Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at
Sun Dec 3 14:10:27 MST 2000

En relación a Labyrinth,
el 3 Dec 00, a las 4:27, Dennis R Redmond dijo:

> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
> > There is a mistake here. Neruda was a man, Borges was an empty container
> > with the shape of a man.
> Aesthetics has never, ever correlated directly with politics; often,
> politically reactionary artists have the most acute insight into the
> society around them, due to the fact that they're out of step with the
> times (e.g. Balzac, Eliot, Pound, etc.).

Believe me, Dennis, I absolutely concur with the above.

> Borges wrote nifty, intriguing
> stories, somewhat similar to Kafka's parables; I personally find them to
> be wonderful allegories of alienation, a hall of mirrors which refracts
> the grim truth of Argentine comprador capitalism -- which was, then and
> now, trapped in the endless labyrinth of neocolonialism.

Well, that is an interpretation. But I don't share it. Any so-called artist who
is waiting for any trace of feeling to show up, in order to shoot it down, is
not exactly an artist to my taste. I will not comment here the infamous
writings of Borges (a betrayal both to beauty and to truth) on the Argentinean
people (if you are interested, please read "La fiesta del monstruo", or his
indigerible analysis of that epic and revolutionarian poem, the _Martín

There are other, much more valuable, oligarchic artists in Argentina, such as
the first Mallea, Victoria Ocampo herself, or Mujica Láinez (so terribly an
oligarch: during the early months of the Junta regime, Mujica Láinez received a
niece of his -who was being chased by the military- in his manorial house in La
Cumbre, Córdoba Hills;  the situation was desperate, but he managed to teach
this relative the simple truths of class rule by thoroughly abusing the service
personnel in the house, in a way that had never been his, while she was on
hiding there!).  The problem with Borges is that he could never live _his own
life_, and thus his art can never be _true to a living_ in the sense that there
is not a _true living_ to which his creations could stick.

I understand that many people are amazed at the immense abilities of Borges
(I am the first to acknowledge them), what I mean is that he could almost
never (save for some of his first writings, when he was still more free)
_express_ anything he _actually felt_.  I am not insisting on the "fundamental
identity of aesthetic ideology and political praxis", much to the contrary. I
do not care a shit about Borges's "political praxis" when I am talking about
his production. I am sticking to that production. It is false to the marrow,
and will not endure the test of time.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list