Harold Bloom offers a theory of poetry "by the way of a description of poetic influence, or the story of intra-poetic relationship" (1973 5). The intra-poetic relationship contends with the darker truth that every poet qua poet suffers from the anxiety of influence; a "melancholy principle” that makes the poet wonder whether there is anything left at all for him to say. The poetic influence, Bloom proposes, creates anxiety. Therefore, the new poet wants to see the "libraries burning", scan so that he can enter into the canon. However a historical approach, following Foucault Shows that literature has always served political power and that the canon has been a construct for similar ends. So, Foucault would say, let the canon be deconstructed to reveal this power structure and let the literary values be redefined to serve social goals. This almost invariably means the goals of feminists and multiculturalism also. They argue that the process of canon-formation has expressed the interests of the dominant class to the exclusion of women, homosexuals and non-Europeans. Like the Biblical canon the literary canon has been closed to all but dead White phallocentrists, and must be forced open. Bloom lumps together the various critical schools, which derive inspiration from this approach as the School-of-Resentment. Against this chool-of-resentment Bloom propagates "aestheticism" as the sole test of "canonicity". His concept of originality leads him to defend the "autonomy of aesthetics" which returns us to "the sovereignty of the solitary soul, the reader not as a person in society but as the deep self, our ultimate inwardness". Thus it is the aesthetic power of a work that compels readability and therefore it breaks into the canon. Bloom here seems to constitute literature as a stable affair. This is what gynocriticism opposes since it shows how the mechanism of patriarchy has always subsided the female writers from the mainstream literature and thus from the established canon as well, therefore gynocriticism seeks a female tradition of writing.
Table of Contents
I
II
III
IV
Objectives & Key Themes
The primary objective of this work is to critically examine the intersection and conflict between Harold Bloom’s theory of poetic influence and the school of gynocriticism. It questions whether Bloom's defense of the literary canon is inherently anti-feminist or if his aesthetic criteria possess a universal validity that transcends socio-political identity markers like gender, race, or nationality.
- The role of "anxiety of influence" versus "anxiety of authorship" in creative production.
- The clash between traditional canonical literary values and feminist revisionist approaches.
- The struggle for legitimacy of female literary traditions within a patriarchal canon.
- Evaluation of how writers such as Virginia Woolf negotiate the influence of their precursors.
- The necessity of aesthetic quality and "essential" creative skills for survival in literature.
Excerpt from the Book
Harold Bloom’s theory of Poetic Influence vs. Gynocriticism
Harold Bloom offers a theory of poetry "by the way of a description of poetic influence, or the story of intra-poetic relationship" (1973 5). The intra-poetic relationship contends with the darker truth that every poet qua poet suffers from the anxiety of influence; a "melancholy principle” that makes the poet wonder whether there is anything left at all for him to say. The poetic influence, Bloom proposes, creates anxiety. Therefore, the new poet wants to see the "libraries burning" (1971 131) in order to remove the anxiety.
The new poet or the "ephebe" is locked in an Oedipal rivalry with his castrating poetic father and lives anxiously in his shadow. He finds that everything is already written and he is always belated and a mere imitator. The tradition induces anxiety in him. Any poem by the ephebe is an attempt to escape this anxiety of influence by making certain changes in a previous poem. The poet, if he wants to enter into the tradition of great precursors, must seek to disarm the strength of the precursor. This he can do only if he enters into the tradition from within and writes in a way to revise, displace and recast the precursor poem. Bloom calls this attempt "misprision" or “misreading" (1982 69). To complete the process of misreading the ephebe has to pass through six stages of reading or six rhetorical devices (1973 14-16) employed in the poems which are called tropes.
Summary of Chapters
I: Introduces Harold Bloom’s core concept of the "anxiety of influence," defining the poet’s struggle against precursors through "misprision" and the defense of the Western literary canon.
II: Contrasts Bloom’s patriarchal-structured theory with the emergence of gynocriticism, which seeks to identify a distinct female literary tradition and combat patriarchal marginalization.
III: Analyzes the work of Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, exploring their shift toward an "anxiety of authorship" and their attempt to redefine the terms of female socialization in literature.
IV: Concludes the discussion by evaluating the universal applicability of aesthetic quality, suggesting that a "strongly achieved work" transcends ideological motivations regardless of the author's gender.
Keywords
Harold Bloom, Poetic Influence, Gynocriticism, Anxiety of Influence, Anxiety of Authorship, Literary Canon, Misprision, Tropes, Aestheticism, Female Tradition, Feminist Poetics, Patriarchal Context, Revisionism, Originality, Virginia Woolf.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this scholarly work?
The work focuses on the tension between Harold Bloom’s theory of poetic influence and feminist critical approaches, specifically gynocriticism, regarding the formation and evaluation of the literary canon.
Which central thematic fields are explored?
The main themes include literary history, the dynamics of inter-textual relationships, gender-based marginalization in literature, and the criteria that define canonical strength.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to determine if Bloom’s aesthetic framework is inherently hostile to feminist perspectives or if it provides an objective standard for literary survival that applies to all writers.
What scientific or critical method is employed?
The work utilizes a comparative critical analysis, juxtaposing Bloom’s theories of rhetoric and tradition with the historicist and feminist methodologies of critics like Showalter, Gilbert, and Gubar.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The body analyzes the "anxiety of influence," the feminist reaction to it, specific case studies of female writers like Virginia Woolf and George Eliot, and the debate over the "canon."
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include "anxiety of influence," "gynocriticism," "literary canon," "patriarchy," "aestheticism," and "feminist poetics."
How does the author view the "anxiety of authorship" proposed by Gilbert and Gubar?
The author views it as a valuable but limited perspective, arguing that while it highlights the initial phase of female authorship, it may not suffice as a comprehensive criterion for what makes a work of art canonical.
Does the author conclude that Bloom’s theory is applicable to non-canonical voices?
Yes, the author suggests that Bloom’s theory of poetic influence is broad enough to be applied even within plural traditions and sub-cultures, provided the writer achieves the "essential qualities" of craft and trope mastery.
What role does Virginia Woolf play in the author's argument?
Virginia Woolf is presented as a bridge between the two schools; she is both a pioneering gynocritic and a writer whose work Bloom successfully incorporates into his framework of a "belated romantic."
- Citar trabajo
- Siddhartha Singh (Autor), 2012, Bloom and Feminism, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/202354
