Labyrinth

snedeker snedeker at SPAMconcentric.net
Sun Dec 3 16:23:07 MST 2000


I have never been able to get anything from reading Borges, other than just
falling asleep. I agree with Nester that the lack of human emotion is
dominant in his stories. they are very popular with poststructuralists
because of his endless plays with language and the traps of human reason.
these stories are often read as philosophy rather than literature.

I am glad for the departure from political economy on this list. the
superstructure is still relevant  to the reproduction of social relations. I
would like to see more discussions in this direction.

George
----- Original Message -----
From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <Gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Labyrinth


> 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
> Fierro_).
>
> 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 arnet.com.ar
>






More information about the Marxism mailing list