Borges's collection of short stories were disconnected, fluid and playful. But for me, this collection took a lot of work to grasp the complete understanding. I still do not fully understand his work, but I think that is the point. Borges titled his collection, Labyrinths, meaning 'a confusing structure' 'elaborate' 'a maze.' His title sets the tone for his collection, and I found his stories to be confusing, hard to understand and digest, just like a maze—the thrill of not knowing what will happen next because there is no clear path. Like a maze, Borge's Labyrinths challenges us to appreciate not knowing what is happening all the time—enjoying the tricky words and playful contradictions and finding joy in them. Personally, I am used to reading novels where the story flows and has timelines and plots, familiar characters and an end. This was a challenge to read, but I tried my best to embrace it. Borges takes us, his readers, on a literal bumpy ride through his words. His stories are playful but take play quite seriously. His words are literally playful. Borges plays with repetition and includes much irony and paradoxes in his collection. He also plays with stories, like the Incarnation account, taking on a different perspective and focussing on Judas, who today is seen as the 'betrayer' of Jesus—playing on the role of the messiah and switching rules and making alterations all to play with our minds. His stories are games, and they are Borges's games. He is creating the rules.
One story I want to highlight in my post is Borges's story called: Borges and I
Borges once again is playing, but with himself. Borges and I are the same people, but (I) seems to be the mind, personality, and thoughts, and Borges is the human actor, writing the words. Borges loves his contradictions, and although it is himself who he is playing with. His identity is both Borges and me, but Borges is the other. This made my mind twist and turn, but I tried to remember that that is the point.
"My life is a flight and I lose everything and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him" (247)
Borges is the 'literal' actor, and human owns everything and (I) within him. (I) loses his passion to Borges because Borges is I. They consume each other; they are attached, not separate. I think there are two personalities here, which is why there is a distinction between them—the difference between (I) and Borges, like the distinction between work and writer.
This collection was Borges and I's game, a Labyrinth. Taking our minds on a journey with interesting stories and perspectives to sentences many could not comprehend. After reading some blog posts, many people were confused by this book.
Although Borges's Labyrinths was confusing, is that the point? We are used to knowing where the path leads, but sometimes it's important to let the journey flow and not analyze it.
Did you get lost in Borges's stories? Did you dislike or like not fully understanding?
I think it is important to expose ourselves to new types of literature, especially with this course. Just like not fully understanding and letting things be the way they are, we take on a child-like perspective, just like many books we have read so far in this class.
I really liked that you identified something essential: that deep down, all the machinery that Borges uses to write these stories, some of them very confusing, has a playful intention. As you say: "His stories about him are playful but take play quite seriously. His words about him are literally playful." New games require new rules. Borges builds them very carefully throughout this compilation of stories.
ReplyDeleteHi Alyssa! I totally agree with you that the short stories were meant to be complex and confusing to introduce the thrill of not knowing what will happen next or rather, what is going on down to the slightest details; very much like one of the theme Borges introduced in "Funes the Memorious", remembering too much will eventually hinder one's ability to abstract, to imagine. To answer your question, I did get lost at some point reading the stories, but would soon get oriented again when I continued reading. I quite enjoy the feeling of not fully understanding on the first read, which I believe it's essential to create the maze-like experience.
ReplyDeleteIm glad you took a positive perspective on his texts, even though you found them frustrating to read, as I personally found these short stories enjoyable. Your dissection of Borges and I is also very thorough, I hadn't thought about their similarities too much, only their differences. To answer your question, I did get lost in Borges' stories, since their complexities and maze-like structure actually very much interested me. I found that the stories' difficulty to read proved more of a bonus than a hindrance, as I wanted to try to understand rather than just give up, like I normally would with a difficult reading.
ReplyDeleteHi Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteI like how you embraced the fluidity and absurdity of Borges's works, connecting them back to the title of the collection. I honestly hadn't really given the title much thought, but now that you bring it up, it makes much more sense. I liked your take on "Borges and I." You bring up how he's "playing" with himself in the story, playing with contradictions where they're attached, but separate. I found that really insightful and gave me a new perspective on the work. In regards to your question, it depends on the story. I liked "The South" and "Funes the Memorious," but other stories I found quite hard to understand. Ones that followed a more traditional storytelling format were easier for me to grasp while others were too confusing for me to truly understand.