Discussion - Week Two - Borges - The Approach to Al-Mu’tasim

[Jim]

This discussion covers the story, The Approach to Al-Mu’tasim


A critique of fictional critiques of a fictional novel starts us off in the meta contemplation of religious allegories and their affinity with detective stories – aka “the hero’s journey” in search of one’s self. Comparing the revised edition he has (sans illustrations), to the superior first edition he doesn’t have, is an especially nice touch.

First question: Would you read this novel? with or without the illustrations? first edition or revised edition?

What idea(s)/convention(s) is/are Borges asking us to contemplate?

[Mala]

Like most readers,I too,was fooled by the format of the story ( an essay actually which was later included in his short stories collection)- a fake review of a fake book- how pomo!
Your first question shd be answered by book connoisseur & collectors like NR, me? I'll be happy with whatever I can manage- important thing is to read!

Second question- of course,from a simple,typical formulaic detective story- riot,murder,escape-it moves on to philosophical questions of the quest- seeker & the sought- are they seperate entities or one & the same?
Eastern mysticism dominates this story & that's why keeping with the subject matter,Borges very cleverly sets it in India & grounds the story in reality by referencing a genuine work-The Conference of the Birds: The Selected Sufi Poetry of Farid Ud-Din Attar. A nice Oriental touch!

What amazes me is how multicultural Borges's fictional universe is! I'd like to quote here from Carlos Fuentes' lecture on Borges:
"Rather than artificially reconstructing a vanished past, the writings of Borges were all-inclusive, and showed a literary imagination that incorporated all cultures relevant to modern thought. Stories like "Averroës' Search," "Emma Zunz," and "The Approach to Al-Mu'tasim" depicted Western and Arab culture not just coexisting with the other's influence, but displaying a synergy, a plurality that could provide a groundwork for a new kind of fiction."

In fact,the whole lecture is such a good introduction to Borges' world,that looks like I'll be quoting from it through out the read!
Here it is:
http://www.themodernword.com/borges/b...

[Jim]

Mala wrote: "Like most readers,I too,was fooled by the format of the story ( an essay actually which was later included in his short stories collection)- a fake review of a fake book- how pomo!
Your first quest..."

Thanks for the link!

He does the journalist/critic voice so well it's easy to believe he's talking about a real book.

[Bill]

It's a standard strategy of Borges. He once said that he thought of a great idea for a book and then decided it would easier simply to pretend it was already written and refer to it.

After all, one can't write everything. :-)

[Whitney]

Not sure if I would read this, it would probably go on my list only to get constantly moved down by other books (much like the fate of 'The Congress of the Birds' as relates to my TBR list).

It seems to me Borges is asking us to contemplate the relation between a book and the criticism of the book, which I suppose may relate somewhat to the seeker of the source of clarity within said book, but I'm not sure exactly how.

I'm also wondering if there's significance to the choice of only European critics being quoted in reference to the fictional book? I know little (read 'nothing') about the critics in question except that they would have been better known in the day. Anyone else have insight that would lend itself to meta-interpretation?

[Bill]

Whitney,

I think Borges is very much involved with the inevitability -- I don't know that problem is the right word -- of solipsism -- in an immediate way. There is no distinguishing what we think/see of the world and the world, there is no way of distinguishing a book and what we think of it, and there's no ultimate resting place -- even the figure who's the object of the search once found is searching for another figure who searching for another figure.

And everywhere there are mirrors in which we only see ourselves, the perfect symbol for solipsism.

With Borges it's almost as though the process of fiction and criticism are not separate functions. He writes fiction like a critical essay. I haven't read the essays to know if they read like his fiction.

He may be looking at European critics just because he lived in Europe and is much more familiar with them.

[Jim]

Bill wrote: "With Borges it's almost as though the process of fiction and criticism are not separate functions. He writes fiction like a critical essay..."

That's true, isn't it? Frequently the journalist/critic voice dominates his stories.

[Bill]

Yes, and it gives one the sense that journalism and criticism don't essentially differ from that of the imaginative writer -- or not in certain circumstances from certain points of view.

[Bill]

I was reading Borges' non-fiction today, and I looked at his writings on WWII, while he was living through it in Argentina.

