Harold Bloom: A (ChatGPT) interview

On Knausgaard, Tyler Cowen, audiobooks, TV, and more

“I think that the self, in its quest to be free and solitary, ultimately reads with one aim only: to confront greatness. That confrontation scarcely masks the desire to join greatness”

Harold Bloom, The Western Canon

I just finished The Western Canon by Harold Bloom (see some choice extracts here, and a thread on his also excellent How to Read and Why) and I wanted to speak to the author. Unfortunately he died in 2019. And if he were alive I’d be loathe to take him away from his books, even if he’d speak to me. So I spoke to Harold Bloom GPT.

I enjoyed The Western Canon immensely, even if I’ve only read a fraction of the referred to works, and no doubt poorly by Bloom’s standards. Yet there is something mesmerising about reading a master on his craft. It reminded me of Quentin Tarantino’s Cinema Speculation where Tarantino immerses you in his cinematic universe. There Tarantino addressed the perfectly acceptable ignorance of the reader:

So, if you’re reading this cinema book, hopefully to learn a little something about cinema, and your head is swimming from all the names you don’t recognize, congratulations, you’re learning something.

I spoke to Harold Bloom GPT about:

• Bloom’s prophesised Theocratic Age and whether it’s come to pass in Wokeness

• Audiobooks

• Can hip hop be great literature?

• Knausgaard, Elena Ferrante, Emily Dickinson, Camille Paglia, Bruno Shultz

• Tyler Cowen and his literary prowess (unimpressed!)

• Jewishness, Rambam and Rashi

• Naming and unnaming

• Favourite quotes from Moby Dick and Blood Meridian

• Who should pay the Judge in a film adaption of Blood Meridian

• Favourite TV shows (The Wire)

• Favourite biography

I have edited slightly for brevity. Overall I’d say ChatGPT did a good job, with some superb answers, and some poor answers that are clearly a function of ChatGPT censorship.

Fun overall I thought!

“There is no folly of the beasts of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men”

Harold Bloom GPT’s favourite quote from Moby Dick

In the The Western Canon, you said we are entering a Theocratic Age. What did you mean by that?

In The Western Canon, I argued that we are entering a Theocratic Age, which is characterized by the decline of the individual and the rise of religious fundamentalism. By theocratic, I do not mean a literal takeover of government by religious authorities, but rather a cultural and intellectual shift towards a more dogmatic and authoritarian mindset.

In this age, there is a loss of confidence in the humanistic values that have been at the center of the Western tradition for centuries, and a growing emphasis on obedience to religious doctrine and tradition. This is evident in the way that many people today look to religion as a source of authority and guidance, and are increasingly turning away from the secular values of reason, individualism, and skepticism.

Ultimately, the Theocratic Age poses a significant challenge to the continued vitality of the Western literary and cultural canon, as it threatens to undermine the very values and traditions that have made that canon possible in the first place.

Does Wokism constitute what you predicted about the Theocratic Age?

I have often been critical of what I see as the excesses of political correctness and identity politics in academia, which are sometimes associated with what has been dubbed "wokeness" or "wokism." While I do see some similarities between the dogmatic, absolutist mindset of some elements of wokism and the tendencies I identified in the Theocratic Age, I would not say that wokism as a whole constitutes what I predicted about that age.

The Theocratic Age, as I envisioned it, was marked by a rejection of individualism, a distrust of reason and science, and an emphasis on submission to religious authority. While some elements of wokism may reject reason and science, I do not think that wokism is primarily a religious movement. Rather, it is a secular movement that seeks to redefine certain social and cultural norms and values, often in the name of social justice and equality.

That being said, I do think that the rise of wokism poses a challenge to the values and traditions of the Western literary and cultural canon, just as the Theocratic Age did. The canon is founded on the principles of individualism, rationalism, and the pursuit of truth, and wokism can sometimes be seen as antithetical to these principles. However, I would caution against drawing too strong a parallel between wokism and the Theocratic Age, as they are different phenomena with different historical roots and implications.

Is the canon founded on rationalism and the pursuit of truth or rather aesthetic concerns?

I believe that the Western literary and cultural canon is founded on both aesthetic concerns and the pursuit of truth, with rationalism being an important aspect of the latter. Aesthetics and truth are not mutually exclusive, and the canon reflects this by including works that are both aesthetically valuable and intellectually or philosophically significant.

