reader empowerment

I read an article about reading and the value of reading, in a periodical that's known for promoting the views of the so-called intellectual dark web, and of course the writer had a go at critical theory, suggesting that literally all critical approaches to literature are flawed because, while they claim to illuminate the text and enrich our understanding of it, what they actually do is act as a kind of filter that excludes anything that falls outside the theory and makes the literary work subservient to the approach taken to interpret it. 

I don't think that's true though. He writes that, because of technology, social media and critical theory, we can no longer enjoy the text for itself, but instead get caught up in all these side issues and idealogical concerns. For me that's not true. Studying critical theory hasn't stopped me from enjoying and getting a lot out of both fiction and non-fiction books. I can still appreciate texts for what they are. I don't have to impose some kind of ideological framework on everything I read. I think that's the mistake a lot of people make - they think that literary criticism, especially that which comes under the aegis of 'critical theory', has to be ideological. 

To me, it's never ideological. I suppose for some people it is - people both for and against critical theory. I don't read Foucault, Barthes, Kristeva, Derrida or anyone else because I want to subvert the social order. I read them for their ideas, and especially their ideas about literature, because I'm interested in literature. I'm fascinated by post-colonial theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, post-modernism, etc, but I don't think learning about those frameworks has ever stopped me from really enjoying good literature and good non-fiction texts. 

To be honest, in many ways I see the two fields - literature and literary criticism - as being separate but related. We can enjoy reading literature, and as a completely separate thing, we can enjoy and learn from reading and studying literary criticism and theory. And then, if we choose to, and in the way we choose to, we can relate the two fields to each other. 

Harold Bloom hated critical theory and the ideology often associated with it, that divides the world into oppressors and oppressed. One of his main complaints about it was that it doesn't help us to read more deeply and wisely. He wanted to develop a 'practical criticism' - one that facilitates a deeper engagement with the text - that illuminates the text in the way that the writer of the article I read claims critical theory doesn't. But, even though Bloom is my favourite literary critic, I don't read him because he helps me appreciate literature or be a better reader - at least not primarily ||| I read him because I enjoy his writing. And, as a side-effect, I probably do appreciate certain literature or literature in general more deeply, but it's not a simple reaction. I disagree with or don't understand a lot of Bloom's views, but I enjoy the way he arrives at those views, or the way he elucidates them, because of his amazing erudition and intellect. 

I suppose you could think of it like this ⇾ Bloom is a model reader. We can see him as a mentor. So, the point is not that, after we read Bloom, we go away and apply the framework he has imparted to us on everything we read (which is the way a lot of people seem to think critical theory works) but rather that we use what he has taught us, to read more strongly for ourselves.