literary criticism

I just read a very negative review of one of Harold Bloom's books and.....Oh! I just discovered after reading it that it was written by Terry Eagleton. It's hard to be dismissive of Terry Eagleton. He's arguably as much a giant of literary criticism as Bloom. 

Anyway, I googled, 'who would win if Terry Eagleton and Harold Bloom had a fight?'....no, not really - I googled 'who is better - Terry Eagleton or Harold Bloom' /// which is probably as ridiculous a question, and I found a reddit post that was critical of Eagleton's review of Bloom's book, and I found a few negative reviews of a book Eagleton wrote. The interesting thing was that the two books in question were about basically the same thesis - how to read. Bloom's was How to Read and Why and Eagleton's book was How to Read Literature. 

Eagleton's criticism of Bloom's book is that it's basic and facile - there's nothing incisive or deeply compelling about it. I agree with that assessment but the mistake Eagleton makes is to think that this book is somehow a comprehensive representation of Bloom's views about literature at that point in his career. He's like, Bloom used to be interesting, but now he's reduced to writing a kind of Cook's tour of literature. But the fact is that every other book Bloom wrote, before and after How to Read and Why is more deep and rich and insightful. You can't ever accuse Bloom of being shallow. Sorry, that's just not something you're going to get away with. I think what Bloom was trying to do with How to Read and Why (I think I even heard him say this in an interview) was to write something more accessible than his other books. On that point - the basicness of the book - Eagleton is right, but in my opinion he's not right about much else in his review. And his review is really nasty. Here's a quote from near the end: 

It would be charitable to think that Bloom writes as slackly and cack-handedly as he does because he is out to attract the general reader. He is admirably intent on rescuing literature from the arcane rituals of US academia and restoring it to a wider audience. Even so, you cannot help suspecting that this rambling, platitudinous stuff is about the best he can now muster.

You can help suspecting that, because I don't think it's true. I don't even agree with the characterisation of the book as rambling and platitudinous, but even if it was those things, how is it that 'you cannot help suspecting that this....is about the best he can muster'? After How to Read and Why Bloom went on to write another 7 or 8 books that are longer and more academic in tone and content - heavier reading - and in the same vein as his earlier works. How to Read and Why is very different from his other books. 

and Bloom's writing style (in my opinion) is brilliant...he's erudite, smart, and very funny. Bloom never seems to descend into bitterness, even when he's being critical. Admittedly, I'm probably biased. Harold Bloom has been my favourite literary critic/ theorist since I first read him and I was first studying literary theory and literature. 

I don't agree with most of Bloom's views, but I like his thinking and his engagement with literature and literary theory and scholarship in general. So much literary theory is like something you read for academic purposes, but the best literary theory meets that standard and transcends it - becomes a kind of poetry, a celebration - goes beyond the rigid confines of courses and subjects.