Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
Collected Fictions
Borges Stories - M.R. 2013
>
Discussion - Week Three - Borges - Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
If the next story is this good, I'll be able to quit my recreational drug habit because this "Borges stuff" is better than any "high" I've had in a long time..."
Normally I don't encourage people's addictions, but in this case, "spike up!".
It's hard to articulate what attracts us to abstract art, especially ab-ex paintings. When I was at Rutgers, I had to write a paper about Pollock's Autumn Rhythm (Number 30) for an art history class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aut...
I sat in the Met for two hours looking and looking and cursing my professor, until finally I stopped struggling and said to myself, "Just write about what you see." and after another thirty minutes, I'd written enough notes to turn in a five page paper. When the artist takes away the easily identifiable horses and houses and people, the viewer is forced to do some of the work - or participate in experiencing the art and creating meaning.
In Pierre Menard, Borges creates meaning, in this case, from two pieces of identical text. If presented with two identical passages - one by Cervantes and one by Menard - what would you have to say about them? At first glance, most of us would just say, "They're the same", but Borges creates a whole story about their differences and the amazing accomplishment of Menard.
Related to Menard, Photographer/Appropriation Artist, Sherri Levine became famous through her work "After Walker Evans", where she photographed Walker Evans photographs and exhibited them as her own creations which, like Menard's Quixote, they were.
A short bio here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrie_...
And of course, this appropriation continues:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyl...
Jim wrote: "And of course, this appropriation continues:http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyl...
..."
That is so perfect!
Although I must say the Levine works are definitely superior to Evans'. To so exquisitely portray the lives of people in a time and place she never visited shows boundless imagination and empathy. While Evans was merely documenting his own era, she was reimagining from a distant milieu. The Mandiberg is, of course, superior to both. By appropriating from appropriations, he is creating a meta view of hard times reflected three-fold beyond the original.
Jim wrote: "It's hard to articulate what attracts us to abstract art, especially ab-ex paintings. When I was at Rutgers, I had to write a paper about Pollock's Autumn Rhythm (Number 30) for an art history class."Jim,I'd be so interested in reading that five page report! I looked & looked & got a headache! You must be a genius :o another is Sketchbook- ask him all abt Pollock!
Barbara & Jim,you made this discussion richer by taking it to the wider realm of Art,thanks.
Mod
Whitney, you are now officially proclaimed "Borgesian". Join us at the commencement ceremony in June, followed by a champagne reception and authentic Argentine barbecue in Buenos Aires.
Mod
Barbara & Jim,you made this discussion richer by taking it to the wider realm of Art,thanks..."
I'm far from genius, but I hope to underscore that one of the pleasures of all art is to explore beyond the constraints of the everyday and to discover ourselves in the process. That sounds like a cliché, but there's something to it, I'm sure...
Barbara wrote: "There are so many quotes and phrases that were beyond hilarious, and I may come back after another read this weekend with more quotes, but this one was so brilliant: "Cervantes' text and Menard's are verbally identical, but the second is almost infinitely richer. (More ambiguous, his detractors will say, but ambiguity is richness.)" ..."
Barbara, glad to see you made it over here to Borges, I thought you would like his stories! You're right about how funny they are, I think we tend to breeze by the humor in our discussions sometimes. My favorite was the list of Menard's previously published writings.
I don't think you were with us for the House of Leaves discussion? One of my favorite lines is from Johnny Truent in response to Pierre Menard: "Exactly How the fuck do you write about “exquisite variation” when both passages are exactly the same?". This comment is in a footnote by someone writing about a footnote in a found manuscript that is about a film that may or may not be fictional.
Jim wrote: "Bill wrote: ""Greatness" can be measured if it's a physical property. "Greatness" cannot be measured if it's a value..."How to measure "Greatness":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkpWk...
B..."
Jim,
First of all what struck me is that Evans-Pritchard was the name of an Oxford sociologist/anthropolist -- so I kept wondering why he was writing an introduction to a literature textbook. I wonder if there's an in joke there.
Second, Exactly. It's an absurd philosophical position.
But in practice there's always the dynamic of the pull between the intellectual recognition of the absurdity and the feeling that our entirely subjective feelings are inspired some objective reality. The fictional Evans-Pritchard claims it is possible to so something which is wholly impossible because he believes that what HE does.
In a casual conversation, of course, it's perfectly fine to say, "Wow, that Shakespeare guy, he's the best." And believe it true. God knows I do. I just know that in a philosophical sense, I don't know what I'm talking about.
Mod
How to measure "Greatness":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk..."
