Reading Circle - Ficciones, March 2008

You’re good, Bruno. Wanna know why? Because the creation of those verbal and adjective languages has already happened! It’s brilliant: I can see myself musing over this for the next few days, too.

:lol: I’ll win either way!

I’m in if you guys don’t mind

By all means, James, we don’t. :happy: I’m actually glad people are joining this project.

I’d like to know how far has everyone got by now. :smile: Has anyone read “the Lottery in Babilon” so far? It is, in my opinion, one of the best stories ever written. What about “the Circular Ruins”?— Anyone tried to read anything from the second book, like “Three Versions of Judas” or the “theme of the Hero and the Traitor”? What’s everyone thinking of it so far? And, among those who still haven’t started reading, who’s planning to join us still? :smile:

Though i am already caught up in a multitude of wonderful literature, I will do my best to find these books and begin reading. Reality manifested through thought and willed imagination? I’m in, and will begin reading as soon as possible.

Ok, I just placed the order online for collected fictions. The collection is surprisingly quite extensive. Anyone ever read Dream Tigers by the same author? It is apparently supposed to be pretty amazing.

Ok, Now the right book is at the library. I’m going to go pick it up tomorrow and start reading it then.

I ordered the book last yesterday afternoon, it should be here sometime early next week. I can’t wait! :hyper:

EDIT: It arrived today! (well, friday night - we hadn’t checked the mail).

I’ve just finished reading about that extreme library! It is a pretty extreme thought really: All we ever are gonna do/say is described. But everything is covered up in, and surrounded by, all other possible texts!

Hello everyone.
I promissed Bruno that i’m gonna join when i finally get the time. So here I am.
I’ve read Borges about three years ago. Before that, my readings almost exclusively consisted of Math and Physics books :tongue: Then my friend lent me a book by Borges: The Book of Sand. I had never seen a book written like that!! I got so curious that I went out and bought another Borges book: Ficciones.
One funny incident about this book. I lent it to a friend of mine. He read it, returned it to me, and said he didn’t understand much. When i asked why, he replied: “well, who is this Pierre Menard for example? I’ve never heard of him!” :happy:
The title is Fictions. But with that aside, my friend is not to blame for not recognizing Borges’ intention. As Bruno pointed out to in his first post here, Borges does not specify where reality ends and fictions begins. The lines are blurred.
I’ve dug up my copy and i’ll start reading again. hopefully we get to discussions soon :smile:

I guess anything I say or do could from now on be considered a spoiler for this book because it has changed the way I now am- but I don’t think I’m being too revealing here… Just finished the first half of the book (or first book, I suppose, technically). I am absolutely sucked in and have been avoiding doing anything else when possible just so I can sit around and soak up these Ficciones. I think “the Lottery in Babilon” and “the Circular Ruins” are definitely favorites so far. The others seemed to drag a little because of the dense nature of the stories (and the introduction of many characters and works, imaginary or real) but I still think there were some amazing ideas and concepts in there (especially the part about copulation and mirrors). Can’t wait to really get into discussion about some of these ideas because this book is one of those works that makes you look at reality in a whole new way every time you finish a new story!

SPOILER - Click to view

::Pretty sure Bruno works for the Company::

I’ve actually taken myself in creating those verbal/adjective languages ! :cool: Anyhow, I always ended with making too complicated sentences to be manageable for me to convert, and stop it. And start from the beginning again xD Well, it ain’t that often it has happened, but well, I guess it may relate to the fact that I of some weird reasons have had a hard time feeling anything at all (pretty much exept frustration/loneliness at time) the last months/half year. It is really pretty depressing.

Anyways, I have just finished “Theme of the traitor and the hero now” :content:

Circular ruins spoiler

SPOILER - Click to view

The circular ruins were really a great story, but I don’t really get the meaning behind it. I mean, ok the guy dreams up someone, and everyting. And brings him to life. Later he finds he is dreamed up himself. What is he trying to say? (Is he trying to say something?).

Welcome aboard, Eric, kT, Will, and Nadim. :happy:

He’s written quite a lot. :tongue: But why did you order the whole collection, rather than just Ficciones, then?

Yes. Yes! It’s really good! (I’m frankly biased when it come to Borges, so read my opinions with a grain of salt :wink:). It’s the same kind of imagery (and humour) you’ll find in stories like “the Circular Ruins”, “the Lottery in Babylon” and “theme of the Hero and the Traitor”, but it’s a really wild idea.

It is a fabulous idea. :yes: I’ll come back to the library in a future post. :wink:

:lol: I’m glad you enjoyed it that much!

Mine as well, at least in the first book. (From the second, highlights would be “theme of the Traitor and the Hero”, “Three versions of Judas” and “the South”).

Yeah, Borges can be a tad too academic at times, but he’s got plenty of jaw-dropping ideas to expose.

Hahaha! We sure shall discuss the ideas. I’ll make a post tomorrow, and you of course can feel free to writing your thoughts anytime! :happy:

/me smiles secretly.

It’s one of my favourite stories. It’s rather simple, and doesn’t make much of a fuss around its main idea, but it got me to dig into Irish history books and articles on exotic carnivalesque traditions, and then I would sketch up thoughts and drawings forever.

[spoiler]The idea at play is that of recursion, and it pokes right at a couple of big metaphysical problems revolving around the notion of life. For instance: humans are capable of creation. Provided we were created, that is to say designed, it is valid to question ourselves: is our creator all-powerful and unbounded, or are they but a shadow of their own creator, as we are of them? If we are capable of creating intelligence, conscience, life — and, arguably, we are, we should be asking ourselves: are we really less than our God? Are we not gods ourselves?

Another way of reading the Circular Ruins: as a metaphor for freedom. We think we’re free and autonomous and acting based on our own free will. But what if the history of the universe has already been traced by the precise laws of physics, and we are just a simulacron, an automaton who behaves according to the grand design? Are we still free, then? Are we still human, or are we no more than a pile of atoms? (I offered a possible solution to this problem in an old topic about Free Will, in the Philosopher’s Cloud).

Yet another reading, just to give you the taste of Borges’ endless possibilities: the idea of dream can be expanded into the notion of “imagination” as a whole. I bring you then a problem which is similar to the first one (and depending on how you face it, equivalent). What we imagine, collectively or subconsciously, has a life of their own. Are those figments, those dreams and character — are the fictions of Borges really just fictions, shadows, or are they real? Are we, as personas, not precisely just as real as a figment of our own imagination? Where is reality’s limit? Where does reality stop and fiction begins?

These are just a couple of interpretations of the Circular Ruins. That story is serious food for thought.[/spoiler]

I have read the first chapter of Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius and I’m already confused on whats happening. Its like he thinks we already know whats happening and we don’t. It seems it just dropped into a middle of a story.

I’ve just finished the book. In my edition, The South wasn’t included.

It’s even better written than I remembered. What a style! No doubt Borges is one of the very best writers of the XXth century. But I really don’t know what I could say about all this. :happy:

What don’t you understand? :content: (Use spoiler tags if you need to :wink:).

Aww, that’s a shame, it’s a great story. I love the way it becomes something completely unexpected and then renders into a big great wow. Your book is probably based in the first edition of Ficciones, then? “El Sur”, together with “La Secta del Fénix” and “El fin” were only introduced in a later edition. (My own edition, bought in a porteño newspaper booth, includes those three stories, but not Al-Mu’tasim).

It probably gets better as you grow older. I realise there’s a lot about those stories that I’ll only understand — or even acknowledge — at a later time.

Well, I don’t know. There’s actually a couple of things I’d like to discuss about Borges and which I never could, due to lack of interlocutor. For instance,

[color=#663366]“La lotería en Babilonia” spoiler below.[/color]

[spoiler]After reading the story a couple of times, a little phrase started to stand out to me… Wait, let me google the quotes in English.

[center]…Here we go. :wink:[/center]

Up to that point, I had been reading this story as I usually read Borges: letting the imagery blend into my life and give me that spooky feeling. But when I read this and realised what it meant, I started seeing the story under a whole new perspective: in effect, the narrator could be lying the whole thing, or important bits of it. The blurry lines of a story within the story became visible, but only barely so, to me.

Since then, the narrator of the la Lotería would fascinate me. I never actually sat down to analyze the story rigorously and apply theories to it. I’m sure a rhetorical reading of the text (something along the lines of what Reboul teaches), or an archetypal critical reading of it according to Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism, or perhaps even a simple analysis of the narrator based on Norman Friedman’s ideas, would help me understand this underlying story. But I can’t be bothered transforming a great author in homework material.

On the other hand, I have never had the opportunity to discuss this narrator with anyone, and in that sense I’d really like to be able to discuss it now. While browsing a (mostly) Brazilian blog’s archive, I found a bunch of posts in what can be described as a blogging circle concerning Borges. There was one dedicated to “la Lotería”, and to no surprise, it had a couple of comments concerning the narrator. It was pointed out that not only does the narrator say he’s lied, he also begins the narrative stating: “[Concerning the Lottery’s] mighty purposes I know as much as a man untutored in astrology might know about the moon”. More: the narrator also hints at being a fugitive.

Reading those comments made me want to discuss this even more. What the hell is going on behind that story. If you think of it without the narrator, that is, just taking in consideration the “lottery” metaphor, it’s already darn meaningful, but when you start to think about him, whoa. It becomes an open ended detective story which I haven’t yet completely been able to comprehend, let alone figure out.

What do you think of it? Who is this narrator? What is the real story — what’s the truth, what are his lies, who is he running away from?[/spoiler]

Yes indeed. Curiously, “La Secta del Fénix” (not very good IMO) is included.

:sad: Too bad, it’s a wonderful story. I hadn’t read your comments about the Lottery in Babylon when I wrote my post, I’ll anwer your message later. :smile:

(I don’t think there are really spoilers in the further lines. Now they may gravely endanger your own vision and understanding of Ficciones so that it’s certainly better to read them after having finished the book.) :wink:

If Bruno hadn’t asked me to, I wouldn’t have reread Borges. His pompous and quite latine style, his paradoxical and disenchanted way of thinking are too much contagious and, certainly too, too much recognizable when you hope to write something one day.

I’ll venture here two remarks which didn’t strike my mind when I’ve read Borges for the first time. Borges is without any doubt a master in the way of entangling tracks and making believe he had been influenced by philosophers he didn’t read, and never read writers which the most visibly acted upon his stories. Frank Kafka wrote a short story, quite a poem in prose - entitled The Messenger if I remember well - in which the messenger enters the Forbidden City in Beijing with an important message he will never be able to brought to the Emperor of China because, before he could enter the last golden portal which discovers the vast throne hall, he has to go through a previous portal, and through another portal through the last rampart, and another portal, and another rampart which protects the Son of Heaven from the common of mortals. In Ficciones, Kafka is never summoned, with the exception of The Lottery in Babylon - definitely a Kafka’s short story - in which his disfigured name adorns an urinal.

An incidental remark which most likely is no related to what was said above : Kafka was a Jew. Ficciones were written during the WWII. You possibly have noticed that jews are very present in the pages of Ficciones… but I prefer to immediatly stop here the godwinisation of Bruno’s thread and not to make observe that, in a paragraph in the Sect of the Phoenix, the word jews has been so obviously replaced afterwards by gypsies that inconsistencies remain in the development of the argument.

Idiotically pretending that Borges was antisemit is certainly not in my mind. As one of his specialities is writing from the point of view of a stubborn and pedantic narrator - like in Pierre Menard - it seems to me more logical to think that he’s just mocking the litterary publications of his epoch, when to look like interesting you would have to spread the word jew through your whole lines. In Tlön, Borges says: “ten years ago, any symmetry that may have the semblance of an order - dialectical materialism, antisemitism, nazism - was sufficient to entrance the minds of men.” And here comes my second remark :

Forgetting Ficciones were written during the WWII - I already said it - sounds like unforgiveable : the dates (perhaps true, most often false) are written at the end of each short story. Apart from Jews, three other themes cross this Borges’ work : cowardice, relativity - and eventually inanity - of human thought, justification of his own life. Tlön (circa 1940) describes a new and absurd idealism overwelming the world - at the same times when ideologies like stalinism and nazism were spreading, it was more often illustrated in fantastic litterature by UFO invasions. Those ideologies are overtly cited in the lines of Tlön. Tlön is the first story of the book.

So - in my opinion - Ficciones are war litterature. As war litterature, everybody would notice it’s not very committed. In The Secret Miracle (1943), the destiny of Jaromir Hladik (a jew, a writer) takes a tragical turn just because his publisher exagerated, for marketing purposes, his reputation on a book he translated. What to write when you know that any handsomely presented ideology is “sufficient to entrance the minds of men”, that in those conditions your friends of today may become your enemies of tomorrow, and you don’t want your life to quickly turn to tragedy because of war times ? You can justify your life - you know some other people are sacrifying theirs - you can justify your noticeable uncommitment by discussing the inanity of reason - a specialization of madness. You perfectly know that your justifications are as foolish and unfounded as the absurd ideologies which are killing millions of people. You can flee in a labyrinth of numerous misty theories refuting numerous misty theories. You can write stories about cowardice. You can write Ficciones.

