Tag Archives: borges

10/7/21

The Role of Chance

In “Death and the Compass” (1942) by Jorge Borges, reality’s tendency to stray towards meaninglessness and chance is revealed. Despite Lönnrot’s admission that “reality has not the slightest obligation to be interesting” (pg. 148), he prefers his hypotheses to be grandiose and intriguing, preferring that chance does not play “a disproportionate role” (pg. 148). Thus, he constructs from the evidence a magnificent theory that conforms to a symmetrical rhombus shape and a pattern embedded with Jewish references (pg. 156). However, this theory ends up being a trap. The initial three killings, which form an equilateral triangle, are the first three compass points (pg. 156). Due to his desire for symmetry, Lönnrot allows the compass, designed by Scharlach but pieced together by Lönnrot, to lead him to the final point as well as his ironic death (pg. 156). His focus on conformance to a pattern leads him to a labyrinth in which he can only see the single path ahead of him – the one laid out for him in the labyrinth – rather than beyond the walls or outside of the structure entirely. Furthermore, the pattern itself did not hold the meaning that he had been anticipating. The Jewish references he had noticed were simply used as tools of deception – they did not hold any deeper meaning in the context of the crimes (pg. 156). The first murder, as Treviranus had hypothesized, was simply due to chance (pg. 148 & 155). Lönnrot’s desire for a grandiose pattern ends up being his downfall, and this downfall serves as a warning that reality does not necessarily conform to patterns but rather often involves a significant degree of random chance.

10/7/21

Zeno’s Paradox: Red Scharlach’s Labyrinth as a Geometric Series

We discussed in class how Jorge Luis Borges embodies philosophical theories through his literature and often converges them with mathematical motifs (i.e. symmetry, geometry, etc). In Borges’s story “Death and the Compass,” Red Scharlach’s premeditated murder of his arch-nemisis, Lonnrot, draws inspiration from Zeno’s paradox: “I know of a Greek labyrinth that is but one straight line” (pg. 156). Zeno’s paradoxes were the basis of all theories related to space, time and infinity. One of them, Achilles and the tortoise, tells the story of the Greek hero, Achilles, being challenged to a race by a tortoise who claims he can beat Achilles if he’s given a head start. When the race starts, the tortoise is ahead and Achilles begins to make up ground on the slow moving tortoise. But by the time Achilles reaches the tortoise’s starting point, the tortoise had moved forward by one meter. When he makes up ground on the new gap, the tortoise had moved again creating a new but smaller gap. At every point where Achilles reaches the tortoise’s last point, the tortoise is still ahead by incrementally smaller distances. This situation can therefore be expressed as an infinite geometric series. Just as Achilles cannot overtake the fleeing tortoise, Red Scharlach is always ahead of Lonnrot which would ultimately leads him to his demise. While Scharlach did have personal history with Lonnrot, what ultimately got him ahead was the coincidental murder of the rabbi which was published in the newspaper. Knowing Lonnrot had much knowledge in religious scriptures and text, Scharlach concocted a plot that he knew only Lonnrot would be able to solve. Lonnrot of course was too transfixed on solving the mystery that he was unsuspecting of Scharlach’s mischief. Although the “labyrinth” was technically a rhombus, Lonnrot critiques Scharlach saying his elaborate plot could’ve been better if he had mapped it out exactly like Zeno’s paradox: “So many philosophers have been lost upon that line that a mere detective might be pardoned if he became lost as well” (pg. 156). Scharlach then promises the labyrinth would be a straight line in his next life before he shoots him.

10/7/21

Pointing Towards Death: Why?

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!

10/7/21

Death and the Compass and the Rules

When reading “Death and the Compass”, I was most interested in the author, Borges’ six rules in regard to the detective fiction genre. As a result, I chose to write about how these rules fit within this short story.

Rule one that Borges mentions is that the story must not contain any more than 6 characters. This rule was set in place so as to not confuse the reader too much. In this detective fiction, there are no more than 6 major characters.

Rule two is that the criminal has to be introduced in the beginning. In this short story, one of the villains is the second victim, Daniel Simón Azevedo.

Rule three is that the twist villain must not be forced into the role of villain. Although the reader does not get to know much about Azevedo prior to his death, it is revealed earlier on that he has a background in crime, making the reveal of him being one of the villains somewhat believable. 

The fourth rule is the priority of how over who. Toward the final murder, the detective Lönnrott tries to figure out some patterns on how the victim will be murdered rather than the identity of the next victim.

Rule six states that the victim must not have a blood-red death. This rule makes it easier to figure out the cause of death.