The key sticking point in any argument like this is always around trying to establish what constitutes "some objective reality". Whenever I find myself in one of these discussions, I normally pour everyone another round and try to move to another topic...
In his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values, Robert Pirsig wrote about a writing class he taught where the question of "quality" came up in terms of what is good writing versus bad writing. He ended up creating a whole philosophical edifice placing "quality" above philosophy. A complex head scratcher of an argument, but a great read. Most of his students simply said, "You just 'know' what's good."
Or you can always use the equation:
Perfection times Interest equals Greatness
- or -
P x I = G
I really loved that scene!
Well, if push comes to shove, I have mixture which I create and brush it lightly over the writing at hand.The deeper blue it turns the better the art. The deeper red it turns the worse. Deep scarlet is neutral. I measure relative quality by snipping the dried edges and comparing the colors at a color temperature of 5000 K.
It's not a perfect system but it works in a pinch.
And now I'll move on to another topic.
Jim wrote,
Whitney, you are now officially proclaimed "Borgesian". Join us at the commencement ceremony in June, followed by a champagne reception and authentic Argentine barbecue in Buenos Aires.
And Whitney please, after graduation, save me a tango.
Mod
The deeper blue it turns the better the art. The deeper red it turns the worse. Deep scar..."
Excellent! The literary litmus test. Works every time...
In the game of chess, millions of human hours and thousands of computer hours have been devoted to analysis that could not resolve the simple question "What is the best first move for white?" There are only twelve possible first moves. The consensus of masters has suggested that the best move is almost certainly e4, or d4, or c4, or Nf3, though some on the fringe might argue in favor of f4 or even Nc3. But the solution is approached based on theory that is so far untested and unproven, and may well be untestable and unprovable.Yet the question of "what is the best first move in chess?" is much much much easier than the question "what is the best way to play chess?"
People have managed to demonstrate incredible ability for the game, and have even developed deep theories and analyses, without being able to "prove" anything, or to effectively quantify anything. Even the shorthand rules that novices use to evaluate exchanges such as "a pawn is worth one point, a knight is worth three points" (and such evaluations are necessary for computers which compete at the highest levels)--such rules are recognized as false by the masters, and it isn't even a question of whether it should be 3.14 pawns or 2.981 pawns to the knight. It's understood that there can actually be no numerical measure. Yet it is also agreed that, except in special situations of forced moves or simple endgames, a knight is worth more than a pawn, but less than a rook, etc.
Yet chess is a simple game, much more easily rendered in mathematical or "material terms" than almost all human phenomena. It's also easier to calculate and model in theory than a game like "go"/"baduk".
Meanwhile, in a modern complex city, it often occurs that three different taxi drivers (honest taxi drivers) will come to three different answers on how to get from point A to point B in the shortest time. The problem may be so complex that no computer or team of researchers can resolve what is the best way to proceed. One thing can be easily demonstrated: always moving most directly away from your intended goal is not the best way.
These are all simple problems compared to problems relating to social, psychological, aesthetic, economic, ethical, linguistic, or other human phenomena which are less quantifiable, and which are fields of knowledge/theory in which nothing has ever been "proven" without heavily depending on assumed axioms that everyone would acknowldge to be huge oversimplifications.
What's the point? To demand that a term such as "wise," "English," or "good literature" should be proven and measurable, before acknowledging the existence of the phenomena to which they refer, is unreasonable and renders all discussion of human phenomena futile.
On analogies: analogies are a pointing-of-the-way. They can always be undermined by those who are determined not to understand or not to accept. They can be a useful guide to those who seek to understand. Some ideas are best demonstrated by analogy, particularly by analogy to simpler, more concrete phenomena. That does not imply that they share the same physical characteristics,or that any other comparison holds, other than that which was intended.If I say "she is as lovely as a rose," I might meet the following replies:
"Do you mean she's red? Does she have petals?"
"Does she smell like a rose? I've never actually smelled someone who smelled like a rose, unless they were wearing rose-scented perfume, in which case it was actually the perfume that smelled like a rose."
"I don't like roses and I don't understand why they're considered lovely."
or
"I understand. Roses are regarded as archetypes of loveliness, so she must be very lovely."
Jim wrote: "Barbara wrote: "I sort-of knew what to expect, just from reading various articles here and there about Borges, but I did not expect it to be so much fun, so outrageous, so funny. Just one read, yes..."Jim, I would love to read your paper on Pollock's painting. I love that piece so much.
I have more to say, but gotta run at the moment -- deadlines that are making me nuts. I'll be back.
