Borges has a style of world-creation that challenges fundamental notions about what is real, or what has meaning. Take the arena of university scholarship, in which academics take great pains to provide proof of their sources, to "verify" their claims, to back up their "authority" in order to say the things they're saying. This is the hallowed ground, the rules of which are taught in college to future generations of scholars. In "Pierre Menard," the premise is that a scholar is defending and proving the value of his friend, Pierre Menard. To do so, he uses the tricks of academic rhetoric--quotation, citation, logic, claims, argument. But the very idea of Menard's work is indefensible: Menard was engaged in (re)writing a book that had been composed three hundred years earlier. Furthermore, his expressed goal was to
lose all evidence of his struggle to achieve this work.
Ha, ha, ha, ha! In the world Borges was satirizing, or at the very least, confronting, people take pride and great comfort in ownership and material gain. It is the proof of self-worth. It seems that Borges wrote the estimable opposite of the Superman, a man who embraces monumentally futile work. Consider the author's description of Menard's project: "He resolved to outstrip that vanity which awaits all the woes of mankind; he undertook a task that was complex in the extreme and futile from the outset."
In the end, Borges's narrator links Menard and Jesus Christ. Or, at least he links Don Quixote and Christ. Or perhaps just the authors of the texts: Cervantes and generations of biblical scribes. For all would-be writers: Do you care how people read what you write? What are you writing? What is writing you?
And now, I'll not comment at length on "Funes, the Memorious," as I hope to read comments that consider this story in terms of world-building. Memory: another type of world building. Another type of unreality. Another narrative form, one that walks the tightropes of "truth" and "meaning."
The first thing I noticed about Jorge Luis Borges’ stories is how abstract and intellectual both his stories were. In “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” the whole story is written as an academic article in a journal, something that might put off someone outside of academia, especially all the satirizing of criticism itself. The narrator-writer tells us about how great Pierre Menard is, someone who copies Don Quixote word-for-word and calls it totally original just because Menard “wrote it” that gives a supposedly different meaning to the book. Borges is clearly taking a shot at critics who will praise anything derivative as long as the writer says it’s not derivative, regardless of the actual content. Though the narrator is straight-faced is accepting the “greatness” of Menard, the narrator simultaneously says that his endeavor is “complex in the extreme and futile in the outset”.
ReplyDelete“Funes, the Memorious” is even more abstract and esoteric than “Pierre Menard”. It’s the story of a boy who can remember every detail, event, and exact time of his life. I really don’t have a lot to say about this story since Borges is committed to not providing any answers or making anything in the story easily understood. As far as I can tell, Funes was a savant who wanted to understand everything and saw sleep as an impediment to this. He attributes his insight to falling of a horse and becoming crippled, the very thing that caused his pulmonary congestion and killed him at 21. The act of falling off the horse is made open to interpretation as we can’t Funes’ words as complete truth. As far as anyone else knows, he simply has an incredibly vivid imagination and makes up details of his life that he can’t remember.
It's difficult to read Borges after the authors that come before him in Doubletakes, because his intellectual jargon and incredibly formal writing is jarring and resonates in an entirely different way. At first, while I was reading the "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quioxote", it was difficult to follow or understand what exactly Borges meant to do by using the format of a scholarly article, and yet, by the end, it became more and more clearly a critique of the extents to which people take intellectualism. This fictional scholar is commenting on the work of Pierre Mernard as though he's done a fabulous and innovative thing, though really his only great accomplishment is rewriting Don Quixote word for word. The way this work is spoken about by the scholar is reminiscent of comments on abstract art, inflated and pulling meaning out of lack of meaning and vague notions of "art" out of repetition. The extent to which Borges takes this satire of scholarly critics is interesting, because he manages to make the writing seem both believable as a real critique and a successful satire.