The final rule that Borges writes is that the crime must be mysterious without resorting to the use of magic or hypnotism. All of the murders in “Death and the Compass” are mysterious yet do not use any form of magic or hypnotism. All of the murders that can be replicated in real life.

With all these rules set in place, the writer has the foundation for a good detective fiction.

10/7/21

Never trust the author

Borges’ use of prolepsis at the start of the story does one of two things. Firstly, it introduces us to Lonrott as a decently capable detective as he is able to figure out when one of the murders is, however, he isn’t able to stop it. Secondly, it provides a brief overview of the conclusion of the text, but with very few details, so it keeps the readers from knowing the whole truth. The use of prolepsis causes the reader to expect Lonrott to solve the crime, increasing his credibility, as well as create anticipation and suspense about the end of the story.

After recognizing these two facts, it led to me reading the text with a lot of trust in Lonrott, so I didn’t pay much attention to his intense research into Jewish practices and holidays. It also made me read the text carefully to try and figure out the conclusion before it was fully revealed to the reader. It became a competition between the text and myself, as I knew what was going to happen, but I wanted to figure out how before it was unveiled by Borges. Each detail and fact that was thrown at me was analyzed and taken note of to try and piece together a truth that would eventually solve the case. Unfortunately (but fortunately because it made it more interesting), Borges offered us a solution that was much more complex than we might have expected. Well, not exactly much more complex because the start of all the murders ended up being just as Treviranus had predicted. As the readers, we are thrown off not only by Lonrott being the last murdered person but also by the fact that he was wrong all along despite the long explanations and discoveries we are told about.

10/6/21

Dostoyevsky and Borges: Detective Fiction

When reading Luis Borges’ “Death and the Compass” I was immediately struck by the stylistic similarities to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s detective novels. Dostoyevsky, like Poe, was an early contributor to the genre writing several murder mysteries such as “The Brothers Karamazov” and “Crime and Punishment.” Both Borges and Dostoyevsky use a similarly mysterious and cerebral tone as well as an active narrator who occasionally inserts himself into the narrative. For the comparison of the two authors, I wanted to look more at the narrative style of metafiction. In “Death and the Compass” the narrator adds external commentary towards the end of the short story creating a feeling of an anonymous witness or observer to the crime. Dostoyevsky employs a similar technique in his novel “The Brother’s Karamazov” where the reader is unaware that they have been reading a court disposition until almost the very end. In turn, the reader occasionally stumbles across the first person in a way that feels related to Borges’ approach to metafiction.

Borges seems to have been inspired by Dostoyevsky saying ” Like the discovery of love, like the discovery of the sea, the discovery of Dostoevsky marks an important date in one’s life.” I think that the similarities between the authors lend to the similarities in their writing. Both were writing for a non-English speaker audience, who are often more widely associated with the detective fiction genre. Both men also lived under repressive governments and their literature was subject to scrutiny and in the case of Dostoyevsky, even exile. I think that maybe the detective fiction genre allowed both authors the ability to examine and comment on human nature, the state, and morality.

10/4/21

Detectives and Devices

This weeks’ readings were so rich with literary devices I felt almost overwhelmed! One of the first things I noticed about both readings was the use of direct imagery. While Arias’s Funeral for a Bird and even Ak’abal’s poems used imagery kind of indirectly (very open to interpretation by the reader), Borges and Bermúdes explicitly describe scenes. For example, Borges describes the second scene of the crime: “the city crumbled away; the sky expanded, and now houses held less and less importance… they came to their miserable destination; a final alleyway lined with pink-coloured walls that somehow seemed to reflect the rambunctious setting of the sun” (149-150). I think what this does is make the reader so invested in every detail in the story that they can be an active participant in decoding the crime, paying attention to nuances and how they might fit into the narrative.

Another particular literary device that stood out to me (and that I had to google) was internal dialogue, the example of which is when Lönrott thinks, the house is not so large… It seems larger because of its dimness, its symmetry, its mirrors, its age, my unfamiliarity with it, and my solitude. Internal dialogue uses italics to distinguish the character’s thoughts from speech. This is the first time it is used in the entire text, and places us right in Lönrott’s head, emphasizing the fact that he was alone in this big house with nothing but his thoughts. This, for me, created suspense and a bit of fear.

One final literary device that I wanted to point out was allusion, which Death and the Compass was especially rich in. Example/Question: Red Scharlach describes how Daniel Azevedo stabbed Yarmolinsky in the chest, and says, “the movement was almost reflexive; a half century of violence had taught him that the easiest and safest way is simply to kill…” (155) I’m not sure what he’s referring to here, perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the location/context of the story can help me out!