Death and The Compass was a really interesting read to me. I’ve read and loved many of Borges’ works, and this one was very surprising because of how different it seems. I was mainly left wondering what Borges was trying to do with this story, because it felt, to me, like it was doing a lot “less” than some other of his works. It felt not only like the story was mainly concerned with its meta-narrative, but that Borges was trying to challenge himself, or other writers, or simply prove that a certain way of writing detective fiction was necessary.

The most interesting aspect, to me, is Borges insistence on a certain respect or “sanctity” of the mystery and its resolution. This is seen both in Death and The Compass, and in his six rules. He is very preoccupied with the honesty, clarity, conciseness and purposefulness of a mystery, whereas he makes no mention of the importance of message, meaning, or any aesthetic goals. This is seen in the short story, as it seems almost immune to analysis. Though one may spend some time considering all the different references, plot devices and such in the story, I fail to see much meaning. There isn’t even as much as a more academic focus in the work (as in, the same sort of impression a symbolist or dadaist work might give – something like a meditation on what words mean, or a consideration of how to convey sound/image). Instead, the story is almost completely simply a plot. A mystery, laid out clearly, concisely and satisfyingly. Both Borges rules and his story lead me to wonder whether detective fiction is exceedingly capable of dealing with stories made just for the sake of story. Though it would take a lot of work to prove this, it seems like other genres are almost incapable of merely being about the plot itself. Fantasy is about much more than the journey, romance involves more than love, and so on. For detective fiction (and crime fiction, such as a book about a robbery), however, it is quite achievable to write a work where the resolution of the mystery is the only concern, and everything else is merely a backdrop. If I were to make some guesses as to why that is, I would suppose that the subject matter is either clearly important (for example, the author need not prove to the reader that the death of someone is interesting, or that finding out what happened is interesting), or, it is inherently engaging with a easily relatable motive (for example, a book about a bank robbery is engaging, and everyone relates to wanting the fortune). Though other genres may be able to capture this simplicity of plot, it seems that crime fiction does it best because it is concerned, by nature, with tension, story, and release. Bringing it back to Borges, I wonder if his rules, and this story, are written this way precisely because they are aware of how the genre is unique for its capacity to be so purely plot. For a writer who often has so much going on in their works, this type of exercise may be very liberating.

It is entirely possible, however, that I just didn’t notice what was going on!