ReplyDelete"Funes, the Memorious" has the same sort of intellectual tone but is more concrete and has more of a narrative. The way that Borges describes this young boy's memory is terrifying and real, and I love the detail that his fall is what gives him his "gift" of memory. The image of remembering every leaf on every tree he's ever seen is what sticks most closely in my mind as a very excellent detail, because that's how memories are to this boy. This resonates clearly, because many of my memories fade very quickly and a person is not designed to house every detail in their minds. It's also interesting that Borges chooses to explore this boy who can never forget anything through the memories of a character. I think one of the most interesting things about memory is how it changes over time, and it's scary to think of every moment building up and building up until there is no possibility to make new ones because of an intense focus on the past.
As an artist who works in a largely realistic style, I really love Bre's comment about Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote as related to conflated analyses of abstract art. That's such a great way of describing what Borges is trying to get across. While very much of the intellectual, critical work done by literary scholars is valid and stands on firm footing, there are some critical pieces I've read over the past 4 years that come across much in the way Borges describes Pierre Menard's "original" piece. Sometimes I feel that scholars are only out to gain headway over other critics, no matter what nonsense they defend or refute. As long as they create a whirlwind of what seems to be evidence around their argument, it's hard to tell that they're really just defending bullshit for the sake of doing so. I feel the same sort of frustration toward abstract art that Borges imparts upon us as we read this piece...I agonize over my craft, and yet "artists" who smear paint in messy lines down a canvas make millions and gain ridiculous amounts of recognition. Although I'd never thought of it in this way before, the very same thing happens in the academic sphere, as Borges so cleverly points out.
ReplyDeletePostmodern analyses of memory have interested me for a few years now. Works such as this bring to light questions such as, "How much validity is there in my memories?," "How much of my past has been constructed and reworked in my mind?," "How much did I just flat out make up?" I think that for the most part, people do in fact work to fill in the gaps, perhaps without realizing it. This may just be second nature, being that we typically enjoy a sense of rationale and chronology when we look back at where we've been. Oddly enough, just before I did this assignment, I was on a blog called Humans of New York (if you haven't checked it out, I suggest you do so) and one of the posts showed the hands of an elderly person sprawled out over a journal. The woman says, "I write in my journal every day. So much happens in life, I think it's good to live it again and get some distance from it, or else everything is in a muddle, like on a merry-go-round." I think this speaks nicely to Borges apparent evaluation of memory and the role we play in its construction.
After reading works by story telling authors like Bender and Beattie, I struggled with the comprehension of Borges. The technique in which he wrote these two pieces was unlike the easy unfolding of a plot and relatable characters as previously experienced. Rather, his first, “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” was scholarly and formal in construction. My student mind switched on and I found myself reading it over quickly for content, as I would a traditional scholarly resource, as opposed seeking from it style and story. Inflated language and structure echoed the formality of this “story.” However, even after rereading it, I still found it difficult to connect with the character. Criticism and angst spread across the pages more so than any other emotion. For this, I did not enjoy this particular read. I however did enjoy the “Funes, the Memorious.” While the first reading left the reader detached, this story immediately introduced the reader to a detailed description of the focus character, Ireneo Funes. However, it is done through the memory of the narrator, a unique bias point of view. “I remember… I remember…” uttered again and again. In this way, Borges invites the reader in to the beautiful friendship of these men and their memories but as an invisible guest. The character of Ireneo develops thicker and deeper as the narrator sits with him on his deathbed, learning the memories of childhood through death. It was after this read that I came to respectfully admire the writing of Borges. While I could not connect with the first piece, perhaps it wasn’t his intention for readers to do so. It isn’t a lack of ability to tie the reader’s heart and mind in, but not the purpose at the time.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first opened Jorge Luis Borges' stories, I'll be honest and say that I was a bit overwhelmed. "Pierre Meard, Author of Don Quixote" is far different than any piece of fiction I have read and that is due to its academic and journalistic nature. Having read "Don Quixote" before really helped me understand exactly where Borges was going with his arguments but at the same time I'm still sort of baffled by his writing style. Was there an intentional lack of narrative? All the more, it made me think who exactly was behind the intellectual voice?
ReplyDeleteThe next story, "Funes, the Memorious," had more of a narrative than the last story which made me a lot happier. Right away the idea of recollecting one's memories and wondering if there is any validity behind them was captivating. Borges effectively installed that thought that memories are very precious commodities, something that we hold so dear. "My dreams are like your vigils." was my favorite line throughout the entire story because it showed the true importance of dreams and elevated them a beautiful, higher standard.
