I must humbly confess that I had to stop halfway this heavy slumber-driven brick-book. In the end, I am not sure whether or not Shakespeare did “invent the human” as the title grandiosely seems to claim. However, I am quite sure that, with a few lines, like those spoken by Holofernes in Love's Labour's Lost, he did invent Harold Bloom.

I think I like Harold Bloom even more now that you're not supposed to like him because he's a snob/misogynist/old white guy/whatever the reason is you're not supposed to like him, but this was the first book of literary theory I ever read (I was 15), so it holds a special place in my brainheart.It also holds a special place in my brainheart because Bloom is pretty much right on about everything he's saying in regards to Shahkespeare's invention of modern personality, and because he unabashedly p...

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 even remotely literature based, and yes, that for ALL of the books from Bloom’s pen I have read to date (two recently, How to Read and Why and The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages, but indeed, I also did try a few horrible Harold Bloo...

Glad it's on my shelf...but depressed about it at the same time. A big hunk of what Bloom is trying pass off as revelatory is more like a response to younger literary critics and their beliefs. (And it's kind of charmingly ironic that Bloom attacks others for their blind devotion to narrow paradigms in a book where he spends a big glob of time psychologically fawning over Falstaff.) It's not really a book about Shakespeare; it's a book about what Harold Bloom wants us to know about Shakespeare a...

A work in progress that will probably last several years, but I am quite enjoying Bloom's pompous, sometimes even overblown essays! :)

Blooms these is that Shakespeare was unique in intellect, originality and power of creation. He coined the term 'personality' (tension between person and personal ideal). Very vitalistic. He was not a Christian, but an adept of universalism, with a nihilist sublahyer. He created a own kind Bible and founded man as we know him now

Bloom is a bit of a funky character to me and I approached this book with plenty of excitement but also plenty of caution. A full 700 pager with 4 essays and one essay per Shakespeare play sounded too good to resist, and I made a purchase in hopes of learning something new. Alas, in this front, I was very much mistaken. What originally began as a project to read all four general essays and each on the plays I am familiar with became a short-lived attempt to scamper my way through the undergrowth...

I dimly remember when this book came out (1998) how big and important and controversial it was supposed to be. Given Harold Bloom’s prodigious reputation, I was afraid of the thing, and so avoided it, figuring it to be fraught with lit theory of the densest sort. A couple years ago I found a copy dirt-cheap at some thrift store or another and its fat binding has glowered at me from the shelves since. A few weeks ago I decided to give it a try and found it to be a piece o’ cake, mostly. To be fai...

This book is not quite as absurd as its title would seem to indicate. If anybody worshipped Shakespeare enough to think that the Bard literally did invent humanity, it would be Bloom. But Bloom’s primary thesis is the only slightly less grandiose claim that Shakespeare, by creating the most persuasively realistic mode of representing personality, shaped our ideas of what it means to be human. This at least falls within the realm of physical possibility.I quite like the idea of approaching Shakes...

The Boston Globe put it accurately: "For all its huge ambition, this book will probably prove most useful as a companion to the plays [and:] may find its longest shelf life in the homes of theatergoers who crave a literate friend who's still awake to chew things over with."

Brilliant, infuriating, dazzling, provocative, maddening, thrilling and explosive. This book is not wonderful because Bloom is always right but because he always excites and challenges. Always. Page after page after page he brashly, almost recklessly tosses out hypotheses, makes thundering assertions as though they just came down from Mount Sinai, dismisses entire populations of artists, assumes fantastic responsibilities in society not just for the artist but for the critic and generally makes

I hate to call any book worthless, but I'm having a hard time thinking of anything of value in this narcissistic bore of a tome. Bloom has done absolutely no research on Early Modern culture, has no concept of the current scholarly discussion in Shakespeare studies, and his readings of the plays amount--basically--to platitudinous gut-reactions. Sure,he has his insights here and there, but the layperson that thinks this is in any way a great contribution to Shakespeare studies is being hoodwinke...

I feel like we as a species have moved past Harold Bloom

Yes, I'm going to read Harold Bloom's book putting forth the preposterous notion that humanity didn't exist before Shakespeare. Haters gonna hate. What, jealous?

I've read this book a couple of times, and though my criticism of it has evolved over time, I still love it because, for me, it was the first book that made Shakespeare truly accessible. Along the way to earning my English degree, I came across some legitimate criticisms of the author, most of which came from professors teaching theory classes, and they aren't without merit. For one, the fact that Professor Bloom cites nothing, seemingly wishing the reader to believe every notion in the text is

Calling it - too cursory and too much blockquoting; not enough academic commentary that I didn't/couldn't glean for myself from the text.Read this book if you don't plan on actually reading the plays themselves: Bloom covers plot and middle school level analysis. And he's obsessed with Falstaff. To an unhealthy degree.It's just lazy writing from an academic.

Read only the chapters relevant for my research, but *thumbs up emoji*• The answer to the question “Why Shakespeare?” must be “Who else is there?”

I read to Othello in 1998, then picked it up recently as I was reading through Shakespeare. Can't remember 1998 much, but it's been brilliant since I picked it back up. Feel like I'll read the chapter on whatever play I read in the future, for a while.

I read Bloom's book as I made my way through the plays, then went back and finished the introductory and coda sections. This is an often brilliant, infuriating book - penetrating at times, and absolutely hamhanded. Bloom cannot, CANNOT, get through any of the plays without bringing up the character of Falstaff, and comparing any character represented to him. But it is not Falstaff as he is on the page, but the Falstaff that Bloom carries in his head, as much embodied by Ralph Richardson and enli...

I mark this as read, though it is continuously being re-read as I continue to re-read the plays. I have no problem with his "Invention of the Human" shtick. What I do like is that he is a tremendous font of things to think about after I've read the plays and he is tremendously fair-minded in his interpretations. I don't always agree with him and the Falstaff crush does get a little old, but hey, that's the price to pay when reading someone's opinions.