I am convinced that the writings of Jorge Luis Borges—an Argentinian writer infamous for his playful nature and toying with language—are not merely a method to be reckoned with in the literary canon, but also a turbulent force which makes us question our expectations when approaching future literature as a whole. The writing itself seems very much rooted in the genre of surrealism, or like minded postmodern movements of the 20th century. When considering the social change of the time (brought forth by wars and revolutions alike in Latin America) it is no wonder that conventional ways of writing were challenged by Borges, as with many other writers as a way to spearhead an intellectual revolution in the way we think and act towards objects of power, as in the literary–often viewed as “elitist”–realm.
In terms of content, I enjoyed the unique way the text was ordered with a sporadic use of headings to guide the bewildered reader–in this way it reminded me of Hopscotch by Julio Cortázar, the namesake of the course. The author relies on the use of allusions to tell a complex tale befitting of our time, ranging from a religious critique, as in “The Lottery in Babylon,” to commenting on military jingoism in “The Garden of Forking Paths.” Both are situated near each other and represent, in my interpretation, a duality of ideology, or two sides of the same coin. “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius,” the heading that starts the book, is a fitting introduction, as it revolves around the use of language and stored knowledge in a literate culture. Through a conversation the narrator has with one of the few characters in the novel, Bioy Casares, there is a fourth-wall break in the way he essentially discloses the omission of facts to shape reality which would be commonplace in the narrative going forward; in this sense, it almost reads as a disclaimer.
A great disclaimer it is, as well: the story often proves difficult to follow and jumps back and forth through time, memory and fabrication—most separated, but not always, by headings—leading the reader to believe they are in fact stuck in a maze of some kind, with that maze being their own struggle of comprehension. As mammals, we enjoy solving puzzles. I think Borges, in the way he has structured his narrative, appeals to this common instinct between us all. There is a democratisation of intellect in his work, and therefore a sense of unification. Yet restricted by the written word, there is also an unavoidable elitism at play owing to the medium—and as Marshall McLuhan will tell any soul, this is the message: The fact that those who are illiterate will not comprehend this story is in itself a barricade to understanding, larger than any artificial or tangible maze. And so there is conflict even in the work of postmodernism.
My question this week is to what extent does Jorge Borges appeal to the reader’s instinct to solve problems and think critically about meaning; and by contrast, what does the obstruction of our understanding represent? S
Although it doesn’t seem like it, because he makes many references to classic texts and to theologians whose names are lost in time, Borges has that avant-garde component that you detected very well. As you know, appearances are deceiving. I can’t say if Borges is a postmodern author or not… I know that for many critics he is even a starting point for all subsequent literature. I am more interested in your idea of fiction as a puzzle, and of the democratic possibilities of this conception. I hope to read more about it in your next posts.
Hey Samuel,
Great post, Im glad you enjoyed the content of the read. I am someone who loves puzzles. Throughout winter break, I believe I made around 5 or 6 one thousand piece puzzles. For me, it is relaxing and helpful to do something with my hands when Im watching a show, or else I would get beyond bored. If these short stories were a maze though, I was not able to solve it. I tried thinking of these short stories as a novel at first but soon realized that was a mistake. I only realized Borges’s style when Jon spoke about it in the lecture video, but now I understand how Borges wanted us to rethink what we know, and I think that’s cool, just not for me in terms of books. Give me a puzzle or a maze, and I would love to do it, but in the form of stories I prefer a story that I can really dive into and conprehend.
I really liked your discussion of Borges’ style to write in a way that creates a puzzle for the reader to work through. It was interesting how you included his dissolution of time as a method to complexify the “puzzle” of his readings. To answer your question, I think Borges puts in a lot, and so far compared to our readings the most, effort to create a satisfyingly difficult reading. His short stories are filled with intricacies, parallels and opposites, and different perspectives on space and time that complicate the plot in very interesting, and dare I say, “puzzling” ways.