MORE:Great novelists (as well as most other novelists) do not spend much time doubting whether there is such a thing as great literature. Rather, they set about trying to discover what great literature is. Because of the complexity of the phenomenon, some may come to very different conclusions, while yet arriving at works of great accomplishment despite their diversity.
By way of analogy, I'd like to compare them to evolving species within an ecosystem. No one can say that a rattlesnake is a "better," or even "more fit" creature than a jackrabbit, especially as they coexist within the same ecosystem, and thrive there. Both are highly evolved. Each may be viewed as near perfection of a particular form, which was arrived at through the struggle of survival.
While we can't say that the rattlesnake is more fit than the jackrabbit, we can say that the rattlesnake is more fit than a snake with an open vein on its head that constantly spurts blood. We can say that the jackrabbit is more fit than a species that would be identical except for being blind and toothless.
We may not be able to say whether Shakespeare was a greater writer than Cervantes. But we could reasonably claim that Hamlet is a better play than a randomly generated string of characters which is equal in length to Hamlet. We can say that Don Quixote is a better novel than the same text with every third page removed and destroyed.
I would say that the world of literature, or of literature-which-could-exist, is comparable, not to the ecosystem of one small Southwestern American region, but rather to the "ecosystem" of the entire planet earth and many worlds added on.
Please keep in mind that, by analogy, I'm NOT trying to suggest that greatness in literature is a contest, nor that it is indicated by the likelihood of a work "surviving." I am pointing-the-way towards the idea of a near-infinite diversity of perfection, where perfection has a meaning.
Just as a (nearly) infinite diversity of animal species may be fit to survive, it is a much smaller "infinite" than the vastly infinite diversity of species which are less fit, or entirely unfit.
So it is for great works which approach the various perfect forms, and leave behind those less perfect works that fail in their aspiring, or that aspire to imperfection.
(In an attempt to relate, marginally, to Borges, in The Lottery in Babylon, he comments on the practice of conducting an infinite number of lottery drawings: "Ignorant people suppose that infinite drawings require an infinite time; actually, it is sufficient for time to be infinitely subdivisible." He doesn't mean at all what I mean here, I'm not citing him as proof of my ideas, but he does play with the interesting and appealing concept of a smaller infinity within a larger infinity).
Bill wrote: "Jim wrote,"Whitney, you are now officially proclaimed "Borgesian". Join us at the commencement ceremony in June, followed by a champagne reception and authentic Argentine barbecue in Buenos Aires. "
And Whitney please, after graduation, save me a tango..."
Yes! Champagne, Argentinian beef, and a tango on my dance card. Life doesn't get any better than that!
Whitney wrote: "Bill wrote: "Jim wrote,"Whitney, you are now officially proclaimed "Borgesian". Join us at the commencement ceremony in June, followed by a champagne reception and authentic Argentine barbecue in..."
Sounds good to me! When are we all going? Please let me know, so that I can mark it into my appointment book. I assume the Borges Estate is footing the bill?
Mod
All expenses will be paid by The Argentinian Beef Council.
Zadignose wrote, "To demand that a term such as "wise," "English," or "good literature" should be proven and measurable, before acknowledging the existence of the phenomena to which they refer, is unreasonable and renders all discussion of human phenomena futile."But no one ever made that claim, certainly not me.
I did suggest that to claim literature is objectively great is to talk utter and complete nonsense. To say that "greatness" which is a comparative measures inheres in a work of art is an intrinsic quality makes no sense whatsoever.
Further, it's perfectly reasonable to use literature and English and art and many other terms without being able to define them. If I say I like reading "literature" one probably knows what I'm talking about in a general sense about where my interest lies without having to share my taste or even agree whether book x or y is, in fact, literature.
Because there are a number of works which many people consider "great" -- it is their SUBJECTIVE evaluation -- one knows also in a general sense what one's talking about. It's practical in casual conversation. "That Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Keats and Yeats" are among the finest poets in the English language simply means many people like those poets better than other poets in the English language. But no one wants to spit that out all the time.
But it is absurd if one is argues it philosophically or as a critical principle.
Any number of subjective evaluations do not make an objective one.
All right. You've dug in your heels and refuse to go farther. You won't make any big concessions, though you've even now acknowledged that immeasurable, unprovable, "comparative" terms such as wisdom can be used meaningfully; you don't accept that to say "that man is wise" has the same basic meaning as "the quality of wisdom inheres in that man", and that your argument hinges on whatever fine distinction can be made between those two statements; nor are you inclined to acknowledge that your principal objection to what I've said has been the immeasurability and unprovability of the concept of "greatness" (which, by the way, I would define as "very very goodness").