Now that's a different Borges. Clear, moral, angry -- completely anti-Nazi and intolerant of anti-Semitism -- and disgusted by pro-Nazi elements in Argentina whom he skewers mercilessly.

I wanted to give him a hug.

[Whitney]

Bill wrote: "Yes, and it gives one the sense that journalism and criticism don't essentially differ from that of the imaginative writer -- or not in certain circumstances from certain points of view."

This is a great observation. It seems to me that by using real critics Borges may be making this point with added levels: made-up commentary by real critics on an imaginary book. We're not getting a real view of the book, but the book as filtered through the critics' own egos (that ever present solipsism again).

I also like the parallel of the narrator seeking the elusive superior first edition of the book while the character in the book is seeking the elusive primary source of compassion.

Any thoughts on what is being said with the different versions? In the first, the narrator tells us that Al-Mu’tasim was a more concrete character, while in the second he becomes pure allegory. Does Borges share his narrator's belief that the second lacks 'literary good conduct'?

[Bill]

I'll reread the story, Whitney, I hadn't thought about the two different editions.

Although I thought again of the problem of labyrinths and mirrors. Perhaps when you find your way to the center of the labyrinth what you find is a vanity with an oval mirror with which to view the minotaur. :-)

A little more clunkily, I remember going to the Bronx Zoo one and there was a sign leading to "the mos dangerous animal on earth." I was old enough, I think, to know what we'd see and it was, of course, a mirror.

[Whitney]

Bill wrote: "Although I thought again of the problem of labyrinths and mirrors. Perhaps when you find your way to the center of the labyrinth what you find is a vanity with an oval mirror with which to view the minotaur. :-)..."

Since in the end of 'The Congress of the Birds', the birds discover that they are what they're seeking, there's an implication that the main character of the book is Al-Mu’tasim; at least in the second version. I'm wondering if by dismissing the Homeric allegory in Ulysses, Borges is using the Nabokovian trick of seeming to off-handedly dismiss the things that are actually most important; made even trickier given that Borges' wasn't a fan of Ulysses in real life. I'm also wondering if in the same vein Borges isn't implying that the second version is actually the superior one.

[Zadignose]

Whitney wrote: " Does Borges share his narrator's belief that the second lacks 'literary good conduct'"

I would guess... yes. At least, I was convinced.

The naked allegory into which the second version of the book "sinks," seems deplorable, and opposes Borges' own approach to this story and the others which I've read. Borges, in this story, throws so many possible, mysterious, ambiguous, and incomplete interpretations at us that he actively defies any effort to boil the text down to a simple one-dimensional allegory.

The writer allows us to see Al-Mu'tasim as: God; An ideal by which the seeker perfects himself; the seeker himself at all times; ourselves; the murdered Hindu; Another seeker who implies higher goals and further quests; he who goes in quest of aid; everyone and everything in every detail; or merely a good man of exemplary behavior. It's also possible that he's none of these things so much as he is a literary device to motivate a quest and to serve as the object of the mystery (a MacGuffin). And, within our framing "story," the fictive novel is a device to focus our attention on literary goals.

If one and only one of these interpretations were the "correct" one, then the Approach to Al-Mu'tasim would be facile in concept, and its mystification would be an explicit error in its execution.

However, this may not be an absolute pronouncement on what is right in literature, but rather a pointing-of-the-way towards one literary ideal: one that is fluid, ambiguous of interpretation, and more profound than allegory. It's not necessarily a thorough rejection of allegory, but among the two versions of the fictive book, the first sounds more in line with the ideal.

I also think that Borges must have been sincere, at least in large part, in calling "the temptation to be a genius," "the basest of art's temptations," though he might also be reflecting his own self-awareness of what tempts him most, and in fact this is the most tempting criticism to throw at Borges himself. He's guilty of a forced display of cleverness.

Furthermore, I guess (but can't be sure) that Borges was sincere in regarding the structural or thematic connections between two works such as Ulysses and Odyssey as superficial and not a cause for profound wonder. If he was not sincere, then he is at least persuasive in his insincerity.

------------------------------------
Meanwhile, I read this story twice, just like the others that I've read so far. Again, my first reaction was tepid; my second reaction was warmer. But, for whatever reason, it's the details that entertain me more than the overarching themes. I liked the image "carved from yak ghee," the description of the Sirkar police as "Thundering, horse-borne, half asleep," and the sudden appearance of the wretched man described as "a filthy man squatting in the moonlight, pouring forth a vigorous stream of urine."

