Harold Bloom's an Asshole and the Secret of the Story.

Okay, I was perusing through the Internet's dark basement: comment forums. The forum followed an article by critic Harold Bloom, (a discussion of his article rather) where Bloom verbally flatulated his hissy fit over J.K. Rowling's 'Harry Potter' series (full disclosure: I loathe what I've read of Bloom's , and I love Rowling's Harry Potter series). The site ran Stephen King's opinion (also love me some King) on J.K. Rowling the week following, although King's own opinion doesn't factor in here. So most of the comments were a back and forth game of bitching tennis between King defenders and Bloom defenders. Paraphrasing the site's idea for the two features: the literary "slummers" and the academic "gasbags/windbags." The ease of people to lump people into the these narrow categories based on their opinion of one person is disturbing. I read easily thirty five to forty comments and none even debated this point...  *quick note...why I do these things to myself is a question we won't delve into...EVER...end note*... while about three quarters of the comments came from either side of the Bloom/King court a few did try and claim a neutral stance. But those people cannot see the bigger picture (or anyone else in that particular forum or most forums for that matter). When you are trying to herd the world into one of those two categories based on one qualification (whether they agree with King or with Bloom) neutrality is hard to come by. Of course neutrality is a forum commenter's Kyptonite, but we'll overlook that. Because of three reasons. (1) These people are fucking nuts, (2) it's MY sad little blog...DAMMIT, (3) and I'm super pissed off about it. And...(bonus round) writing this down is cheap therapy. Number one and number three are also good reasons NOT to write things I suppose, but number one and number three not only have direct correlation but CAUSATION. This leads back to number two. Okay...everybody up to speed? Good. All of this is the set-up for my own thoughts on this.

As I mentioned I love the Potter series. I was skeptical before I read them (and I was twelve then which I thinks make twelve year old me more of a literary skeptic than twenty seven year old me) but my Granny Helen bought them for me.  She thought I'd be interested. I wasn't but am ever grateful she bought them for me. I read practically anything back then-the return policy at the bottom of a Target receipt if I had nothing else. She was/is a voracious reader, mostly stuff that falls in the NY Times Bestsellers list (merely a fact, not a judgment) so she was aware of the Potter phenomenon that just then heating up. I didn't feel it was full blown until the outrageous anticipation preceding the July 2000 release of 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire'. If it wasn't for her there's a good chance my opinions of 'Harry Potter' would likely run on the lower end. After I read the Bloom piece that I linked to earlier, I read an article that attempted a neutral stance. However the guy writing the piece (which heavily leaned to Bloom's side) admitted that he was merely taking Bloom's word for it that it was full of clichés. Not neutrality. What I'm doing here is not neutrality. We're all just members of the same species giving our heavily subjective speculations on the intangible thing that is a story. I mean sure you've got a book there you can touch (or an e-reader or e-reader app) but the story takes hold in your mind. A story really only takes hold if you can see it in your mind, if you can live somewhere else for awhile...a place shared in two minds-the writer's and the reader's. Even then the details won't be exactly the same-the Dursley's house in the HP series looked like a dressed up version of my friend Bryan's house...and I doubt Rowling was thinking of the Cossairt's when she wrote it. You can tell a story tangibly (through book form) or intangibly (through auditory form-campfire style). The words on the page, the cover art, the feel of turning pages all can mask what is really happening. A campfire story really shows the form for what it is-the transfer of ideas from one mind to another's. When I say we I mean one species on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one....okay you get the idea (...UNIVERSE!!!). So why would you ever take ONE member's "word for it"?! DON'T. Now, of course we still make superficial judgment's about things. When a new Stephen King comes out I try to carve time out of my fleeting time to read it. When a new Danielle Steele comes out...I don't. But every time I reach for a new King I'm missing out on thousands of potentially excellent reads. I'm at terms with that and I try to mix up my reading material as much as possible without delving into things that simply do not interest me. Now of course I'm as biased as can be on this subject...I love the shit out of Potter and most things King. So don't take my word for it. But don't take anyone else's either. My own bullshit adolescent ideas of literary greatness almost caused me to miss out the fantastic adventures of Harry Potter and his friends. That thought terrifies me.

Once you get an idea of what you like, it will guide you...of course that'll happen. Even if you only take a chance on a new read once a year that's probably a better idea than Bloom's (who actually has a book called 'How to Read and Why' ). Just my thoughts, friends.