Borges: What is a Writer? 

I’ve been following your channel because of our mutual love for Proust but I must say, I simply adore everything you post on RU-vid. I’m a lawyer from Turkiye and I can’t always find time to read literature as much as I want but your videos always inspire me to do so. I hope you get everything you wish from this platform and please keep posting your serene vlogs :) Here is one of my favourite Borges quotes: “So plant your own gardens and decorate your own soul, instead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers.”

Brilliant video Maria! It was great to hear your take on the story. I 100% agree that Borges is the perfect writer for gently introducing concepts that seem designed to obliterate all sense of normalcy.

I just discovered your channel. This story has fascinated me for years. There is so much to unpack here. Don Quijote is very much about reading and writing indeed. But I'll try not to digress. Instead, I'll try and stick to some sections in your video and write (hopefully) brief comments... "Becoming" an Author: Our modern concept of author and authorship has been longtime in the making, as we know. It's always possible to find precedents in the past. This one is from Jonathan Swift's "Tale of a Tub" (1704), also about reading and writing, and their social and political consequences. Here we are told that in order to fully understand an author's thoughts, one should put oneself "into the circumstances and posture of life that the writer was in upon every important passage as it flowed from his pen, for this will introduce a parity and strict correspondence of ideas between the reader and the author". And to help the reader reproduce the 'circumstances' and 'posture,' he tells her what these were exactly: "the shrewdest pieces of this treatise were conceived in bed in a garret. At other times (for a reason best known to myself) I thought fit to sharpen my invention with hunger, and in general the whole work was begun, continued, and ended under a long course of physic and a great want of money". This is satire, of course, but it shows the idea was a familiar one. To be sure, we can learn as much as we want of the life and writing routines, of, say, Poe, Melville, Plath... but there is only one of each. On the other hand, this knowledge focuses and sharpens our readings, sometimes to the point of limiting them (as a teacher of mine used to say, all interpretations are possible, but not all of them are correct). In short, I believe that in a way the story is about the dilemma (or even the paradox) regarding creation and recreation, or between determinism and free will (the Infinite Monkey Theorem, also satire in my opinion, is about that as well). Authorship Concepts: For me, this should be a central issue in literature, whether you are a professional reader or writer, or not. Whose words are these, for whom are they intended? Where do these words come from, where do they go? The four ways you mention of viewing an author correspond or coincide roughly with these four from Saint Bonaventure (XIII century, quoted by G. Agamben in an introduction to a book by E. Coccia): scriptor, who writes things from other people without adding anything; compilator, who writes things from other people adding things that are not from him; commentator, who writes things from other people treating them as the main thing and adding things from himself in order to clarify things; auctor, who writes things both from himself and other people, but his are the main ones, and those of others are there to confirm his own. Ownership, indeed. In my opinion, the most complex, interesting, and even useful theory of authorship is by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan (1651), to wit, the whole of the first part, all sixteen chapters of it, where the title of the last one (the sixteenth) is "Of Persons, Authors, and things personated". I used it in my BA dissertation somewhat successfully (not everyone was convinced, but I got a commendation for it) to unravel the problem of authorship and readership in the Swift text mentioned above. In a nutshell, the idea is that when we read, we indeed (im)personate the author, thus becoming the owners of the words we read, and consequently and ultimately, also becoming responsible, even accountable, for them. We the readers, not the author. I won't go into any details here, because it would take too long, it was many years ago, and I don't think I would be able to do so. Another book that guided me through this labyrinth was Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, where this personating, impersonating, would be a fusion of sorts of both the Dionysian and Apollonian spirits (I'm begging the question here, I know). Reproducing Don Quijote: This quote is so reminiscent of a very famous one from Cicero about history, so, what's happening here? A conflation of all four ways of being an author? Whose words are these? And let's not forget, the narrator is trying to set the historical record straight. Ah, the Narrator! Who is he? It's amazing how much attention Pierre Ménard gets, and how little the narrator gets. Most people go directly to the philosophical and literary puzzles, and neglect the sociological aspect or context of the story, namely the first part of it. Again, let's not forget that this story was written and published just before the start of World War II. It's also about taking sides, and getting away with it. Or, saying one thing, and thinking the exact opposite of it. A Human, all too human trait, as you put it. Postmodern Ideas &c. Postmodernism, Intertextuality... these are words that I used to pay my respects to. To fetch one more time words that are not my own, "I used to care, but things have changed" (B. Dylan). The palimpsest is a powerful metaphor, very attractive, but isn't it a bit misleading? What about a digital palimpsest? Can there be such a thing? One of the comments here notices that a palimpsest eventually becomes illegible. I wrote as a reply to that comment the following (I apologize for the repetition, although with a few changes): "This reminds me of a quote from Pascal's 'Pensées' (XVII century): [Number 38] 'Deux infinis, milieu. / Quand on lit trop vite ou quand on lit trop doucement, on n'entend rien'. One infinite is all that has ever been read and written; the other one is everything that will ever be read and written; the paper is in the middle, i.e., the milieu". I guess this is me as a commentator. Another comment here mentions Hardy (humans as palimpsests), and very appropriately transcribes the biblical passage about there being nothing new under the sun. Has literature reached its state of maximum entropy? Is originality (or the lack of it, its impossibility) a heat death? There was this book, but for the love of me, I can't remember the name of the author or the title. All I remember is that it was a book critical of postmodern literary criticism by an English writer, and he put this quote from André Gide, if I am not mistaken, at the very beginning, that went somewhat like this (again, this is a memory from many years ago): "Tout ce qu'on dit, a été déjà dit autrefois. Mais, comme personne n'écoute, il faut toujours le dire encore un fois". This is my antidote for the entropic heat death of literature, and art in general. The problem, it seems, is not originality, or even memory or sincerity. The problem is, nobody is listening. Thank you for such an stimulating, informed, and, indeed lucid reading of this short story. Have you read 'El libro de arena' (The book of sand) and 'La biblioteca de Babel' (The library of Babel)? Both by Borges. Another one about not so much readers and writers but critics and artists is El perseguidor by Julio Cortázar (also from Argentina). I apologize for the long comment (it seems it is not good etiquette in these parts), but I thank you specially for getting me to write about these things, again. It's been a while. I guess things are changing once more. P.S. I just watched Nick's video. Great recommendation and great channel. I liked both the common points and the differences as well, very illuminating.