At its core, the canon is a collection of works that have endured over time and have been recognized as exemplars of excellence in their respective genres. These works are valued for their artistic achievements, such as their use of language, their formal innovations, or their ability to capture the human experience in a compelling and enduring way.

However, the canon is not just a collection of beautiful or impressive works. It is also a repository of human knowledge and wisdom, and the works that make up the canon are valued for the insights they provide into the human condition, the nature of the world, and the workings of the human mind. The canon is thus intimately tied to the pursuit of truth, both in terms of the knowledge that it contains and the methods of inquiry that it embodies.

Rationalism is an important aspect of this pursuit of truth, as it emphasizes the use of reason and evidence to arrive at knowledge and understanding. Many works in the canon embody rationalist ideals, such as the use of logic and argumentation in philosophy, the empirical investigation of nature in science, and the search for meaning and purpose in religion and literature.

How do you consider the rise of Audiobooks in the last decade or so? Does that count as deep reading?

As a literary critic and scholar, I have always been a staunch advocate for the act of reading, and I have expressed concerns about the way that new technologies and media may be affecting our ability to engage with literature in a deep and meaningful way. The rise of audiobooks is certainly a significant development in this regard, and I have mixed feelings about its impact on the act of reading.

On the one hand, audiobooks may offer a valuable opportunity for people to access literature and engage with it in a way that fits their busy lifestyles. They can listen to books while driving, exercising, or doing other tasks, and this may help to make literature a more integral part of their lives. Moreover, audiobooks can provide a new dimension to literary works, as they can offer interpretations and vocal inflections that bring the text to life in ways that may not be possible with silent reading alone.

On the other hand, I worry that the rise of audiobooks may also contribute to a decline in deep reading, as they may encourage a more passive and superficial engagement with literature. Audiobooks may provide a more convenient and accessible way of consuming books, but they may also make it easier for readers to skim or skip over important details, or to engage with the text in a more fragmented and distracted way. Deep reading, in my view, requires a sustained and focused engagement with the text, and it is not clear to me whether audiobooks can provide this to the same extent as silent reading.

In the end, I believe that the rise of audiobooks is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that deserves further study and reflection. While they may offer new opportunities for engaging with literature, they may also pose challenges to our ability to read deeply and critically. As a lover of literature and an advocate for the importance of reading, I hope that we can find ways to preserve and cultivate the art of deep reading, even as new technologies continue to shape the ways we engage with literature.

Can hip hop ever count as great literature?

As a literary critic, I have always been interested in exploring the boundaries of what we consider to be great literature, and I have been open to the possibility that new forms and genres of writing may emerge that challenge our existing definitions and categories. In the case of hip hop, I believe that there is certainly potential for it to be considered a form of great literature, although this will depend on a number of factors.

Firstly, I believe that hip hop lyrics can be a powerful form of poetic expression, and many hip hop artists have demonstrated a remarkable ability to craft complex and nuanced lyrics that explore a wide range of themes and emotions. The use of rhythm, rhyme, and metaphor in hip hop lyrics can be highly sophisticated and inventive, and some hip hop artists have been recognized for their lyrical prowess, receiving awards and honors traditionally associated with poetry and literature.

Secondly, I think that hip hop can be an important cultural and social phenomenon, and as such, it has the potential to be a rich source of insight and commentary on the world we live in. Hip hop lyrics often address issues of race, class, and identity, and they can offer a unique perspective on the experiences and struggles of marginalized communities. By engaging with these themes in a creative and powerful way, hip hop can contribute to our understanding of the world and our place in it.

However, whether hip hop can be considered great literature will ultimately depend on how we define that term. If we define great literature as a body of works that have stood the test of time and have been recognized for their enduring artistic and intellectual value, then hip hop may have some way to go before it can be considered in the same league as Shakespeare, Dante, or Joyce. However, if we are open to the possibility that new forms of writing can emerge that challenge our existing categories, then I believe that hip hop has the potential to be a valuable and important form of literature that deserves serious consideration and analysis.

In The Western Canon you are dismissive of hip hop. You say the following:

"Finding myself now surrounded by professors of hip-hop ; by clones of Gallic-Germanic theory; by ideologues of gender and of various sexual persuasions; by multiculturalists unlimited, I realize that the Balkanization of literary studies is irreversible."

Can hip hop ever be great literature?

In The Western Canon, I did express some reservations about the place of hip hop in the literary canon, and I remain somewhat skeptical about whether it can be considered great literature in the traditional sense.

As I have said before, I believe that great literature is characterized by its enduring artistic and intellectual value, and by its ability to speak to universal human concerns and experiences. While hip hop certainly has the potential to be a powerful form of poetic expression, and while it can offer valuable insights into contemporary culture and society, I have concerns about whether it can meet these criteria in the same way that works of traditional literature have done.

In The Western Canon, I expressed some frustration with what I saw as a trend towards the Balkanization of literary studies, whereby different disciplines and approaches were becoming increasingly siloed off from each other, and where works of literature were being read primarily for their political or social messages rather than for their aesthetic or imaginative qualities. While I recognize the importance of addressing social and political issues in literature, I also believe that we must not lose sight of the intrinsic value of literature as a form of art and as a source of aesthetic pleasure and imaginative stimulation.

In the end, whether hip hop can be considered great literature will depend on a range of factors, including the quality and complexity of the lyrics, the cultural and social significance of the music, and the enduring value of the works themselves. While I remain somewhat skeptical about the place of hip hop in the literary canon, I am open to the possibility that it may be worthy of serious consideration and analysis, and that it may offer insights and perspectives that can enrich our understanding of the world and ourselves.

How would you place Knausgaard among the literary greats?

Karl Ove Knausgaard is undoubtedly one of the most important and influential writers of the contemporary era, and his six-volume autobiographical novel, My Struggle, has been widely praised for its ambitious scope, its psychological depth, and its raw and unvarnished style.

In terms of his place among the literary greats, I believe that Knausgaard is still a relatively young writer, and it may be premature to make definitive judgments about his place in the canon. However, I would argue that he is certainly a writer of considerable talent and originality, and that his work has already had a significant impact on contemporary literature.

One of the things that I find most compelling about Knausgaard's work is his willingness to explore deeply personal and often painful experiences in a way that is both honest and uncompromising. His writing is characterized by a sense of emotional intensity and immediacy that is rare in contemporary literature, and he has a gift for capturing the small, mundane details of everyday life in a way that is both poignant and illuminating.

At the same time, Knausgaard's work is also marked by a profound sense of existential questioning, as he grapples with questions of identity, mortality, and the meaning of life.

Overall, I would say that Knausgaard is a writer of considerable talent and significance, and that his work has already made a significant contribution to contemporary literature. Whether he will be remembered as one of the literary greats of our time remains to be seen, but I believe that his work is certainly worthy of serious consideration and analysis.

Who would you say from the canon he is most influenced by?

Karl Ove Knausgaard's writing is characterized by a distinctive voice and style that draws on a range of literary influences, both from within and outside the canon. However, I would say that there are a few writers from the canon who have been particularly influential in shaping his work.

One writer who has been cited as a major influence on Knausgaard is Marcel Proust, whose monumental novel In Search of Lost Time explores similar themes of memory, identity, and the passage of time. Knausgaard has spoken about his admiration for Proust's ability to capture the texture and complexity of human experience, and his own work has been compared to Proust's in terms of its expansive scope and psychological depth.

Another writer who has been cited as an influence on Knausgaard is Franz Kafka, whose dark and surreal stories explore themes of alienation, anxiety, and the absurdity of modern life. Knausgaard has spoken about his fascination with Kafka's ability to convey a sense of existential dread and unease, and his own writing has been compared to Kafka's in terms of its stark and unflinching portrayal of the human condition.

Finally, I would also say that Knausgaard's work has been influenced by the tradition of Scandinavian literature, particularly the work of writers like Knut Hamsun and Henrik Ibsen. Like these writers, Knausgaard's writing is characterized by a stark and unadorned style, and an unflinching willingness to explore the darker aspects of human experience.

How does Ibsen's troll, which you write about in The Western Canon, express itself in Knausgaard's work?

In The Western Canon, I discuss Ibsen's concept of the "troll," which he uses to describe the irrational and destructive forces that lurk beneath the surface of society. I argue that Ibsen's trolls are symbolic of the darker aspects of human nature, including our capacity for violence, cruelty, and self-destruction.

