"No, I'll read just one more book, then call it a night ... !"

Pretty sure he also was tootin some until he couldn't later on in life.

Liam Jaeger good man

Charlie Rose should never have cut off Harold Bloom.

I know. So annoying

That was ridiculous, even for Rose standards.

Rude and egotistical

He’s a liberal what you expect?

A wonderful example as to how to NOT conduct an interview. Charlie may be a sharp chap, but he is no Harold Bloom. Even if Charlie was smarter, this is TERRIBLE interviewing.

That's why he's Harold Bloom, and you and I aren't ... !

@@hungrycrab3297 I agree. Also, the fact that he doesn't really qualify the claim by noting exactly which types of material he can and cannot read at such a rate further diminishes its credibility. One test is to take a very easy book on a subject one finds very familiar, then clock yourself. I find that in reading garbage like John Grisham that I can manage nearly 500 words a minute. Maybe with a 180 verbal IQ I could reach 1,000 on easy material. I decline to credit that even such a genius could manage anything like that rate in reading high literature or challenging non-fiction.

@@kreek22Kim Peek could but he was severely deficient in other areas.

Old Bloom is very much on the offensive against heritage Americans here. But, aren't they always?

Stop worshipping a dead jew

Well he's Jewish, so, yeah

@@WhiteChocolate74 The first Christians were, of course, Jews.

By default I agree but its also the fact that when you live in Ivory Tower all your life its kind of hard to write about anything. To be a writer you really have to speak with people and live in the world you write about. Thats why I believe Hemingway was one of the greatest writters since he never ceased in researching and living for the sake of writting. It takes a lifetime to become a writter, you only need a degree to become a critic.

I JUDGE that these are quite flippant, even glib, remarks. Harold Bloom CERTAINLY has lived through much outside of the so-called ivory tower...and he is worthy of reading IN DEPTH simply because of the BREADTH of his reading and knowledge...of course, he puts forth his own standards as any reader does, and he does so FIRST as a reader, not a formalist critic (that comes later)...I admire the Great Professor as a guide who is always fair, though at times jumpy, as most critics are. I severely disagree with him on Plath (whom he seems to loathe for "jumpy" reasons", along with some theory (including the French)...he despises the Beats because they cannot be "situated" in his theory, and thus the entire theory must be either reevaluated or discarded.

He's written over forty books you ignoramus.

Those who can do neither scatter the Internet with cliches.

In-N-Out He did both, in his lifetime. The one is not mutually exclusive of the other.