No one can make us enjoy love as much as Shakespeare, and no one can make us disapprove of it as successfully as he does,” writes Allan Bloom. According to Allan Bloom, no classical author will ever be as famous as William Shakespeare, not only in America but across the world, since no writer can hold up an exact mirror to human existence. The difference between Shakespeare and the Romantics and other moderns is that Shakespeare would not have a project for a better life for people and their redemption. Shakespeare poetry is an eye-opener that helps us to see what is there in life The truth is that one can see the truth variety about the erotic connections from the devotion of “star-crossed” Romeo and Juliet and the failed romance of Troilus and Cressida (Shakespeare, 2001, p. 76). Bloom continues to meditate on the works of Shakespeare throughout his work. He also draws his formidable knowledge about Rousseau, Plato and others to help us have the understanding of the moderns and ancients into a conversation. The result is that there is a true synoptic treatment regarding the Eros. It is not only the philosophical reflection regarding Shakespeare but also a survey of human spirit. It is also a tendency that seeks what Bloom refers to as “connectedness” of love and friendship.
The plays are a clear interpretation of the original aspect of deep respect for the author. They are also a conviction about what we still need to learn from the author. According to Bloom, we are currently living in a love impoverished generation (Ryan, 2009, p. 90). He goes on to ask us to get back to Shakespeare since the storywriter offers the luxurious version regarding what we can refer to as permanent from the human nature without necessarily sharing the present-day assumptions of erotic love. The author also provides the provocative indictment of devaluing love and intimacy from the current culture. Allan Bloom goes on to explore the etymological of love from the Bible to Freud. He also sheds the penetration of light from the real nature of various human connections.
Bloom goes on to explain how Romantic rebellion was bourgeois to the society as launched by Rousseau whose focus was to construct and reconstruct the longing for love in the heart of the modern man. He is also able to find how there are high goals for imagination than the pursuit of individual material interest. Rousseau could not locate any solid ground for such a longing and could not find a sound basis for such goals. Just as Bloom suggested it, Romanticism only succeeded through the devaluation of bourgeois individualism. About Shakespeare’s comedies, various characters infatuate themselves as perfect embodiments of “true love” (Norman, Stoppard and Madden, 1999, p. 12). Love is real in the life of Shakespeare to the extent of two partners getting interested to each other in different and exclusively to the intermediaries and the third parties in general. “True Love” is, therefore, a great passion that insists its independence across the world and from people in general. One can suffuse this concept from the modern individualism.
For one to understand about the ideology of love as Shakespeare suggests, one needs to compare Juliet from another Shakespeare heroine named Cressida. Just as Juliet did, Cressida was also able to surrender quickly to her first lover Troilus (Ryan, 2009, p. 34). She also perceives the danger that comes about with doing this just like Juliet did but fails to dissemble and later throws the cautions towards the wind. Cressida goes on to bet that her first lover is loyal but through different results just as Juliet. A certain morning after Cressida decides to become his mistress, Troilus later reveals to her about his second vanity masculine, his selfishness, arrogance, and mediocrity. The people who then turn Cressida into a symbol of the unprovoked feminine, his infidelity is just a sexist as Troilus does because he was afraid of remaining blind to the faults of the young man that are obvious glaring. Troilus remains a corruptor of Cressida far from being the victim. He is also naïve and jealous and goes on to suggest that the only vengeance is available to women who are in her situation.
Romeo and Juliet, on the other hand, are different. They appear incapable of being treachery, and nothing seems to be tragic because nothing is dramatic through the exciting disrupt of their relationship. From Troilus and Cressida play, the relation between various characters appears to be an incident that remains the public entertained. This however does not happen from Romeo and Juliet. In real life, this remains admirable and excellent from the theater because this lacks some dramatic possibilities from the unmitigated disasters. The playwright goes on to measure some tragic inadequacy of “Real love (Shakespeare, 2001, p. 54).” Shakespeare does not require Andre Gide to guide him that have positive sentiments adding up to real literature. From Romeo and Juliet for instance, dramatic effects are imported from the external love affairs. Shakespeare remains a constant return to spice up the undramatic love affair. Shakespeare is the central project from Bloom’s story since he is accessible to us. The original and severe study of Shakespeare teaches us a lot of issues about the human limitations and possibilities. Apart from presenting us with the issues about love and friendship, he also shows us the perception of the human nature through the intention of longing for beauty. The study of Shakespeare assists us to “Viewing the relations of man with his fellows” and offers “serious alternatives about the characteristics of viewings things.”
Summing up, Bloom’s perception of Shakespeare leads us back to the premodern figures about Plato and compares them to the teachings of the Socrates. For Socrates, Love is the central aspect towards the understanding of human soul and the quest for completion. Blooms pay profound tribute towards the extraordinary “riches psychology” but later inclines towards the Socrates who offers an accurate account regarding nature. If the Socrates are right, then Bloom concludes that the current day’s “Fall of Eros” should not be permanent. It is important to remain the nature of humans open to love and is a pursuit of personal knowledge. People need an education that will drive them from the perverse and political correct interpretations about human nature that surrounds us for instance through the original attempt of feminism to obliterate differences between sexes and disdain for ideas about males and females. From such efforts about liberation from the liberationists of the current generation, people can recover from the understanding of nature which is the understanding that is “Buried from the successive layers of ash ideology.” The original interpretation of Shakespeare plays conveys great respect to the author and conviction that people still need to learn more from him. It is, therefore, true to say that Bloom was correct when he states that we currently live in an impoverished love age. Bloom asks the reader to turn to the readings of Shakespeare since the playwright offers a vibrant vision of what is permanent from the human nature without necessarily sharing some current guess about erotic love.
Norman, M., Stoppard, T. and Madden, J., 1999. Shakespeare in Love. Faber & Faber.
Ryan, K., 2009. Shakespeare’s comedies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shakespeare, W., 2001. Troilus and Cressida (Vol. 26). Classic Books Company.

Need help with your homework? Let our experts handle it.
Order form