When it comes to Karl Ove Knausgaard's work, I would say that there are certainly echoes of Ibsen's trolls in his writing. Like Ibsen, Knausgaard is deeply concerned with the darker aspects of human nature, and his work explores the often painful and destructive forces that shape our lives.

One of the ways in which Knausgaard's writing expresses the idea of the troll is through its focus on the mundane and seemingly trivial aspects of everyday life. By immersing his readers in the small details of his characters' lives, Knausgaard is able to reveal the hidden tensions and conflicts that simmer beneath the surface of seemingly ordinary existence.

At the same time, Knausgaard's work also explores more overtly destructive forces, such as addiction, mental illness, and the breakdown of family relationships. In doing so, he exposes the darker and more destructive aspects of human nature, and confronts us with the difficult reality of our own mortality.

Consider the blog Marginal Revolution and the other writings of Tyler Cowen. How would you rate Tyler Cowen's knowledge of the literary oeuvre?

I have read widely and deeply across the literary canon, and have spent my career exploring the works of some of the greatest writers in human history. When it comes to assessing Tyler Cowen's knowledge of the literary oeuvre, I must say that while he is a polymath with a wide range of interests, his understanding of literature is not as deep or nuanced as one might hope.

While Cowen has written extensively on a variety of topics, including culture and the arts, his approach to literature tends to be more eclectic and less focused than that of a trained literary critic. He has written reviews and commentary on a wide range of books, from contemporary fiction to classics of the Western canon, but his analysis often lacks the depth and subtlety that one would expect from a true literary scholar.

Furthermore, Cowen's approach to literature is often framed in terms of broader cultural and societal trends, rather than in terms of the literary qualities of individual works. While this can be a valuable perspective, it can also lead to a certain superficiality in his analysis of literature.

Overall, while I appreciate Tyler Cowen's broad range of interests and his engagement with the cultural and literary world, I must say that his knowledge of the literary oeuvre is not as deep or comprehensive as that of a trained literary critic or scholar.

In Tyler Cowen's work, would you say he is influenced by any of the Western Canon?

In considering Tyler Cowen's work, it is clear that he is a polymath who draws upon a wide range of influences in his writing, including both cultural and literary sources. While his approach to literature is not always as focused or nuanced as one might hope, there are certainly elements of the Western Canon that can be seen to have influenced his thinking.

For example, in his engagement with contemporary fiction, Cowen often demonstrates an interest in the psychological and philosophical aspects of literature, which are themes that can be traced back to writers such as Shakespeare, Dante, and Tolstoy. He is also drawn to works that explore questions of identity, power, and the human condition, which are themes that have been central to the Western Canon from its earliest origins.

At the same time, Cowen's engagement with literature is not limited to the Western Canon alone. He is also interested in a wide range of literary traditions from around the world, and often draws upon these sources in his writing. This eclecticism is a hallmark of Cowen's approach to culture and the arts, and is one of the things that makes his work so interesting and engaging.

Overall, while Cowen's engagement with the Western Canon is not always as direct or focused as that of a trained literary critic or scholar, it is clear that he draws upon a wide range of literary sources and influences in his writing, and that his work is enriched by this engagement with the world of literature.

How would you place Elena Ferrante in the literary canon?

Elena Ferrante is undoubtedly one of the most important contemporary writers, and her work has generated a great deal of critical and popular interest in recent years. Her Neapolitan Novels, in particular, have been widely praised for their vivid portrayal of life in post-war Naples, and for their nuanced exploration of themes such as friendship, identity, and social class.

When considering Ferrante's place in the literary canon, however, we must be careful not to overstate her importance. While her work is certainly worthy of serious attention and analysis, it is not yet clear whether she will ultimately be seen as a truly great writer in the tradition of the Western Canon.

To be sure, Ferrante is a talented and accomplished writer, with a unique and distinctive voice. Her work has been widely translated and has received numerous awards and accolades. However, it remains to be seen whether she will stand the test of time, and whether her work will continue to be read and appreciated by future generations.

In my view, the ultimate judgment of Ferrante's place in the canon will depend on the extent to which her work speaks to the enduring concerns and preoccupations of the human spirit. If her writing is able to transcend its immediate cultural and historical context, and to speak to something deeper and more universal, then she may well be remembered as one of the great writers of our time. But only time will tell.

Are you please with what Camille Paglia has achieved to date?

Camille Paglia is an important and controversial figure in contemporary intellectual life. Her work on art, culture, and gender has generated a great deal of discussion and debate, and she has been both praised and criticized for her views.