I found the stories by Jorge Luis Borges' to be interesting, but at the same time, difficult to read. He presents a sort of dry fiction that meshes with very intelligent writing, but at the same time they are also fairly cryptic and hard to understand (which can also allow for wider interpretations for different readers). In " Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote," we are presented with a narrator whom has nothing but praise for Pierre Menard, who has actually done nothing very special. Menard has completely rewritten a previously written Don Quixote identically. However, he does this as Pierre Menard as Miguel de Cervantes. He wanted to be Cervantes writing Don Quixote, which the narrator thought was brilliant. He takes away a different meaning and interpretations from the same words he has read before, but greater still when written by Menard. I like the small hints that Borges included that seemed to mock critics who praise the work they read that they do not quite comprehend. Other than that I can say that I didn't really enjoy this particular piece.
ReplyDelete"Funes, the Memorious" is also told through the narrator's point of view but in this piece there is some actual emotional attachment to the character in the center of the story, Ireneo. I actually liked this piece to some degree but I sometimes thought that its abstract and skewed point of story telling made it somewhat difficult to take in at times and I found myself not so engaged in this piece. What I did like was how we learn of the character from his deathbed through his memories. I like this because, like Borges hints at, memories are fallible and we can create happier memories or sad, skewed, false, etc. We can't necessarily trust every memory that is being told, but it is the sincerity and fondness that they are being told in that makes us appreciate the character and learn of his childhood.
While reading “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” I was constantly questioning if I had even picked up the correct book for the reading. I am with Abby on this one where my brain flipped to student mode and I circled and underlined what I felt were key points that may be on a quiz or something. The academic essay feel of this short story definitely confused me and went over my head. I had absolutely no idea it was a satirical piece until I read through what everyone wrote on here. While it is slightly embarrassing to admit that I completely missed something major about the story that everyone else seemed to pick up on rather quickly it makes me question if it's really just a compliment to Borges'work. I was so convinced that this was an academic essay and engulfed myself so completely into trying to be studious that I ignored what everyone else grasped as satire. I may have disliked the piece and not fully comprehended it the way you did but I must respect Borges' for his ability to create such a believable narrator.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Fune, the Memorious," I felt immediately connected to both the narrator and Funes. The story was extremely well written, while still keeping the reader's brain working. You had to pay attention and focus, not nearly as much as the first work but still. I enjoyed the connection Borges' had with both stories which was language. Both stories had some mention of language other than English and even had phrases and/or quotes in that language. Here is, what I saw as, Borges' brand. All authors have something about them that can be found in all their works and I found Borges' Spanish and Latin use refreshing. Even though most commonly these "brands" as I like to call them aren't always quite as obvious as Borges'.
Beating a dead horse, I too was completely overwhelmed by the narrative prose of Jorge Luis Borges. In fact, I really didn’t understand the pieces until I read Dylan’s analysis. What I did get from reading Borges is the tone of his stories work well. He uses a very conversational tone in his writing. The conversationalist prose connects to a reader more, and despite the difficulty of the prose, this made the short stories bearable. Even though I did have trouble understanding, I was enamored with the use of footnotes for the purpose of comedic side notes from the author. Throughout all the work done by Borges, there is humor, take the line, “my memory, sir, is like a garbage disposal.” How could you not laugh at that? The social commentary on learning also was something to chuckle at. The character dies of congestion after learning four languages. Borges writes that, “I suspect that he is not very capable of thought.” Just like “The School,” announces that no one really has the answers, Borges comments on the mindless learning, how this education misses the intention of learning.
ReplyDeleteWhen first delving into "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote," I was hesitant because of the academic based style of this story and was uncertain of how well the proclaimed humor would come to be. It actually took me a few attempts to start reading the story but once I did, I quite often found myself chuckling at the absurdity of the narrator enjoying Menard's version more than Cervantes', which of course is the exact same thing, just 're-written.' However, that did get me to wonder about the originality of ideas in storytelling. There are almost always basic story lines that most people start out with but the excitement now comes from twisting around what is already known and established to view a story or even just a well known character in a different light. I am specifically thinking of Anne Sexton's Transformations which is her retelling of Grimm Fairy Tales. She retells the famous fairy tales but inserts her own personality into it and weaves astonishing metaphors, but the point I am trying to make is that Sexton was able to take these very well established stories and recreate them as her own. I feel as though some of Borges' first story here could be commenting on the fact that each author has the opportunity to add to a story.
