fingers had been broken."

You can read the rest of the article at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html

The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.

This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism

Carol

Hi, Carol -

Without having yet read the Schama article, I surmise that the thoughtful
Harold Bloom piece is intended to balance the Schama hatchet job?



So I went to the website and took the one month subscription for only $2.99,
with one month free. I see the issue, I display the issue, but I don't see
how to download the issue so that it will be permanently in my 'puter. Can
you help me there?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:13 PM
To:
Subject: A famous American critic takes on
Shakespeare's Richard III





Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have
heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential
literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States,
a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought
you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition
of Newsweek:

"Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally
entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did
Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We
never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's
Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of
the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges
in spiritual hypocrisy:

But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil.

This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III
is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher
Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist,
yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."

Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for
Sir Thomas More.

Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:

"Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder
in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The
Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe.
Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of
Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death
after all his fingers had been broken."

You can read the rest of the article at
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monst
er-asks-harold-bloom.html

The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake
Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist
for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American
universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact
that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very
important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.

This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism

Carol

I'm in the theatre here in NYC. I have to say I've never heard an actor or director ever say that Shakespeare was a historian. I have no idea what academics say about him but most theatre people think of him as a playwright, poet and wonderful storyteller. And a writer of great parts for actors. (They also never think of him as a propagandist.)

I think Neil Simon's screenplay of "The Goodbye Girl" makes great hay of the kooky theatre directors who make too much of Shakespeare's "history." Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> Without having yet read the Schama article, I surmise that the thoughtful
> Harold Bloom piece is intended to balance the Schama hatchet job?
>
>
>
> So I went to the website and took the one month subscription for only $2.99,
> with one month free. I see the issue, I display the issue, but I don't see
> how to download the issue so that it will be permanently in my 'puter. Can
> you help me there?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:13 PM
> To:
> Subject: A famous American critic takes on
> Shakespeare's Richard III
>
>
>
>
>
> Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have
> heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential
> literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States,
> a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought
> you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition
> of Newsweek:
>
> "Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally
> entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did
> Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We
> never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's
> Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of
> the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges
> in spiritual hypocrisy:
>
> But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
> Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
> And thus I clothe my naked villainy
> With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
> And seem a saint when most I play the devil.
>
> This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III
> is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher
> Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist,
> yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."
>
> Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for
> Sir Thomas More.
>
> Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:
>
> "Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder
> in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The
> Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe.
> Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of
> Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death
> after all his fingers had been broken."
>
> You can read the rest of the article at
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monst
> er-asks-harold-bloom.html
>
> The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake
> Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist
> for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American
> universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact
> that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very
> important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.
>
> This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:
>
> http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just curious, how do the Scots feel about McBeth?

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 8:13 PM
To:
Subject: A famous American critic takes on Shakespeare's Richard III



Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States, a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition of Newsweek:

"Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges in spiritual hypocrisy:

But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil.

This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist, yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."

Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for Sir Thomas More.

Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:

"Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe. Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death after all his fingers had been broken."

You can read the rest of the article at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html

The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.

This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:

http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism

Carol

Does this mean the current Tudor enablers may at least consider revising their class lectures?

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States, a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition of Newsweek:
>
> "Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges in spiritual hypocrisy:
>
> But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
> Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
> And thus I clothe my naked villainy
> With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
> And seem a saint when most I play the devil.
>
> This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist, yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."
>
> Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for Sir Thomas More.
>
> Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:
>
> "Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe. Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death after all his fingers had been broken."
>
> You can read the rest of the article at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html
>
> The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.
>
> This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:
>
> http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism
>
> Carol
>