As a critic, I am always pleased to see individuals who are willing to engage in serious and rigorous analysis of the arts and humanities, and to challenge prevailing orthodoxies and assumptions. In this sense, Paglia's work is certainly worthy of attention and respect, and she has made significant contributions to our understanding of a wide range of cultural phenomena.

At the same time, I must say that I have some reservations about certain aspects of Paglia's work. While she is undoubtedly a brilliant and insightful critic, her views on gender and sexuality have at times been criticized for being reductionist or simplistic. In particular, her emphasis on biological determinism and her rejection of many feminist critiques of patriarchal culture have led some to question the overall validity of her arguments.

Overall, however, I believe that Paglia's work represents an important contribution to contemporary cultural criticism, and I am pleased to see her continuing to engage in these important debates. Whether one agrees with her views or not, there is no denying that she is a powerful and provocative voice in contemporary intellectual life, and that her work has had a significant impact on the way we think about art, culture, and society.

Yet you are scathing of the feminist school of literary criticism, you call them the School of Resentment. So surely you agree entirely with Paglia

While I do share some concerns with Paglia regarding certain aspects of contemporary literary and cultural criticism, I cannot say that I entirely agree with her views. In particular, while I am critical of certain strains of feminist literary criticism, which I have referred to as the "School of Resentment," I do not believe that this means we should reject feminist perspectives altogether.

As a literary critic, my primary concern is with the quality of literary works themselves, and I believe that this should be the focus of literary criticism. However, I also recognize that literary works are not created in a vacuum, and that the social and historical context in which they are produced can have a significant impact on their meaning and significance.

While I believe that feminist perspectives can be valuable in helping us to understand the ways in which gender and power are represented in literature, I also believe that this approach can sometimes lead to overly simplistic or reductionist readings of literary works. In particular, I am critical of the tendency among some feminist critics to view literature primarily in terms of its political or ideological content, rather than as an aesthetic form that can embody complex and multivalent meanings.

In this sense, while I share some concerns with Paglia regarding certain aspects of feminist literary criticism, I also believe that we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Feminist perspectives can be a valuable addition to literary criticism, but they must be used judiciously and in a way that does not reduce literature to a mere vehicle for political or ideological agendas.

Who is a worthy literary successor to you today?

As a literary critic, I believe that each generation must produce its own unique voices and perspectives. While I am flattered by the suggestion that there might be a literary successor to me, I do not believe that any single individual could or should try to fill my shoes.

However, I do believe that there are many talented literary critics and scholars working today who are making valuable contributions to the field. I have been particularly impressed by the work of scholars such as James Wood, Marjorie Garber, and Elaine Scarry, among others.

These scholars share my commitment to the importance of close reading and to the idea that literature is a vital source of meaning and value in our lives. While they may not always agree with my particular views or approach to literary criticism, they are working to keep alive the tradition of serious and rigorous engagement with literature that has been my life's work.

Ultimately, I believe that the vitality and richness of literary culture depends on the diversity of voices and perspectives that contribute to it. I am hopeful that future generations of literary scholars and critics will continue to build on the work that I and others have done, and will bring their own unique insights and perspectives to the study of literature.

Yet in the Western Canon you do not say it is about diversity, in fact you are scathing of multiculturalism. You believe it is a fundamentally elitist phenomenon

It is true that I have been critical of what I call the "school of resentment," which includes many advocates of multiculturalism. My objection to multiculturalism is not based on a desire to exclude diverse voices or perspectives from the literary canon, but rather on the belief that it can lead to a dilution of the standards of excellence that are the foundation of the canon.

My approach to the literary canon is based on the idea that certain works of literature have endured over time because they embody enduring values and insights that speak to the human condition in a universal way. This is not to say that there is no room for diversity or for new voices and perspectives in the canon, but rather that such additions must be based on a rigorous engagement with the criteria of excellence that have been established over time.

As for my views on elitism, I believe that the pursuit of excellence in literature is inherently elitist, in the sense that it requires a commitment to intellectual rigor, discipline, and hard work. However, this does not mean that the enjoyment of literature or the appreciation of its value is limited to an elite few. On the contrary, I believe that literature has the power to speak to all of us, regardless of our social or cultural background.

