English 432 Shakespeare

I've been reading some of Bloom's--Shakespeare the Invention of the Human. When I say reading I mean, underlining. Bloom is so thick and dense with peripheral material it can be a bit much, but I love it anyway. What has struck me, just from the introduction called "Shakespeare's Universalism" is how much Bloom loves both Hamlet and Falstaff. Both of whom I only know in the context of either Mel Gibson, or I don't know? I look forward to actually reading Hamlet, which will be a first for me, besides seeing Gibson's movie. Bloom does have a way with words, that is to say, a way of imbuing things that make sense to me for instance: "You can bring absolutely anything to Shakespeare and the plays with light it up, far more than what you bring will illuminate the plays." Bloom is sniping at what he calls the resenters, critics that read Shakespeare with an agenda already in mind, such as Marxist readings, or New Historicists readings. Which I thought Bloom was one of the latter. Who knows. In this intro material, besides recalling Hamlet and Falstaff at every turn, he suggests "personality" as supremely a Shakespearian invention. I gotta say, I don't know, but it sounds awefully good. I realize that there are colleagues of mine in class that have been exposed to the Bard for years and years. I am in much envy of this since I am a relative novice, but that is not to minimize my hunger for learning. The Bard is an enigma, a secular God, as Bloom puts it, and he has created characters that themselves could be considered gods. "Why Shakespeare?", "Why not?" These aren't my words, their Bloom's, but I agree and look forward to reading more about this Poet.