Borges' Reputation

[Extollager]

I've read and enjoyed quite a bit of Borges' writing since about 1975.

When I read a Borges story I have been entertained for the duration and I may admire the various literary skills that have been displayed. For example, the irony, in "The Aleph," that this miraculous object is used as a resource for a vain and mediocre poet is a brilliant idea. The story is one of the 20th century's great short fantasies.

But I wonder if, mostly, Borges is basically just a clever and deft fantasist. A major writer, as opposed to outstanding fantasist? I doubt that, but I will be interested in seeing if others want to make a case for Borges as of genuine literary importance (aside from the question of possible extensive "influence").

 

[Stephen Palmer]

As a keen fan of Borges, I must say that I see no difference between "outstanding fantasist" and "major writer." It is possible to be both. For instance, his story 'Funes The Memorious'.

 

[Connavar]

I have not read alot Borges but it clear to see he is a major writer of huge literary importance. He is not overrated like other so called modern important authors.
He is one of those writers that can write anything fantastic or not and be classic, modern great.

 

[nomadman]

Borges's reputation is utterly justified. He was one of the 20th century's most outstanding short story writers, a major fantasist, and a writer of major literary importance.

 

[Extollager]

Well, I already knew that lots of us like Borges, but can no one make a case that he is a major writer rather than exceptionally clever fantasist-entertainer -- or is that good enough to make him "major" for you? I'm not proposing a description or definition of "major" -- readers may have their own notions of what makes a writer "major." I'm just after something more objective than "I really like these stories" and "I believe that he has influenced lots of other writers."

I guess that part of what I'm getting at seems to relate to this, that people say they like Borges all the time, or he's great, etc., but nobody seems to do anything much with his writing or say anything much about it.

When my interest in Borges was at its height, I did three things: (1) read a lot of Borges, (2), write one or more stories that were "influenced" by him, and (3) write a term paper, since I had to, comparing Borges and Lovecraft. To which last the professor who read it said, as I recall, "Aside from the fact that there is no purpose [or "need," or some such word] for this paper, it is pretty good." Which I thought was actually pretty fair.

 

[j d worthington]

Dale: Who was the professor?

 

[Extollager]

Dale: Who was the professor?

I've responded to JDW's query privately.

 

[BAYLOR]

I discovered Jorge Luis Borges courtesy of the Introduction in the Harlan Ellison's Anthology Angry Candy. I wan out and picked the book Labyrinths and I could not put the book down . He amazing and unlike anyone else ive ever read. My advice to anyone whose never read him, go out and by a book his stories !

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Seconded.

 

[BAYLOR]

Seconded.

My hope is, that alot more people discover him.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

He's extraordinary inasmuch as each of his pieces is a thought experiment, and often a philosophical working out of the conclusions of that thought experiment -- for example, "Pierre Menard." From this point of view, his nonfiction is as entertaining as his fiction, and much of his work actively works at dissolving the boundary between the two. This is often combined with a subdued but intense lyricism and with nearly perfect literary concision, making these "fictionalized essays" also into prose poems. He's really like no one else, and no imitator has ever come close to him. One of the truly great writers of the 20th century. How anyone could think of him as just an entertainer or a clever fantasist is beyond me.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

The closest thing to his work I've ever read is Georges Perec's beautiful short story, "The Winter Journey." (Available in English translation in his book Species of Spaces.) Pretty close (though not as close as the Perec), and also incredibly beautiful, is Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities.

 

[CTRandall]

I second @tegeus-Cromis Borges often blurs the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction, smudging the lines of the protective pentagrams that keep the summonings of one world from escaping into the other. His Book of Imaginary Beings, for example, is a genre unto itself: a bestiary of non-fiction essays about entirely fictional creatures which serves as both comment upon and mirror to human culture and behaviour. Few authors can pull so many different threads together to weave a coherent, compelling and thought-provoking tapestry.

 

[Star-child]

I had always understood Borges as being, if anything, magic realism. Not fantasy. I don't say that to reject Borges' as a type of fantasy, but just to point out that fantasy fans are unlikely to see Borges' as an example of the genre.

As such, his writings are simply unique - neither failing nor matching the specifications of any particular genre or style. That makes it rather proof against any sort of dismissal.

 

[hitmouse]

I had always understood Borges as being, if anything, magic realism. Not fantasy. I don't say that to reject Borges' as a type of fantasy, but just to point out that fantasy fans are unlikely to see Borges' as an example of the genre.

As such, his writings are simply unique - neither failing nor matching the specifications of any particular genre or style. That makes it rather proof against any sort of dismissal.

There is a difference between discribing someone as a fantasist ( see the op) and saying that they are a genre fantasy writer. Likewise, there are many fantasies that are not "genre" fantasy (whatever that means.)

 

[Star-child]

There is a difference between discribing someone as a fantasist ( see the op) and saying that they are a genre fantasy writer. Likewise, there are many fantasies that are not "genre" fantasy (whatever that means.)

What is that difference? What is the strict definition of "fantasist"?

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

Not a "strict" definition, but here's what it sounds like to me:

"Fantasist" -- one who writes fantasy

"Genre fantasy writer" -- one whose work gets sold in the Fantasy section of bookstores.

As far as Borges goes, I would classify him as unique, or nearly so. One of the few authors of fiction whose works remind me of elegant mathematical proofs.

 

[Star-child]

Not a "strict" definition, but here's what it sounds like to me:

"Fantasist" -- one who writes fantasy

"Genre fantasy writer" -- one whose work gets sold in the Fantasy section of bookstores.

As far as Borges goes, I would classify him as unique, or nearly so. One of the few authors of fiction whose works remind me of elegant mathematical proofs.

Thank you, Victoria. That was exactly how I was looking at this. Borges was not a fantasist because his output is not fantasy.

I love the comparison to proofs.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

his output is not fantasy.

I don't really agree with that. What else could "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius," "The Library of Babel," "The Aleph" or "The Zahir" be classified as, if not as fantasy?

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

(Which, I should add, doesn't make him any less unique.)