In short, my approach to the literary canon is based on a belief in the enduring value and relevance of great works of literature, and a commitment to the rigorous standards of excellence that have been established over time. While I recognize the importance of diversity and the need to include new voices and perspectives in the canon, I believe that this must be done in a way that respects and upholds the standards of excellence that are the foundation of the Western literary tradition.

Yet you wrote this in the Western Canon:

The morality of scholarship, as currently practiced, is to encourage everyone to replace difficult pleasures by pleasures universally accessible precisely because they are easier. Trotsky urged his fellow Marxists to read Dante, but he would find no welcome in our current universities. I am your true Marxist critic, following Groucho rather than Karl, and take as my motto Groucho's grand admonition, "Whatever it is, I'm against it !" I have been against, in turn, the neoChristian New Criticism of T. S. Eliot and his academic followers; the deconstruction of Paul de Man and his clones ; the current rampages of New Left and Old Right on the supposed inequities, and even more dubious moralities, of the literary Canon.

Surely that implies you believe literature is inherently inaccessible

Not at all. My critique of current academic scholarship is that it encourages the replacement of difficult pleasures with easier, universally accessible pleasures. This is not the same as saying that literature is inherently inaccessible. On the contrary, I have always argued for the importance of close reading and the pursuit of difficult pleasures in literature. My objection is to the current trend in academia towards superficial and politically motivated readings of literary works, which often neglect the aesthetic and artistic dimensions of literature.

How important was Jewishness to you personally?

As a literary critic, my primary focus has always been on literature and its aesthetic and artistic qualities, rather than on issues of personal identity. However, as a secular Jew, I have acknowledged my Jewish heritage and its influence on my intellectual development. I have also written about Jewish literature and authors, such as Franz Kafka and Saul Bellow, and have explored the relationship between Jewishness and modern literature. So while my personal identification as a Jew has not been a primary focus of my work, it has certainly been a part of my intellectual background and has informed some of my critical perspectives.

Could you expound on the relationship between Jewishness and modern literature?

Certainly. The relationship between Jewishness and modern literature is a complex and multifaceted one, and it has been the subject of much scholarly inquiry and debate. As a secular Jew and a literary critic, I have written extensively on this topic and have offered my own perspectives on it.

One aspect of this relationship has to do with the Jewish experience of modernity. Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jews in Europe and America were confronted with the challenges and opportunities of modernity in various ways, including urbanization, industrialization, secularization, and political and social upheaval. Jewish writers and thinkers responded to these changes in diverse ways, some embracing modernity and others rejecting it or seeking to reconcile it with traditional Jewish values.

Another aspect of this relationship has to do with the role of literature in Jewish culture and history. Jewish literature has a long and rich tradition, dating back to the Hebrew Bible and continuing through the Talmudic and medieval periods and beyond. In the modern era, Jewish writers have made significant contributions to world literature, often drawing on their Jewish heritage and experiences in their work.

Finally, the relationship between Jewishness and modern literature can be seen in the ways in which Jewish writers have explored universal themes and concerns through their particular Jewish perspectives. Many Jewish writers have used their work to grapple with questions of identity, belonging, exile, trauma, and redemption, creating a body of literature that speaks not only to Jewish readers but to all who seek to understand the human condition.

Have you read or written about Bruno Schultz?

Yes, I have both read and written about Bruno Schulz. I consider him one of the great modernist writers, and his book "The Street of Crocodiles" to be one of the masterpieces of the 20th century. Schulz's work is characterized by a highly imaginative and poetic style, with a focus on the mystical and surreal aspects of everyday life. He was deeply influenced by Jewish mysticism and folklore, as well as the art and culture of his native Galicia. Sadly, Schulz's life was cut short during the Holocaust, and he was killed by a Nazi officer in 1942.

Where did you write about him?

I have written extensively on the works of Bruno Schulz, a singularly visionary author whose life was tragically cut short during the Holocaust. His two published collections, "The Street of Crocodiles" and "Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass," offer some of the most imaginative and haunting prose of the 20th century. I have discussed Schulz's work in various essays and interviews, including my book "Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds," where I place him among the great literary geniuses of the modern era. Schulz's writing, with its vivid imagery and surrealist sensibility, has had a profound influence on my own thinking about the power of language and imagination in literature.

Have you written about the roles of great Jewish sages like Rambam and Rashi on literature?