I'm wondering if art & lit crit, Camille Paglia, an acolyte of Bloom's, has an opinion on the whole Richard thing. I'm sure she'd be intrigued at the portrait propaganda. Maire.
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Does this mean the current Tudor enablers may at least consider revising their class lectures?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States, a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition of Newsweek:
> >
> > "Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges in spiritual hypocrisy:
> >
> > But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
> > Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
> > And thus I clothe my naked villainy
> > With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
> > And seem a saint when most I play the devil.
> >
> > This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist, yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."
> >
> > Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for Sir Thomas More.
> >
> > Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:
> >
> > "Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe. Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death after all his fingers had been broken."
> >
> > You can read the rest of the article at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html
> >
> > The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.
> >
> > This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:
> >
> > http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Part of the problem with American academics is that Bloom is considered, basically, an old dead white man, lol! He's a fan of the Western Civilization syllabus that was once de rigour in the United States. So, why do I think they'll just double down on our Richard? Maire.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Does this mean the current Tudor enablers may at least consider revising their class lectures?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Those of you who aren't American and didn't major in English may never have heard of him, but Harold Bloom is one of the most famous and influential literary critics (criticism in the sense of analysis) in the United States, a very respected figure. Since we've been discussing Shakespeare, I thought you might be interested in what Bloom has to say in the most recent edition of Newsweek:
> >
> > "Shakespeare's principal source was the superb Tudor propaganda, lethally entertaining, of Sir Thomas More's The History of King Richard III. Did Shakespeare, wisest of all authors, believe this account of Richard? We never will know, but I doubt it. Deliciously too bad to be true, More's Richard explodes into Shakespeare's prodigal of outrageousness, a figure of the highest fantasy. A great killing machine, his grander exuberance emerges in spiritual hypocrisy:
> >
> > But then I sigh, and, with piece of Scripture
> > Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
> > And thus I clothe my naked villainy
> > With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
> > And seem a saint when most I play the devil.
> >
> > This is so delightfully excessive that we may wonder if all of Richard III is not a deliberate parody of both Tudor propaganda and of Christopher Marlowe's art of caricature. Shakespeare is not thought of as a parodist, yet he is the best in that genre, surpassing Jonathan Swift . . ."
> >
> > Not a Tudor propagandist but a parodist? The same argument has been made for Sir Thomas More.
> >
> > Regarding the fates of Shakespeare's less cautious rivals, he says:
> >
> > "Walsingham, the head of the Elizabethan CIA, had arranged Marlowe's murder in a supposed tavern brawl, and then had tortured Thomas Kyd, author of The Spanish Tragedy, so as to obtain incriminating evidence against Marlowe. Shakespeare subsequently never for a moment forgot the termination of Christopher Marlowe with maximum prejudice or Thomas Kyd's decline and death after all his fingers had been broken."
> >
> > You can read the rest of the article at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html
> >
> > The fact that so important a figure says publicly, "You should not mistake Shakespeare's capers for history" and calls More "a sophisticated apologist for the Tudor regime" could shake up some English departments at American universities. While I happen to think that More was the parodist, the fact that Bloom is questioning the sainted Sir Thomas's veracity is a very important step forward in the campaign against Shakespeare as history.
> >
> > This will give you some idea of who he is and how important he is:
> >
> > http://thebrowser.com/interviews/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> Without having yet read the Schama article, I surmise that the thoughtful Harold Bloom piece is intended to balance the Schama hatchet job?

> So I went to the website and took the one month subscription for only $2.99, with one month free. I see the issue, I display the issue, but I don't see how to download the issue so that it will be permanently in my 'puter. Can you help me there?

Carol responds:

Actually, I found the articles on a different website through a Google search. It's possible that they're not even supposed to be there.

But, yes, Newsweek does try to present a balanced perspective, with both sides of any controversy given equal time.

Here are the links I used:

The Bloom article:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html

The Schama blather (well, parts of it are okay but the proto-Machiavellian usurper getting rid of all his opponents and the king devoted to chivalry don't exactly mesh):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/the-return-of-ruthless-richard-iii.html

There's also a neutral story on the archaeological angle which unkindly refers to Philippa as "the enthusiastic if occasionally swivel-eyed member of the Richard III Society who has coordinated the project behind the scenes":

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/the-hunt-for-a-king-how-archeologists-found-richard-iii.html

The only thing I can figure out is that these articles are the ones available for the free trial. Newsweek only recently went all-digital. You used to be able to buy it at any grocery store.

