Charlie Rose

blueyoshi55  11/30/2010 12:11 PM Report

(correction: email is jibond5020 at gmail dot com)

blueyoshi55  11/30/2010 11:58 AM Report

Harold Bloom is a fascinating, illuminating, and often frustrating person, because it's always a struggle to try to understand where he could possibly be coming from. I'm almost jealous that I can't share the deep joy that he gets from poetry and whatnot, but then again, he always looks so troubled, I get the urge to try and clear up his confusion. Charlie Rose, being the brilliant interviewer he is, gets down to the fundamental thing Harold Bloom seems to completely miss in all his interpretations of Christianity: Why the story of Jesus is so profound, why it appeals to so many people. His answer is weak-- he says because Christianity promises a lot for very little, namely, mere belief. Also, he has mentioned that Jesus is all things to all people. True, he is all believers' imaginary friend, or perhaps, a representation of the better side of them, and who wouldn't want to converse with that? But that is no explanation for what makes Christianity so immensely moving to so many people. I'm a 100% atheist, and even I can understand why. It is because Jesus chose suffering for what he knew was right-- suffering for truth rather than pretense, suffering for the benefit of the future rather than momentary desires. It's something that everyone can relate to who has these inner battles in themselves. Jesus is the role model for us, who supposedly suffered the worst and emerged victorious. The suffering, the sacrifice, is the key-- if Jesus had grown old and lived a happy life, there would hardly be a story at all. That's why the cross, often with Jesus on it, is center stage in churches. That's why Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" captured the very heart of Christianity, although many Christians would rather not see it so graphically, and reportedly affected a lot of previously non-religious people. Why doesn't Harold Bloom get it?

In a radio interview, a caller suggested that Jesus served as a completion to the Old Testament because Adam sinned and doomed the human race, whereas Jesus resisted sin and therefore redeemed the human race. Bloom said that it was a moving interpretation, but apparently he still does not get why the average Christian believes as they do. I take Bloom as a valuable insight into the workings of the Jewish mind, whether the Jews approve of him or not, and he is an enigma to me.

Also I'm glad Charlie always brings up the Shakespeare issue so people can see how insane Bloom really is. Bloom can't see that he desperately needs to believe in a God, and Shakespeare is the best match for him, so he builds him up to God-like status. Shakespeare was not received as Earth-shattering revelation at the time-- he wrote plays that were meant to entertain an audience. The fact that they are so profound and well-crafted is merely a reflection of how sophisticated the audience and culture was of that time and place. Shakespeare didn't set out to invent or redefine human emotion-- rather, like any writer, he was inspired by what has always been with the human race, and merely illustrated stereotypical caricatures of such personalities and experiences. Obviously they were based on something, as the plays were made to resemble reality, something the audience could relate to. Maybe stories had not been crafted so finely before, but that does not mean such thoughts and feelings did not exist before, at least not any less than they do in current times. Also, I believe it's certainly plausible that the figure of "Shake-speare" was actually a front for a collaboration of authors, as was sometimes done in those times. But for Bloom, this is essentially suggesting that his God doesn't exist, which is an unmanageable thought for him.

email jibond at gmail dot com

Brian Margolis  06/28/2008 06:27 PM Report

In general, I agree with Harold Bloom’s theological thoughts, but not with his political ones. When Charlie Rose said in this interview “There’s something there”, referring to Jesus’ enduring popularity, Bloom’s answer was insufficient. Jesus was put to death for a political crime [sedition\ not a spiritual one. But there is no such thing as a “spiritual crime”. Is there? According to the Catholic Church there used to be, and perhaps still is. Then along came Martin Luther and Modernity. But this is part of the problem. The political reality, in which Jesus and other Jews lived in back then, was, over the decades immediately following Jesus’ execution, edited and codified out of the first version of the New Testament. The New Testament does not report the brutal occupation of Judea by Rome. Hence we are left with a lofty and bucolic picture in which this individual “willingly gave his life” for the future transgressions of people he doesn’t even know. To get to the point of this post: human beings are lazy. They will take the path of least resistance especially when it comes to matters of salvation. You mean all I have to do is believe in him and all my transgressions from the past, present, and future will be wiped clean and I can start fresh? That’s just like reformatting my hard drive. I can do that in a few minutes – even instantaneously. But what do I learn about myself in the process? Nothing! How do I evolve spiritually? I don’t! What sorts of examples have I collected to learn from to not repeat the same mistakes in the future? None! Not only that, but I can use the false story that was handed down to me in the New Testament to chastise Jews who had a three thousand year spiritual head start, and I don’t even read Hebrew. Wow – OK, sign me up!! All this is not to suggest that Jews cannot learn anything from Christians – because they can, and should.

MA  06/16/2008 05:45 PM Report

I love Bloom, but it's sad to see him acting paranoid about America becoming a theocracy. The odds are remote and even ludicrous.

Joe  05/28/2008 12:54 AM Report

Harold Bloom is the most pretentious person I've ever heard speak. I can't stand the man. I don't blame Charlie for interrupting when the professor babbles on incoherently merely to satisfy his own egotistical desire to hear himself speak.

Thomas   05/05/2008 08:15 PM Report

As far as the aforecriticized "interruptions" mentioned above, Charlie, you are let off the hook for your ego's naturally delusional (and therefore unnecessary, however unwitting) defenses of your Real Self. Any ego must give voice to the biases that its social world constructs. Your heart, I confirm for all, is pure -- like any heart. You are closer than most to the Kingdom within. Keep leading by example.

Ozi  09/30/2007 07:44 PM Report

This interview is a treasure trove of enormous worth. Harold Bloom is a fascinating man. Inspiring.

Jessica  09/09/2007 02:41 AM Report

Your show is a GIFT. Thank you for the web site that makes it possible for these interviews to be available.

mikekudirka  07/15/2007 05:56 AM Report

Charlie,

I love your show, it's one of the most positive aspects of American broadcasting. At the risk of sounding crude, I would recommend that you review your interviewing style as regards Harold Bloom. Compare your style from the 1998 interview to the 2005 one. I think that you gave him much more room to speak his views without interruption in 1998. I've noticed that in the past couple of years, you've been interrupting more, perhaps with the intention that it will arouse deeper aspects to the conversation. I don't think this is as effective as giving them ample space to think and speak.

cheers...

Sophie  06/05/2007 03:23 AM Report

I absolutely love Charlie Rose! Marvelous interview as always =)

Santiago  05/26/2007 10:33 PM Report

Charlie Rose is such a gift to America. Keep on keepin' on, Charlie!

jim  05/02/2007 12:07 AM Report

I love this interview. Thanks for making it available.