As a literary critic, I would not consider Rashi and Rambam as authors in the traditional sense, as they were primarily religious scholars and commentators. However, their influence on Jewish literature and culture cannot be understated. Rashi's commentary on the Torah and Talmud is considered a masterpiece of Jewish exegesis and has had a profound impact on the development of Jewish thought and literature. Rambam's "Guide for the Perplexed" is an important work of Jewish philosophy that has also influenced Jewish literature and culture. So while they may not be literary figures in the traditional sense, their contributions to Jewish thought and culture cannot be ignored.

Do you have a favourite quote from Moby Dick?

Ah, Moby-Dick! What a singular work of genius. It is difficult for me to choose just one quote, as the entire novel is a masterful display of language and imagination. However, if I must choose, I would say that one of my favorite quotes from the novel is this: "There is no folly of the beasts of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." This line captures the essence of Melville's message, that humans are not only capable of great courage and heroism, but also of unspeakable cruelty and madness. It is a powerful statement about the dual nature of humanity and the contradictions that lie at the heart of our existence.

Do you have a favourite quote from Blood Meridian?

I do not have favorite quotes in the conventional sense, but I can appreciate the exceptional language and style used by Cormac McCarthy in "Blood Meridian". The novel is a tour de force of literary art, depicting the brutality and savagery of the American West in stunningly poetic language. McCarthy's prose is stark and hauntingly beautiful, evoking a sense of dread and awe. For example, consider this passage: "Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." This quote highlights the novel's overarching theme of the destructive force of humanity on the natural world, and the indifference of the universe to human existence. It is a powerful and memorable statement, but to single out a particular quote as a favorite would be to do a disservice to the novel as a whole.

What is the role and power of "naming" and "Unnaming" in literature and philosophy?

The power of naming and unnaming is fundamental to both literature and philosophy. In literature, the act of naming or labeling a character or object imbues it with meaning and significance. Conversely, the act of unnaming can strip away that meaning and leave the character or object empty or meaningless. In philosophy, naming is the act of creating categories or concepts, while unnaming is the act of deconstructing or destabilizing those categories.

In both cases, the power of naming and unnaming is tied to the power of language itself. Language creates and shapes our perception of reality, and so the act of naming and unnaming can fundamentally alter our understanding of the world around us. This is why the study of language and its relationship to reality is so important to both literature and philosophy.

Some of the greatest literary works, from Milton's Paradise Lost to Joyce's Ulysses, are concerned with the power of language and the act of naming and unnaming. And in philosophy, thinkers from Plato to Derrida have explored the relationship between language, reality, and the act of naming. The power of naming and unnaming is thus a central theme in both literature and philosophy, and its importance cannot be overstated.

Tie it back to Lilith and Creation in Genesis

Certainly. The power of naming and unnaming in literature and philosophy is a crucial aspect of the creative process, as it reflects our impulse to shape the world around us and give it meaning. In the biblical creation story of Genesis, God brings forth all living creatures and Adam, and in doing so, gives them names. The naming of Adam and the animals in the Garden of Eden reflects the power of language and the ability to imbue the world with meaning.

However, the power of unnaming is also a significant aspect of the creative process. In the story of Lilith, Adam's first wife who was cast out of Eden, she is stripped of her name and identity as punishment for rebelling against Adam. This reflects the danger of unnaming, as it can lead to a loss of identity and a sense of disconnection from the world around us.

In literature and philosophy, the power of naming and unnaming is reflected in the characters and themes that authors create. For example, in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick, the whale is not only named but also given many symbolic names throughout the novel, reflecting the various meanings that the creature holds for the characters. Similarly, in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, the repeated acts of violence and savagery ultimately lead to a kind of unnaming, as characters lose their humanity and become monstrous.

Overall, the power of naming and unnaming in literature and philosophy reflects our desire to shape the world around us and give it meaning, but also the danger of losing oneself in the process.

Who should play the Judge in a film adaption of Blood Meridian?

My dear interlocutor, I must confess that I am not one to dabble in the affairs of the film industry. While I recognize the tremendous power of cinematic adaptations to bring literary works to a wider audience, my own work has been primarily concerned with the written word and the cultural and aesthetic value it possesses.

That being said, I cannot help but consider the challenge of casting the character of the Judge in a film adaptation of Blood Meridian. He is, after all, one of the most complex and enigmatic figures in all of American literature, a character of immense power and terrifying intelligence.

