Really dull and pedantic view of literature, IMO. On the one hand, it purports to explain why one should read (I'll save you the time and money-- read for enjoyment). On the other hand, it contains many references to literature that it makes almost no sense to read it unless you have already read the copious books Prof. Bloom makes reference to. All of this begs the question: To whom is this book targeted? I humbly suggest: To no-one in particular.As someone who posits that literature should be

Before getting this book from the library, I had heard of Harold Bloom, but I had never read any of his books. Most of what I'd heard was positive so I was really looking forward to reading How to Read and Why.But, alas, I was not prepared for Bloom's massive erudition, and his prologue pretty much finished me off. Consider, for example, this sample from page 23 of the Scribner edition, "Value, in literature as in life, has much to do with the idiosyncratic, with the excess by which meaning gets...

I picked up How to Read and Why because I suddenly felt like reading it. Through a number of close readings from various novels, plays, poems, and short stories, Bloom exalts the pleasures of reading and urges us to listen to what authors have to say in their works—and especially to what they leave out. He is here, as elsewhere, adamantly against ideological reading. He is also here, as elsewhere, a staunch Shakespearian—he never lets an opportunity pass to compare a character to, say, Hamlet or...

i love harold bloom. i just read all his stuff. i had to stop reading this one, though, because, essentially, you have to've read everything that bloom's read to appreciate it, and i'm not quite yet that old. it really should be entitled "how to reread and why", 'cause the book is one ginormous spoiler. he really really really loves shakespeare, too, and he doesn't let ye forget it! i'll come back to it in some years. he's still a great writer.

Bloom is a mathematician of literature. He sees things so clearly and makes such beautiful sense ofIt all. An amazing book about books (the Cannon particularly).

Well, I am sure that Mr. Bloom is a lot smarter and definitely more educated than I am. Sadly that doesn't stop him from being an annoying jerk who thinks he is above everyone else, apparantely.I am not in the habit of leaving a book half-finished, but in this case I was seriously thinking about it. The style (in the translation, at least, but probably in the original as well) was pompous just for the sake of pompousness (is that even a word...?), and the amount of repetition was simply mind-nu

“Read deeply, not to believe, not to accept, not to contradict, but to learn to share in that one nature that writes and reads.” This is one of the most important books I've read this year.

101229: more how to read what harold bloom reads. i agree with idea reading is ultimately private, not necessarily socially ameliorative, nor productive of greater mind or heart, but also that it is more that people read that is important rather than set texts must be read. most texts chosen i have read, some with less impact than suggested, some i have not read or remember only vaguely…i do not read poems much, i value plays in production not text. no surprises, no texts that are not eurocentri...

I couldn't get into this. Slow and turgid prose. It brought back nightmares from college English-having to read impenetrable, pedantic prose. You know, the types of books you would have to read and re-read and re-read to understand WTF the author was saying. Bloom worships Shakespeare too. I've never been into the Bard. You almost expect a test after reading each chapter. I made it to the poetry section and said adieu.

This is a remarkably conservative introduction to how to read and why. His selection of texts is also quite conservative and illustrative of his ideological positioning. What is most interesting is that he spends so much time criticising the very idea of reading from within an ideological position that he appears completely blind to the fact of his own ideology or even that it is an ideology. This ideology is most clearly illuminated at the end of the book when he discusses why it is good to rea...

I don't think Harold Bloom can so much as take a shit without referencing the act to Shakespeare in some way, shape or form.I understand now that he is a Shakespeare scholar, but prior to picking up this book, I had no idea. I knew him to be a literary critic and scholar and therefore assumed he would be treating the topic of reading and literature to an academic analysis. Really, the book should be titled "How to Read Everything as an Offshoot of Shakespeare." On the general topic of reading he...

This is one of my absolute favorite books. It is a psychological perspective of becoming a bibliophile. Even deeper, though, it explicitly describes how we become connected to a story, a character, a moment. How does reading turn into experiencing? Why does it happen? What do author's do to make sure you love the experience or at least remember it forever? Why do we strive to gain this experience? What characters should we turn to so we can meet that need? These are the questions and answers of

I absolutely and generally speaking do not AT ALL appreciate how much of an utter and absolutely horrible academic snob author and Yale professor Harold Bloom ALWAYS AND INCESSANTLY tends to be with regard to both himself and also concerning anything literature based, and yes, that ALL of the books from Bloom’s pen I have read to date (two in their despised entirety thus far, this here book, How to Read and Why and The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages, but I also did try a few hor...

Learning to Listen by ReadingListening and reading are generally considered independent activities. The only way to spot imposture is to listen attentively to lots of people. And the only way to spot fakery in print is to read lots of books critically. But it strikes me that Bloom is making an implicit case for considering listening and reading as functionally equivalent. Everything he has to say about reading applies with even greater urgency and relevance to listening. One need only substitute...

This book has come by some harsh criticism, especially by eminent reviewers like Terry Eagleton and fellow goodreaders. In spite of the bad reviews by goodreaders I usually take at their word, I decided to give the book a chance. With Bloom’s combination of ideas such as Shakespeare being the progenitor of all modern fiction and poetry, of the bard also being the inventor of ‘Human” in literature and with Bloom's audacious theory on all literary works being nothing more than a sort of plagiarism...

Mega Yale lit. critic Harold Bloom is an intelligent reader with a love for good literature, which I admire. I enjoyed his enjoyment of reading, his philosophy of reading, and message on the importance of solitary reading & reading quality lit., all of which will positively influence the way that I approach reading, and I am very grateful for it. This said, I had just a few issues:(1) I feel that the book is more of a personal work for him; it's more like "I'm Really Old (69 when this book was p...

Harold Bloom is an elitist, a snob, a horrible sexist, and as an Ivy League professor, could care less. He is not here to make friends, he is here to inform us that we are incredibly under read and that we are reading for the wrong reasons. Once he gets past his ranting in the beginning regarding the politics of education regarding not pursuing excellence, that reading is in no way improving of society as in his mind it is a "selfish act", and spending long dreary moments denouncing feminism in

I'm one of those snobs who thinks Harold Bloom was generally more correct than he was wrong, unfortunately. With that said: check out Bloom's idea of what ought to be considered the Western canon.

Well, to be blunt to begin, Bloom is a snob when it comes to what is worth reading, and when it comes to the works I've read that he discusses, I disagree with his interpretations on at least half of them. But who wants to only read things that agree with what they already think? I may differ with him quite a bit, but Bloom is passionate about his reading. There are more than a few of his opinions that made me look at a work differently. My opinion may not have been his, but the act of reassessi...