Labyrinths is a collection of short stories and essays written by Jorge Luis Borges. The themes throughout the book portray mortality, violence, power, philosophy, and time, touching on history in Buenos Aires, but without much of a plot, as it consists of many short stories and essays.
As I scrolled through fellow classmate’s blogs, and read their thoughts and feelings about the book, I grasped a shared sense of confusion and unawareness of what is truly going on in the various stories. I think this reflects what Professor Jon says in the lecture that, “his games (stories and essays) often challenge conventions and common sense, teasing out contradictions by taking ideas to their logical extremes, exposing secret complicities, as when apparent oppositions hide more fundamental similarities.” Borges also explores philosophical questions, like “what is the smallest difference that makes a difference?” I don’t know about you, but philosophical questions can sometimes make my head spin, and it seems as though throughout these responses, I’m not alone.
Maybe my speculation is off, but after reading several famous books in Latin American literature, it seems as though lot of the themes throughout the books are similar, as they touch on time, life, and what life meant at that time. After these few weeks, it is apparent that there are various similarities in Labyrinths and in other books we’ve explored, like Cartucho. Cartucho was a novel that explored brutality, violence, and human survival, while Labyrinths also touches on mortality, power, time, etc. I feel as though Latin American literature holds a different level of passion than other forms of literature I’ve read before. It doesn’t seem to hold back as much, or neglect touching on fundamental aspects of life, power, violence, death, love, and discovering one’s self, no matter how difficult the topic may be to cover. Also apparent in Labyrinths, Latin American literature circles back to a fundamental theme in the course of “play,” and the exploration of genre.
Borges’ use of irony in his stories, creating a sense of imagination within life, and ultimately leaving the reader to be potentially confused leads me to wonder why… so my question this week is, what does this sense of imagination, irony, and confusion add to the book’s themes? One could argue that this was the whole point, and that Borges is really just exploring the different aspects of life, and feelings of confusion that we all experience at some point.
What you write down is curious, about the “Latin American” characteristics of Borges’s work. Much was criticized at the time that he did not resemble what was written in his country, and that he was rather a cosmopolitan author. Some answers, as you remember, he gives himself in “The Argentine Writer and Tradition”. What do you think of the ideas he presents in that essay?
Hi! I think that irony, imagination and confusion to an extent are themes on their own, which contribute to the idea of literature as play. These are also common in some of the larger themes mentioned in the lecture, for example challenging differences and sameness. Especially the use of irony can play with the expected and subvert common understandings.
Hello there! I like your question. I do think that the style of writing is done intentionally. I think it was interesting to hear in class that he thought if you weren’t enjoying a book, to just put it down and try again later. I think these stories and essays are for people who are up for the challenge and okay with potentially not quite understanding what they are reading initially.
HI! I think the sense of imagination, irony, and confusion is largely to do with the playfulness of literature that a couple classmates also mentioned. However, I think on a philosophical level it has something to do with making the reader work through an answer, and be faced with a decision of whether or not to accept the dissatisfaction of not initially understanding it. While lots of writers are unintentionally (or maliciously) difficult to read, I think Borges knew what he was doing in making his writing so complex, and I think it’s to challenge the reader’s understanding of literature as a whole.