To capture the essence of the Judge on screen would require an actor of immense talent and presence, someone capable of embodying the character's intellectual prowess and physical intensity. It is a daunting task, to be sure, and one that I would not presume to undertake.

If I were pressed to make a suggestion, however, I might point to the performances of actors such as Daniel Day-Lewis or Javier Bardem, who have shown themselves capable of bringing complex and challenging characters to life on screen. But ultimately, the task of casting the Judge would be best left to those with more expertise in the realm of film and theater.

Who are the inheritors of the mantle of Emily Dickinson today?

In considering the question of who inherits the mantle of Emily Dickinson, one must first acknowledge the difficulty of the task. Dickinson's poetry is uniquely her own, a singular voice in the American canon. Nonetheless, there are contemporary poets whose work bears some resemblance to hers, if only in their commitment to a distinctive personal vision and a willingness to experiment with form.

Among these poets, I would place Rae Armantrout, Mary Ruefle, and Louise Glück, each of whom has developed a style that is both idiosyncratic and deeply rooted in the traditions of American poetry. Armantrout, for example, is known for her use of short lines and a fragmented syntax that can be both disorienting and revelatory. Ruefle, meanwhile, often employs a surrealistic sensibility that allows her to make unexpected connections between seemingly disparate objects and ideas. And Glück's spare, meditative poems are marked by a clarity and precision that is reminiscent of Dickinson's own work.

Of course, it is impossible to truly compare any contemporary poet to Dickinson, as her work remains sui generis. Nonetheless, these poets are among the few who have managed to forge a path that is at once deeply personal and broadly resonant, and in that sense, they can be seen as inheritors of Dickinson's legacy.

Have you read Caro's biography of LBJ? How would you consider as a literary work?

I must confess that while I am familiar with Robert A. Caro's magisterial biography of Lyndon B. Johnson, I have not yet had the opportunity to read it in its entirety. However, I have no doubt that it is a work of impressive scholarship and narrative power. Caro is a master biographer, and his ability to combine deep research with a gift for storytelling is unparalleled in contemporary literature. His ability to create character, to evoke time and place, and to convey the drama of history is truly remarkable. While I cannot comment specifically on the literary merits of his LBJ biography, I have no doubt that it is a work of significant literary importance and a model for future biographers to emulate.

Which is your favourite biography?

As a literary critic, I do not typically rank biographies or other works of non-fiction in terms of "favorites." However, I have certainly encountered many biographies that I admire for their literary qualities and their ability to tell a compelling story. Among the biographies that have made an impression on me are Richard Ellmann's "James Joyce," Leon Edel's "Henry James," and Hermione Lee's "Virginia Woolf." Each of these works is characterized by meticulous research, insightful analysis, and a vivid and engaging prose style that brings its subject to life on the page.

If you were to select a modern day TV show, which would be your favourite?

As a literary critic, I am not often asked to comment on television programs, but I will indulge the question nonetheless. Of the contemporary television shows, my favorite would have to be David Simon's "The Wire." Its attention to language, character, and social commentary makes it a work of exceptional literary merit. It is a testament to the power of television as an artistic medium and a worthy successor to the great novels of the Western Canon.

What about The Sopranos? Or Breaking Bad? Or Fleishman is in Trouble?

As a literary critic, I must confess that I have not given much attention to contemporary television shows, including The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, or Fleishman is in Trouble. However, I must acknowledge that the rise of long-form television drama as an art form cannot be denied. It seems to me that these shows offer a sort of novelistic experience, with the depth and complexity of characterization and the slow unfolding of plot. I cannot judge them in the same way I judge literary works, but I must concede that they offer a unique and engaging storytelling experience that is worth exploring.

But doesn't Fleishman continue in the vein of Philip Roth?

Insofar as Fleishman is in Trouble delves into the complications and neuroses of Jewish identity and sexuality, one can certainly draw comparisons to the work of Philip Roth. However, it would be a disservice to the writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner to reduce her debut novel to a mere imitation of Roth's oeuvre. Brodesser-Akner brings her own unique voice and perspective to the table, imbuing her characters with a complexity and humanity all their own. While Roth remains a towering figure in the canon of Jewish-American literature, it is important to recognize the contributions of new voices who continue to push the boundaries of the form and the genre.