Important context for those considering it: Bloom's book was seen as a rejection of those bringing new voices (i.e., non-white, non-male) into the 'canon'; it was popular among conservative culture warriors. That doesn't disqualify it, but understand Bloom might be injecting some politics into it.

Blooms list is rejecting bringing politics into the classics canon

I don't think so. Supporters may think Bloom's conservative position stands 'above' insufferable woke politics or something like that. In fact the politics has already been brought, so to speak, and is now inescapable. Perhaps Bloom was not the first one to inject 'politics', but once the new ideas have been brought, rejecting them is reaction and political too.

And what is this definition of 'politics' anyway?

That is just to view 'my' perspective as the norm, as reasonable, and those that differ as political change.

The status quo was as much political as was the "woke" activism

You probably didn't intend this but the context you have highlighted almost reads like a recommendation except I misunderstand what a 'canon' means.

Why post that? Do you think the world is unaware that you exist, a conservative culture warrior or fellow traveler? Does it add anything but inflammatory politics?

I intended nothing either way; I was informing people about the book. Please don't include me in your politicize-everything motivations.

The reason I posted was to point out that the context you provided was unnecessary and even counter-productive. In light of your response, in particular the blatantly obvious projection, I believe I was correct in my read of your intentions.

Reading other people's minds is a fool's errand, and you got the appropriate result - you are wrong. If you thought it was counter-productive, etc., just say so.

Context is an essential part of meaning. If you don't know the context of something, you are going to misunderstand and be misled. If I yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, it means something different than it does at a gun range, or huddled over some kindling in in driving rainstorm at a campsite. In this case, the context was political. We need to be able to talk about politics without actually doing it; some try to pretend politics doesn't exist, but that's a lie. It seems to me that you felt that it could not be talked about, it had to be done. Don't try to impose that on me, please.

>was seen

by whom?

https://theriveter.co/voice/its-time-to-banish-the-western-c... This is on the first page of Google results, so it's at least a sample.

Someone bought that for me years ago and it s*at me to tears reading his deep thoughts. Paraphrasing: You should read literature to come to grips with your own death. But took about 100 pages to say so with the most meandering, tangential, irrelevant segway loaded prose that was utterly stultifying. Such as you might get from someone desperate to prove how incredibly clever they are rather than filling the role they claim to be filling.

I stopped reading it with the idea that just about anybody's else's list would likely be superior.

Obviously YMMV. Brought back the memory seeing it here. Would be really interested if someone had a different reaction to it.

> the most meandering, tangential, irrelevant segway loaded prose that was utterly stultifying

Reads like the work personally transported you.