Carol

Hi, Carol!

Thanks for the info! I'll look into it a bit more and keep you advised.



They advertise that you can access the digital magazine on a number of
different devices. But when it came down to it, there were about 4-5 listed,
and I chose "browser," because I don't have an iPod or a Nook. But when I
got the email confirmation of the subscription, it said I had subscribed to
an iPad version. I definitely did *not* so that was a screw-up at their end.
Perhaps one doesn't need special software to read the magazine on your
'puter. But, as I said, I still haven't been able to figure out how to
download and save it, so I can read it without being online. It seems to me
that, if I've paid for a subscription, I should "own" digital copies.



Anyway - wish me luck!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 4:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A famous American critic takes on
Shakespeare's Richard III





Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> Without having yet read the Schama article, I surmise that the thoughtful
Harold Bloom piece is intended to balance the Schama hatchet job?

> So I went to the website and took the one month subscription for only
$2.99, with one month free. I see the issue, I display the issue, but I
don't see how to download the issue so that it will be permanently in my
'puter. Can you help me there?

Carol responds:

Actually, I found the articles on a different website through a Google
search. It's possible that they're not even supposed to be there.

But, yes, Newsweek does try to present a balanced perspective, with both
sides of any controversy given equal time.

Here are the links I used:

The Bloom article:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monst
er-asks-harold-bloom.html

The Schama blather (well, parts of it are okay but the proto-Machiavellian
usurper getting rid of all his opponents and the king devoted to chivalry
don't exactly mesh):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/the-return-of-ruthless-rich
ard-iii.html

There's also a neutral story on the archaeological angle which unkindly
refers to Philippa as "the enthusiastic if occasionally swivel-eyed member
of the Richard III Society who has coordinated the project behind the
scenes":

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/the-hunt-for-a-king-how-arc
heologists-found-richard-iii.html

The only thing I can figure out is that these articles are the ones
available for the free trial. Newsweek only recently went all-digital. You
used to be able to buy it at any grocery store.

Carol

"mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Part of the problem with American academics is that Bloom is considered, basically, an old dead white man, lol! He's a fan of the Western Civilization syllabus that was once de rigour in the United States. So, why do I think they'll just double down on our Richard? Maire.

Carol responds:

I think they're declaring him dead a bit prematurely. BTW, I'm also a fan of Western Civilization, and I think we owe a great debt to many debt white men, including the one who's the reason for this forum. The people who hold the view you're describing, and I encountered many of them while I was in academia, need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And they'd be foolish to disregard Bloom or to let such matters as gender politics interfere with the search for truth.

Carol

This always strikes me as a zero-sum argument (for me to win, you have to lose). In contemporary academe, I see far less of a wish to replace the standard Western canon with art, literature, music, and science from women, people of color, and other socioethnic minorities and more of a recognition that all humans contribute to building civilization.

We don't have to pick and choose, either; it's not as though there's a limit to the amount of culture we can study, and we don't have to drop the Gunpowder Plot to concentrate on the Cahokia civilization. We're human beings who can appreciate every form of exploration, no matter who's doing the exploring. As just one example, Mozart's sister was apparently just as talented as he was, but because she was female, she didn't have his same opportunities to create, rather than just perform, music, and because she was a performer, her career is lost to posterity as an artifact of an era without recording technology. It was only last year that the first comprehensive biography of her in English was published.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > Part of the problem with American academics is that Bloom is considered, basically, an old dead white man, lol! He's a fan of the Western Civilization syllabus that was once de rigour in the United States. So, why do I think they'll just double down on our Richard? Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think they're declaring him dead a bit prematurely. BTW, I'm also a fan of Western Civilization, and I think we owe a great debt to many debt white men, including the one who's the reason for this forum. The people who hold the view you're describing, and I encountered many of them while I was in academia, need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And they'd be foolish to disregard Bloom or to let such matters as gender politics interfere with the search for truth.
>
> Carol
>