The unsolved problem for me, in trying to understand the opposing point of view, is understanding how one mind can simultaneously believe "Book X is very good," and "it's utter nonsense to believe that any book can be good."
Of course, I may be hoist by my own petard, since I once incautiously suggested that human understanding demands that we believe "it is black" and "it is white" at the same time... but I was just being Borgesian (previously to reading Borges, but I still blame him)... or you may wish to refer to the theory that no person possesses only one mind, but rather we are populated by multiple minds of opposing natures and opposing points-of-view.
Mod
You won't make the concession that you've even now acknowledged that immeasurable, unprovable, "comparitve" terms such as wisdom can ..."
The time has come to discontinue this pointless debate and get back to Borges. If you want to debate eachother, do so elsewhere.
Oops, replied before Jim declared a reasonable moratorium. Comment deleted, back to Borges, beef, and tangos!
I'm obviously too late to join in the discussion, but having just finished the story (my first reading of Borges) I wanted to stop by to say how much fun it was. The man is funny! I laughed aloud which I rarely do when reading. And now I've read through these comments which has driven me to another glass of wine... Not a bad thing, actually.
Jen, Catch up or you can hop in for the next story where discussion won't start for a bit - "The Library of Babel", and our friend Borges was a librarian for a while.
Mod
Hi Jen, It's never too late to join a discussion, especially after un verre de vin...
What do you think about the idea that Cervantes' prose style is typical and expected, but Menard's is an inspired innovation, ahead of its time?
Jim,I think Menard's prose isn't the innovation, it just that it's far richer and more meaningful because of the implicit ironies given the years in between.
As I reader, I find that reading the same book years later often changes the book entirely. :-)
But Jen, the question remains: what do you think of that? :-)
Talk to us. We'll talk back.
Hello, and so nice to see your responses. I think I fell flat after that second glass, it has been a long week. Anyway, I agree entirely with Bill's comment - I take it to mean that the prose is interpreted in the context of the time (and, in the context of the reader's experiences) - and in this case, the writer's experiences too. So, the same 'text' is actually an entirely different text, in a different time and place. I don't know enough about Borges to know if that is the intent. But it did get me thinking, too, about how I relate to books I read at different points in time.
This resonates for me when 'rating' books on Goodreads (which increasingly I wonder why I bother doing...). It seems so futile to rate the books I read some time ago. Who knows what I would make of them now.
But Jen, it works both ways. Why wouldn't someone have the same response you did however many years ago?I'll tell you the weirdest experience, reading The Catcher in the Rye at 12, 13, or 14 -- and then read it againn 30, 40 or 50 years later -- it's the classic <9> entirely different book. On the other hand, a 13 year old today may be reading the same book you read then (except for the lack of cell phones, etc.)
In other words, why is your response today MORE VALID than the one you had then? In some cases it may be just because now you're a much more sophisticated reader. But in other cases it may be entirely a function of your age.
Indeed, it does work both ways. And I don't suggest my response to anything today is more valid - only that to impart my 'recalled' impressions of a book many years after reading it feels unauthentic. I should assess them (ie note my impressions) when I read them, not later. And that is not to say that a later reading would be more valid than the initial one - only that the two readings are not the same.I am totally nostalgic about the books I read years ago and would not wish to usurp or distort those meaningful first impressions. I treasure my 'early reads' memories and the intensity of the responses I had to my favourite stories. So, in some cases I would choose to not re-read a book - or to do so accepting that it won't be the same experience as before.
The Borges story made me think about these contrasts and for that reason, I enjoyed it. He also has a luscious vocabulary and wonderful wit, if this story is anything to go by.
I hope to join in on the threads of other stories when I read more.
In the short stories his imagination is rare if not unique (I don't personally know of anything like it) and highly literary, rather like his habit of making up a book rather than writing one and then just giving us the commentary. In the next story we have the beginning "The universe (which others call The Library)..." (Library of Babel.)I personally read Borges as a constant satire on the striving for certainty. But they may just be my own personal bias that nothing is certain. :-)
It's probably Borgesian to suggest our opinions of books are unknowable, as you suggest, because they keep changing, and even if we just finished a book, we know that our opinion would be different 30 years later or earlier.
Brain Pain
Books mentioned in this topic
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values (other topics)Doctor Faustus (other topics)
Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai (other topics)
How to measure "Greatness":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkpWk...
Be gone J. Evans Pritchard, PhD!