Shakespeare, Bloom, and the Invention of the Human

Guys, these posts look great so far.

Since I believe a good example is needed for learning to occur, I will also post a Shakespeare post here.

Harold Bloom has been a professor of literature for a very long time. If you end up studying literature of any type from any country, his name will pop up somewhere. He also spent a lot of time teaching Shakespeare specifically. If you like Shakespeare (yes, it's possible), I highly recommend his book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. We will be using parts of it in our Shakespeare section this year, but I am going to pose Bloom's thesis now. Feel free to respond.

According to Harold Bloom, Shakespeare brought literary character to life. Before the Bard, literary character was static, inflexible, and largely there to demonstrate ways of behaving. Characters changed; however, the changes they made were because of their relationship to God, not themselves. Shakespeare made his characters consider themselves in light of who and what they were.

Thus, Bloom claims that "what Shakespeare invents are ways of representing human changes, alterations not only caused by flaws and by decay but effected by the will as well, and by the will's temporal vulnerabilities" (Bloom, 2). In the introduction to the book, Bloom states his thesis as follows: "Shakespeare will go on explaining us, in part because he invented us, which is the central argument of this book" (Bloom, xx).

So, begin thinking now. The day will come when you have to answer the man (Bloom) with an essay. Is Harold Bloom right? Is Shakespeare responsible for the creation of what we call "human?" Was Shakespeare's verse so incandescent that he lit the crevices of the minds of men and set our amigdylas ablaze? You must decide.

Happy Thinking,

Mr. B

P.S. If you have gotten to this point and still don't know what an amigdyla is, consult the dictionary. (My hope is some of you did) :).