[jeffdavis]

The article confuses me. Bloom thought both that Shakespeare invented humanity, but also that literature was primarily about the aesthetic pleasure for the reader?

I am not an expert in literature or criticism, but it seems like there's something missing from the article to explain that gap.

(I'm sorry to hear of his passing, of course, and I don't mean this as disrespectful in any way.)

[blacksqr]

Bloom was of the opinion that Shakespeare invented the modern (as distinct from ancient or medieval) conception of conscious self-awareness and introspection as a new idea of what it means to be human and experience life.

[walshemj]

That's interesting I will have to read more, when I did classical studies in the 6th form. Our teacher ( head of the sixth form) commented that some of the later Greek plays could be read in that sort of way, The Bacchae for example.

[aamar]

Right, agreed that that’s a conflict; the latter point—primarily about aesthetic pleasure—isn’t quite right or is at least misleading. In my reading, Bloom values deep wisdom, formal excellence, and innovation—and these things are pleasurable, but also refract our deepest understandings of ourselves and others. He values these over more ‘politicized’ or culturally specific readings.

It’s a little—just a little—like the “art for art’s sake” movements, where the slogan says less about what art is for and mostly insists that art isn’t about its conventionally understood purposes (to morally educate, to record, etc.) and also not about the next dozen theories that might occur to you.