POETS Day! Jorge Luis Borges as Translated by Richard Wilbur

Ben Sears

Ben Sears is a writer and restaurant guy in Birmingham, Alabama. He lives quite happily across from a creek with his wife, two sons, and an obligatory dog. You can follow him on Twitter and read his blog, The Columbo Game.

Related Post Roulette

21 Responses

  1. Chris
    Ignored
    says:

    “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” which is as funny a send up of Critical Theory as you’re likely to find and even funnier considering its inconvenient timing for the theorists.

    Huh?Report

      • Chris in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Huh. News to me.

        I still have no idea what he’s talking about. How is it a send up of “Critical Theory,” or critical theory, or literary criticism? How is the timing inconvenient for the theorists?Report

        • Chris in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          Related, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the other Borges’ story mentioned in that Wikipedia article, and from Quine’s entry in Quiddities on the “Universal Library” in relation to LLMs, and maybe also that project to protect musicians from frivolous plagiarism lawsuits by copywriting every possible combination of notes and cords. I mention this because, I figure if it makes sense to you that this is connected to Menard, then you probably understand why I’m confused about the “Critical Theory” comment in the OP.Report

        • Ben Sears in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          The timing was inconvenient because he made fun of them in the late 1930s, just when critical theory was establishing itself, finding homes in universities, etc. Critical theory looks for power structures in literature. In “Pierre Menard” he presents Quixote rewritten word for word by a modern author and then lauds it as enriched. “When Cervantes wrote X, it was simply as a sixteenth century… but when Menard writes X, note the rebellion against etc.” and so on. It’s a funny story.Report

          • Chris in reply to Ben Sears
            Ignored
            says:

            What is it saying about critical theory?Report

            • Chris in reply to Chris
              Ignored
              says:

              I’ll be a bit more specific with my question. In thinking about the relationship between Borges and “Critical Theory,” the primary work of literary criticism from the Frankfurt School Borges that would have had available to him at the time of his writing of Menard would have been Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction“. Putting aside that his literary theory isn’t about power (you’ll find the word “power” in that essay a handful of times, particularly in the epigraph, but it is not used in the way that you believe “Critical Theory” thinks about literature.

              Anyway, while I can’t say for sure that Borges had read Benjamin, that they had similar views of literature, as reflected in “Menard,” and more so in the “Library of Babel,” so strongly parallels Benjamin’s own view of literature (again, read the essay) that the connection has been noted in Borges’ scholarship for decades. Hell, there’s a reasonably well known (among scholars) book about it.

              As many others have argued pointed out over the last several decades, both Benjamin and Borges (particularly in “Menard”) prefigured, and greatly influenced, later structuralist and post-structuralist literary theories, which is why they’re both oft discussed. Derrida was a big fan; Foucault, whom you probably mean when you talk about power , blames Borges for his structuralism(!) in the preface to his great structuralist essay The Origin of Things: “This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought”; Deleuze was a big fan of Borges, and in particular of Menard, writing in Difference and Repition:

              Borges, we know, excelled in recounting imaginary books. But he goes further when he considers a real book, such as Don Quixote as though it were an imaginary book, itself reproduced by an imaginary author, Pierre Menard, who in turn he considers to be real. In this case, the most exact, the most strict repetition has as its corelate the maximum of difference…”

              I could go on, but I think you get the point: if we’re thinking of “Critical Theory” as the Frankfurt School, then Borges and it’s primary literary theorist were so much in agreement that people often talk about their joint influence on future literature and literary theory, and if you mean the larger set of thinkers and movements that sometime get lumped under critical theory today (so in addition to the Frankfurt School, the structuralists, the post-structuralists, etc.), he is today, and has long been, one of the biggest literary influences of “critical theory.”

              I realize of course that you probably haven’t read any “Critical Theory,” either in the narrow (Frankfurt School) or broader (all those other things) sense, so I’m genuinely wondering, what do you think it was that Borges was saying about them, and why do you think he was doing so?Report

              • Ben Sears in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Critical theory readings of Jane Austin attempt to examine racial oppression. That’s a pretty good example viewing older works through a modern lens, projecting our way of looking at the world on a work that was conceived without such a considerations, at least without such considerations seen as we see them. Cervantes wrote in the sixteenth century. Menard is written as having rewritten Don Quixote word for word. Now the exact same words, written four hundred years later bear “the influence of Nietzsche.” If it’s not apparent, he’s spoofing the idea that a writer’s words are so malleable as to reflect later trendiness.Report

              • Chris in reply to Ben Sears
                Ignored
                says:

                I think (and I believe most readers think) you’re reading the story incorrectly, but regardless, can you point to some critical theory on Jane Austen and race that you find ahistorical or anachronistic?Report

              • Ben Sears in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                If you don’t think the story is a spoof, that’s fine. You could Google Jane Austen and critical theory and see for yourself. I just did and found a collection of essays called Jane Austen and Critical Theory. Racial oppression is mentioned in the blurb, as it is in most reviews from her own time.Report

              • Chris in reply to Ben Sears
                Ignored
                says:

                That collection does not have any essays doing what you describe. I would love to see an example, though, if you can find one. Since you’re the one who made the point, I thought you’d have at least a passing familiarity with that you thought he was spoofing.