[Edit: I corrected a mistake: a passage I cited by memory was not in The Death and The Compass but The Sect of the Phoenix. :bored: ]

Reply to Bruno about the Lottery in Babylon:

SPOILER - Click to view

I can’t help seeing this short story as an allegory. Of what, I don’t know: human condition, God, governement? By the way, is it really important? Doesn’t it just describe the feeling that human life is ruled by random powers and that humankind always searches a logical explanation in what hasn’t?

From the moment Borges describes the life of Babylonians as governed by haphazardness and error, it’s sounds like “logical” that the narrator also precises that his description of the Lottery may be as arbitrary and untruthful as the Lottery itself. In true life, a man who says: “I lie” is a liar. In a perfectly logical world, it’s an impossibility.

The text is presented as written at the epoch of the Lottery. According to its content, if it had been written in Babylon, this description would be completely falsified. Or even impossible. It’s the reason why, in my opinion, it’s said to be have written outside of Babylon, far away from Babylon. You can only describe the chaos when you see it from the distance. It’s the required condition that makes this account vaguely believable, not just the tale of a mythomaniac - which wouldn’t be truly interesting, would it? Now the actual destiny of the narrator doesn’t really interest the author, quick indications about what is occuring just now are mainly put there as dramatic effects, I think.

First of all, I would just like to thank Bruno for recommending this book for this month’s reader’s circle. All controversy aside (ahem), I thought it was a really fascinating and stimulating read. I haven’t seen much discussion going on, so I 'm just gonna go ahead and go for it. I should mention that these are not necessarily spoilers (?) but just brief passages from the book and some of my thoughts about them. I have only posted passages from the 1st half of the book (or the first book, technically), so hopefully some of you are at least that far along. [spoiler]I have decided to pick a few quotes/passages from the stories that I found especially fascinating or interesting. Before I do, though, I should also mention that I read these stories more literally than I imagine the average reader would. I plan on going back and rereading this book at some point and trying to really interpret it more and find the parallels it had when read more open-mindedly. I have a ton of these but I think I will just start with a few to see if anyone else wants to chime in. In the Babylon Lottery Borges said, “…if the lottery is an intensification of chance, a periodic infusion of chaos into the cosmos, would it not be desirable for chance to intervene at all stages of the lottery and not merely in the drawing? Is it not ridiculous for chance to dictate the death of someone, while the circumstances of his death-- it’s silent reserve or publicity, the time limit of one hour or one century-- should remain immune to hazard?” I think that was such a clever way to describe how the universe works and how it just briefly hints at the interconnectedness of the entire universe. I think this is the same concept that was flushed into a 2 hour blockbuster movie known as the Butterfly Effect but also a deeper understanding of how random and chaotic the universe is. I also really like when he really gets to playing with the concept of time and possible futures and parallel futures as well. I like the idea of parallel futures because I feel that to me would be incontrovertible evidence of free will, of whom’s existence I am more and more weary by the day… He really played with these ideas and the concept in the Garden of the Forking Paths and I loved it. Another passage I really enjoyed was from The Approach To Al-Mu’Tasim, “He knows that the vile man conversing with him is incapable of this momentaneous decorum; from this fact he concludes that the other, for the moment, is the reflection of a friend, or of the friend of a friend. Rethinking the problem he arrives at a mysterious conviction: some place in the world there is a man from whom this clarity emanates; some place in the world there is a man who is this clarity.” I have long believed that when we meet new people we are also meeting a part of ourselves that is “unlocked” by this new person. So, by meeting as many new and interesting people as possible, I believe it is possible to meet and expose more of one’s self. This was a really cool way to look at this concept from a different point of view it made me realize that I have met many people in my life who posses this clarity. Were they the sole source of this clarity or was it just channeled through them from someone elsewhere? There’s some really fun brain candy in this book if one was to really explore deeper into some of the concepts and really let some of the other details just fall where they land. I will post some more comments and quotes some time in the next day or two hopefully because there really are a lot of great ones in there. And anyone else who read the book please feel free to speak up! In reaction or of independent thought- whatever![/spoiler]