Despite all of the above, I was not entirely convinced that this short-story/false-critique was a better product than, or as worthy of our attention as, the book which Borges could have written but didn't. I.e., this is the seed of something which could have been profitably developed further. It's a tease, and I'd probably prefer to read the unwritten novel.

Hmm... I'm in a state of uncertainty, though. My own philosophy is that the writer should usually think all of the thoughts which Borges has thought, but let those thoughts stay private... let them die with him (or her). He (she) should produce the final work instead. But then, why shouldn't someone, somewhere, make this inner struggle of the writer over the process and themes of writing more transparent? Why not write it? Why not make it its own drama of sorts, and endow it with its own mystery and literary structure? Well, I guess that's what Borges is about here. It's largely alien to me, but I guess I'm getting acclimated.

[Bill]

Okay, Whitney -- :-)

To answer your question. I think Borges does not prefer the second version. I think he's straight on serious -- to the extent that can be said about anything in this story.

But I believe Borges interest is in the idea which he doesn't ascribe to the author or anyone else.

After "To my mind, the idea is not very stimulating." Borges writes, in the narrator's voice, "I will not say the same of this other one: of the conjecture that the Almighty is also in search of Someone, and that Someone in search of some superior Someone (or merely indispensable or equal Someone), and thus on to the end -- or better, the endlessness -- of Time, or on and on in some cyclical form."

This is the idea that Borges' tends to find most congenial, if that's the word, the sense that there is no end or final resolution. There's an odd kind of parallelism here to what happens at the end of "The Circular Ruins" or Borges interest in the idea of the eternal return.

[Mala]

Bill,as you mentioned above,I keep encountering the ideas of mirrors,labyrinth & circularity in most of the tales. In The Library of Babel,for example,both the notions of second versions being inferior & the cyclical nature of things,find expression :

"Mystics claim that their ecstasies reveal to them a circular chamber containing an enormous circular book with a continuous spine that goes completely around the walls. But their testimony is suspect, their words obscure. That cyclical book is God."

And this–the idea that a copy/second edition is some how inferior to the original :

"each book is unique and irreplaceable, but (since the Library is total) there are always several hundred thousand imperfect facsimiles—books that differ by no more than a single letter, or a comma."

[Jim]

Zadignose wrote: "Hmm... I'm in a state of uncertainty, though. My own philosophy is that the writer should usually think all of the thoughts which Borges has thought, but let those thoughts stay private... let them die with him (or her). He (she) should produce the final work instead. But then, why shouldn't someone, somewhere, make this inner struggle of the writer over the process and themes of writing more transparent? Why not write it? Why not make it its own drama of sorts, and endow it with its own mystery and literary structure? Well, I guess that's what Borges is about here. It's largely alien to me, but I guess I'm getting acclimated..."

Good questions to ponder Z.

In the visual arts, this is akin to the painter who let's his brushstrokes show as opposed to the photorealist painter who polishes the surface to hide his effort.

[Bill]

Actually Mala, that is quite an interesting notion, that God is a book to be read.

[Whitney]

Bill wrote: "Actually Mala, that is quite an interesting notion, that God is a book to be read."

Isn't this really just the 'book of nature' idea written in a different form?

Mala wrote: "And this–the idea that a copy/second edition is some how inferior to the original :..."

Mala, I'm not sure that Borges is saying the copies are necessarily inferior. He says they are 'imperfect' copies in that they differ from the original in some minor way, but isn't he bringing up their existence is order to say how the work of those destroying books was largely inconsequential? The idea of the relative value of originals versus copies is something that's also explored in 'Pierre Menard' (coming soon).

[Mala]

@ Whitney: Borges' stories are so open ended that he seems to be saying many things at once...atleast,this is what my experience with most of the stories in Collection Fictions,has been,so far.
Hopefully,we'll be able to reach some conclusion when we discuss both these stories here.

[Zadignose]

Mala wrote: "@ Whitney: Borges' stories are so open ended that he seems to be saying many things at once..."