ReplyDeleteWhile "Funes, the Memorious" had a more literary feel, I could not get as involved in it as I did Borges' first story here. I was left feeling uncertain about Funes' great memory, whether or not he actually remembered everything or if he just had an extremely overactive imagination. I am still just very pulled away from this story, but I can't help but wonder if that was Borges' point as this is a story about memories. We can't actually relive our memories and they will always have some kind of detachment from them.
"Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote" is a very significant change in tone compared to the short stories by Beattie and Bender. Those short stories were very conversational, using simple language to get across complex ideas. Jorge Luis Borges does something totally different, creating an incredibly academic and dense story to convey a topic that I am unsure whether or not it is complex, because I had trouble fighting my way through his prose. I have to be honest and say that I hated these pieces, simply because I found myself bogged down by the language. I can appreciate, however, the idea of the first story, how it is an essay about a fictional piece. I can honestly say I have never before read a fictional essay, but I can also say I will probably never read one again.
ReplyDelete"Funes, the Memorious" was more conversation, thank goodness. But I still found myself struggling to read it. Borges conversational style is still incredibly complex compared to that of "The Burning House" which made it difficult for me to enjoy the story. However, I found that in this piece the idea of memory was incredibly fascinating. I wonder about the ending especially. This young boy knows so much because his memory is great, but then dies of congestion of the lungs. I wonder if it is actually commenting also on age on a level that is not related to years. But I don't really have a strong enough grip on these stories to argue it one way or the other.
Jorge Luis Borges’ stories both overwhelmed me and intrigued me with their abstract concepts and prose. In the piece, “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” the story reads as an academic article, something I (and many of you) found to be extremely tiring and difficult to read. Through reading some of your blog posts, I was able to ascertain a greater understanding of this piece and to spot the subtle satire emanating from it. However, in comparison to the wonderful pieces we have already read and discussed, I found this one to be of little interest to me as a reader.
ReplyDelete“Funes, the Memorious” is another abstract piece yet readers are able to connect more to it through the main character, Ireneo. It’s the story of a boy who can remember every detail, occurrence, and time of his life. I liked this piece but I also found that its abstract and skewed point of story telling made me push away as a reader and lose interest. What I did like was the way we learn about Ireneo through his memories. This actually ties in perfectly to a film I recently watched called “Memento” which is about a man who cannot make new memories for himself after a terrible accident. He wakes up every day and his to remind himself of where he is and who he is and all he has to go by are his past memories. The thing I find most interesting is that at the end of the film, it is revealed that this man manipulates “facts” and memories to create a happier ending for himself, one that provides the right answers he’s been searching for. With this in mind, after reading this piece I thought why can’t the same be said for Ireneo?
The stories by Jorge Luis Borges were foreign to me. This was the first time I encountered this kind of meta-fiction before (especially "Pierre Menard,"). I was so distracted by the interplay of allusions, stylistic liberties, and intermittent personal narrative, that by the time I finished the story, I really didn't have an idea of what I had read. I know that all of the moving parts of his writing work together in a way that I am not yet experienced enough to understand at full capacity. There is beautiful language, but I was so fixated on discerning the meaning from what I was reading that I didn't appreciate it as I often do.
ReplyDelete"Funes, the Memorious" is less abstract, and feels like more of a rectangle and less of a dodecahedron. Something that I often take for granted that I greatly appreciated in this story was the diction. There were so many beautiful words I had never even seen before worked flawlessly into the narrative. I don't often encounter words like, "felicitous," or "anomalous."
I'm not sure I took away from Borges' stories what I should have, but I think it takes a very perceptive and apt reader to make sense of his bizarre (to me, anyway) writing style and narrative strategies.