English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Is the Object Different for Each New Poet?
It is both ironic and appropriate that Harold Bloom, with all of his talk about misrepresentation, should misrepresent a quote from Emerson in his closing remarks. Bloom asserts that every poem written is influenced by a precursor poet. Therefore, the poet must search deep within himself into the great reservoir of knowledge-which accumulates over a poet's numerous years of study-in order to find similarities between a past genius of influence and his own. Once this is done, credit can be given-albeit minor credit from the unaccomplished subsequent poet-and he can better understand his own tendencies as a writer. Emerson's quote, on the contrary, deals with the subsequent poet having an original thought, or a thought that is disconnected from any outside influence. This inkling is thought by the young poet to be insubstantial and foolish, so he puts it to rest. After a time, he reads something written by a genius of the past, and realizes that this genius had the same foolish thought. So Bloom misrepresents Emerson by misapplying his quote in "Self-Reliance."
I would think that most artists who are truly honest with themselves will heartily agree that they are influenced by past artists. Only the most diluted of fellows will believe otherwise. It follows that such a truth, when admitted, might act as a thorn in the poet's side. This is especially true when the poet desires to be an original thinker. Therefore, Bloom's doctrine of the "anxiety of influence" seems to be viable. I cannot, however, agree with the view that if this anxiety is not mastered then the poet becomes merely a latecomer. Doesn't Bloom's example of Oscar Wilde prove this point? Wilde had much difficulty with this anxiety, yet he is considered a great poet/playwright.
I am most interested in Bloom's comments on the decline and imminent demise of poetry. Can this be so? And does this theory carry over into the land of prose? For the purpose of my final paper, I will assume that it does. My inquiry deals with the function of literature for each critical type. If Bloom's poet "quest's for an impossible object" (that object being the "otherness" of his precursor's work), then literature's function is to record it (1800). As a side-noted, that object is different for every poet. Bloom seems to speak the contrary. Bloom gives six methods by which the serious poet deviates from the poetry of his predecessor, whereby coming closer to originality. All the while, the new poet misrepresents the old poet. But isn't this act of misrepresentation the quest for each poet's object (that object being "truth" or "originality" or "Sartre's essence")? And isn't the result of this deviation the creation of a new object? If so, in what sense does Bloom label the poet's object "impossible" to achieve?
I think that to misrepresent the poets of the past is natural. To me, this means that I have not perceived HIS object in its fullness. But this doesn't mean that Milton's object was never obtained by Milton? Why does the object necessarily have to be the same for all poets for all time?