That's definitely true. Having read an article about Borges by Calvino, I was pleased to see that Borges would probably "interpret" his own work in a way similar to how I would "interpret" it. That is, there is no way to effectively tease out a solution from the text. It can't be boiled down or reduced, and it embraces multiple, often contrary perspectives.

Going from what I read from Calvino, but paraphrasing (and therefore possibly spinning or muddling): Borges wrote about contrary opinions regarding Dante's Divine Comedy, particularly with regard to one line about a character named Ugolino.

The majority of critics have concluded that when Dante wrote "then what grief could not manage, hunger did," he intended to say that Ugolino died of starvation. Some minority of critics have argued that the line means that Ugolino turned to cannibalism. Borges regarded it as a pointless controversy. He thought it the most probable interpretation that Ugolino starved. However, he also acknowledged that Dante probably wanted to give us the uncertain suspicion that maybe Ugolino turned cannibal. That is, the author invited the ambiguity. Thus both potential interpretations are present within the text, and there is no authority to appeal to outside of the text for the "correct" interpretation. Even Dante himself would not be able to resolve it (presumably his intention is irrelevant to Borges, and it certainly is to me... so long as it is not effectively expressed within the text itself).

Calvino went on to express the idea that Borges' fictions may be fundamentally different from our normal perception of life and the role of time. In our lives we presume that, at one moment when we are confronted by a choice, we choose once and irrevocably, we either turn left, or turn right, or stand still... and that's the fact. But within fiction, it is possible for each of these forking possibilities to be valid to some degree, the decision is not irrevocable, a hero can be courageous and cowardly, he can die two different deaths, so long as a text leaves itself open to such variable perspectives.

Thus, even though above I took the side that says that the first version of Al'mutasim is "better" than the second version, the most I can really say is this seems probable, but not certain, and if Borges left the question unresolved in terms of his true intent, whether intentionally or unintentionally, then the contrary interpretation that version two is better is at least partially valid. It's an appropriate thing to wonder, and the text does invite us to do so.

[Mala]

Zadignose wrote: "Mala wrote: "@ Whitney: Borges' stories are so open ended that he seems to be saying many things at once..."

That's definitely true. Having read an article about Borges by Calvino, I was pleased t..."

Thank you for explaining it so well. Almost done with the book & then onwards to the Calvino article!

[Bill]

Whitney,

It might be the "book of nature" idea if you think that's what he's referring to. If you think of a transcendent god, I don't think so. If you think of reading as a particular process, not so either.

[Whitney]

Bill wrote: "Whitney,

It might be the "book of nature" idea if you think that's what he's referring to. If you think of a transcendent god, I don't think so. If you think of reading as a particular process, no..."

Why the unequivocal 'no'? I don't see how the idea that learning to read God's work (nature) as a means of understanding God is that different from the idea of God as a book to be read.

[Bill]

Because I'm assuming God's work is quite different from some sort of direct vision of God which doesn't necessarily lend itself to reading, to anything rational. It's the combination of the rational technique, reading, and the irrational, God.

[Whitney]

Bill wrote: "Because I'm assuming God's work is quite different from some sort of direct vision of God which doesn't necessarily lend itself to reading, to anything rational. It's the combination of the rationa..."

Okay, um, huh? We may be speaking different languages here. I'm just asking if the IDEA of the book of nature, isn't the same as the IDEA that God is a book to be read. I'm not promoting a particular idea of God, or asking what your particular view of God is. From Wikipedia:

"Early theologians believed the Book of Nature was a source of God's revelation to mankind: when read alongside sacred scripture, the "book" of nature and the study of God's creations would lead to a knowledge of God himself."

How is that significantly different from the idea that God is a book to be read?

[Bill]

Whitney,

This is probably my fault. I wasn't thinking of it specifically as connected to the story of the library of Babel where the universe and the library are one.

What you say may be wholly reasonable in that context, the context which was presented. Sorry.

[Whitney]

Bill wrote: "Whitney,

This is probably my fault. I wasn't thinking of it specifically as connected to the story of the library of Babel where the universe and the library are one..."

No need for apologetic tone, I really was just trying to figure out where we weren't on the same page. I usually assume these things are my fault, I just don't seem to comprehend language the same way as most other people :-)

[Bill]

You seem to do just fine to me, Whitney. :-)