                You, on the other hand, have a manifestly anachronistic reading of the Borges story, which obviously couldn’t have been about critical theory or anachronistic readings in the way you describe, assuming that they have every existed (I’m sure they do on Twitter), didn’t exist then.

                He’s not sending up anachronisms; he’s making a much more interesting point about translation, readers, and interpretation. You’d get more out of the story if you read it less anachronistically and less shallowly.Report

              • Ben Sears in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Thanks for the advice.Report

              • Chris in reply to Ben Sears
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re welcome.

                A sincere question: given that you quite clearly know nothing about critical theory, what is it you find funny about a spoof of it? Or, given your extremely, er, 21st century reading, do you just find the idea of spoofing anachronistic readings funny, and your reference to “critical theory” is just a sort of cultural signifier, less a reference to Borges’ actual target (under your reading) than a way of indicating that you, yourself, are firmly planted on a certain side of contemporary political and cultural discourse?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, from here, it seems like he has a pretty decent handle on it.

                I can see how “you don’t agree with me!” is a particularly vitriolic attack among a particular subset.

                But for those not among it… well, it has a lot less bite.

                (If anything, this reminds me of the “localization” debates about Japanese video games brought to America. Believe it or not, some local localizers believe that there’s only one way to tell the story over here! Yeah. It’s nuts. Kids. I shake my head trying to remember being 20 and not being able to.)Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure on what you’re agreeing with him on: his facile interpretation of the story, the story’s relationship to critical theory, the specific view he has of critical theory (he can’t offer any examples of his version, but perhaps you can)?

                I’m saying a) Borges is saying something completely different about the author, texts, translation, the reader, interpretation, even history, and for evidence of my interpretation, you can read literally any critical writing on the text (hell, you could read the Wikipedia article to which you linked), b) it is not saying anything about then existing or currently existing “critical theory,” and in fact it has an affinity with then existing and subsequent critical theory, especially Benjamin.

                I’d add that a facile, lazy interpretation of Borges is consistent with his interpretations of other authors. See, e.g., his post on Whitman.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m agreeing with him on his interpretation of the story which, in my opinion, is in the ballpark of “somewhere what the author playfully meant”.

                So, like, I’m pretty sure that you would be able to corner Borges himself and yell “WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?” with a handful of bayonetted teenagers behind you and get him to agree that he was just playing around.

                But if you avoided the threats, you could get a couple of glasses of wine in him and get him to say “I was being playful” or something like that.

                Which, I understand, is offensive to true believers.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That he’s playing around is not in question. That he’s making fun of what the OP says is a silly incorporation.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think that he’s doing the “mocking it” or “holding it in contempt” thing but I do think that he’s teasing it.

                Though I understand that the belief that he would be doing something like that is counter-revolutionary.Report

              • Ben Sears in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m trying to be nice here. If you don’t want it to be a spoof, I don’t care. Feel free to say it isn’t. I’ll go with Alexander Coleman who edited Borges collections and wrote numerous articles on the man when he wrote “Borges described to Bioy Casares the outline of one of his finest literary spoofs, ‘Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.'” Let me and the man who made a living writing about Borges alone in our ignorance. Your wisdom is wasted on us. It was so kind of you to provide the corrective though.Report

              • Chris in reply to Ben Sears
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh man, you should have read the piece you got that quote from. it talks about what Borges was spoofing. It doesn’t say that you think it says.

                To be clear, I’m not denying that he’s spoofing; I’m denying what you think he was spoofing, while also pointing it that you don’t actually know anything about what you think he was spoofing).Report

  2. J_A
    Ignored
    says:

    The two translation styles succeed in capturing different aspects of the poems.

    Wibur is better at capturing the rhythm of the poem, while Mezey is more faithful and the meanings are more precise. Mezey gives you the words of Borges, Wilbur gives you better poetry.

    If it was a matter of accuracy, Mezey is a better translator, but traduttore, traditori, as the Italians say. If you want to read poetry, you are likely better off with Wilbur.

    Now, if I wanted to translate the short stories, the answer might be different. Borges is a master of choosing the exact word to convey his very precise idea. I would be scared translating the exquisite nuance of his apparently very simple and colloquial sentences.

    Fortunately, I don’t have toReport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *