The True Labyrinth to Be Lost In: The Words on Borges’ Paper

The anxiety I have felt reading this books is a unique experience I have yet to have elsewhere. Truth to be told, I have no idea what’s going on in most of the stories, and that isn’t resulting from a lack of trying, I quite literally just cannot tell what is going on most of the times from the author’s leap of information from one line of thinking that merges into another one.

That aside, there are some notable stories in the section “Fictions” that I particularly enjoyed. I liked The Circular Ruins, Theme of the Traitor and the Hero, and I quite liked The Garden of Forking Paths .Everything else is somewhat of a mystery to me. I think there is something notable about the way he writes, that makes it read like a very intelligent but somehow tortured man’s ramblings as he’s going through some sort of withdrawal. Certain things are described with such detail and added information that is seems overloading, yet the significance of the details don’t seem as apparent to the happenings of the story, despite it being told as if each word is the vessel of some sort of uncovered treasure. Perhaps this is something that will resolve itself if I re-read the book and discover new things which I guess alludes to the idea of play. But I think the conclusion is that I probably won’t be able to wrap my head around his way of writing.

One story that particularly stood out to me is the Three Versions of Judas. I’ve never considered this idea that the book proposed. However, I do think there is something to be said about how Jesus would not be Jesus without Judas, and that both met similar ends, and there is something to be said about how both were sacrifices for this greater story to happen. I think it falls in like with something like “there is no knowing the light without first knowing dark”.

Another section (this time under “Parables”) that was particularly intriguing was Borges and I. This might be a very 21st century internet kid of me to say, but his thoughts somewhat remind me of how we think about how to curate “our existence” on social media. I think the parallels are they both experience this sort of weird boundary in our identities, where one seems more like a persona and the other is the one that “experiences things” but these things ultimately are taken by this persona and shaped into something else that is a part of it. Like maybe you like tennis, but the desire for this to pass into your “persona” and post it online as if that solidifies this “identity” shapes you to be “a person that plays tennis” and no longer someone that is just experiencing this game. Or maybe this thought of mine also reads like a withdrawing man’s ramblings.

My question to all is: What story made the biggest impression on you and why?

The Underdogs and the more Underwhelmed Reader

Before you make any assumptions based on the post’s title, I’m not underwhelmed because I didn’t like the book (to clarify, I didn’t like the book but thats not the reasoning here), I’m underwhelmed because I carry in some sense the same disappointment that Luis Cervantes felt about the revolution and the way it eventually manifests, and leaves behind the country and its people in replacement with this weird sense of calamity and loss. I think because I am still young and my life has barely started yet, my brain doesn’t have the capacity to process this kind of dejectedness that the characters possess especially towards the end of the book, which is something I guess people kind of attribute to just having experienced “life”. I really empathized with this quote in the foreword: “Revolutions begin fighting tyranny and end fighting themselves”. I think the meaning here in the passage referred to the political situation where revolutionaries fight against the dictator and end up fighting among factions to choose who gets to sit in the now vacated seat, which was Mexico’s situation. But I think to read into this quote more deeply, people start this war clear that the enemy was the tyrant and his oppression they were all against, but end up fighting themselves as they find they now find this tyrant within themselves and are unclear where their values lie as well, eventually submitting to having no values, in my opinion, which resulted in more barbaric behaviour. I think this parallel was drawn by Azuela himself the best, where Demetrio finds himself in situations he’s experienced before but on the other side, be it the battle in the valley/canyon/sierra place, or raiding others houses. Reading those scenes also furthered the despondency I felt.

Another interesting thing to think about is how the book directly translated means “Those from below”, as mentioned again in the foreword. For me, the feeling the directly translated title gives is a greater sombreness, compared to “Underdogs”, which also has its own zing to it, but I guess has a more English nuance to it which kinda takes away from the original title. I think the title obviously has some relation to the class structure in place here in reference to Demitrio and his troops, but I also think there’s a sort of relation to how the scene starts with them in high ground attacking “those from below” and ends with them being the ones from below, as they were killed. I think this also ties in again with class structure, since the “curro” Luis Cervantes is not there as they were dying one by one at the bottom.

To finish off with a question: Did you guys like this book? What part about it was something you enjoyed or something you really didn’t like? I personally wanted to jump to the next page whenever they mentioned Camilia. That girl has already been through enough.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet