Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges was my least favourite read so far. I recognise the complexity that was added by merging and confusing genres the practice also drastically took away from the reader’s experience. About half of the pieces frustratingly felt like philosophical wafflings framed by a vague plot-like narrative. I found that this meant that a lot of the points that Borges makes become less structured and difficult to follow.
This being said, some of the contradictions pointed out, particularly in “Funes the Memorious” and “Three Versions of Judas” were thought-provoking. Funes’ suffers greatly under his arguably superior mind which can remember everything. He can no longer think because it requires abstraction, which cannot be achieved if one is bogged down by the details and facts of things. It is unclear whether Funes intentionally smokes himself to death; however, it is a plausible scenario given his self-proclaimed inability to even catalogue or go through his memories because each instance creates new ones. “Ignorance is bliss” seems to be a central tenet in this story, although not in the way usually implied.
I enjoyed the contemplations on Judas because religion, especially Christianity, is sometimes considered overstudied and because so many narratives are taken at face value – seemingly just because a lot of people believe them. The questioning of things considered fundamental truths is never a bad thing. This does not mean that the challenge to common belief is successful or correct but without such discourse discussion, academia, and arguable dynamic society die with it.
In the early works in the collection Borges brings up one-thousand-and-one nights several times. This likely alludes to the story Arabian Nights in which a captured woman postpones her execution by telling the prince a new story for one-thousand-and-one nights. Many of these stories involve unexpected plot-twists much like Borges’ works, for example “The Circular Ruins” and “Death and the Compass.”
Repeatedly Borges seems to grapple with his own role as author, narrator, and character in his works, most notably in “The Shape of the Sword” and “Borges and I” (as mentioned in the lecture). It was unclear throughout whether this is because they do not want to separate their arguments and critiques from themselves but their separation from their literary selves in “Borges and I” would suggest otherwise.
Questions:
- Why do you think Borges inserts himself into his writing only to later separate himself from his literary self?
In Borges’ literature, the theme of the double runs from his poems to his essays. And on it he seems to use different variations, from as in “Three Versions of Judas”. Contradictions have a function within fiction, and in many moments of this compilation logical problems are an excuse to write narrative. Do the ambiguities have a reason for being or are they a layer that complicates things, in your opinion?
I do think the ambiguities have a function but partially their function is enhanced by their complication of the work. The inaccessibility of some of the work mirrors the inaccessibility of simple answers and truths, for example the truth of Judas.
I enjoyed your take on this weeks novel. As for the discussion question, I think Borges inserts himself into his writing only to later separate himself as as a narrative device. With it he blurs the line between fiction and reality (I think someone mentioned this in another blog).