Vielen Dank für dieses Video und die tollen Einblicke - ein doch, wie mir scheint, sehr komplexer Text und ich finde es großartig, wie du ihn auf einzelne Aspekte runterbrichst. Ich teile deine Ansicht, dass die Erkenntnis, dass alles schon einmal gesagt und geschrieben wurde bzw. man nur auf dem, was schon Bestand hat, aufbauen kann, etwas Tröstliches hat. Es ist fast sowas wie ein Sicherheitsnetz, in dem man seinen Platz finden kann und seinen Perfektionismus auf die Seite schieben darf (was manchmal nicht so leicht ist 🙈). Besonders fasziniert aber hat mich auch, dass der Aspekt des Lesens und Schreiben in Don Quijote eine scheinbar relevante Rolle spielt, das macht das Buch auf jeden Fall gleich noch viel interessanter. Lg, Natascha

Greetings from Argentina🇦🇷😊

Borges is just so great. He is essential reading. I think I will read his work over and over throughout my life.

As an Argentine myself it is cool to see some love for the literature here! If you enjoyed Hamsun’s ‘Hunger’ I would recommend reading ‘The Tunnel’ by Argentine writer Ernesto Sabato. Very similar feelings come about in that book.

Great reading. Combination the theory, literature, and facts. Could be that Pierre Menard is an ironic construction of imaginary facts. Cervantes is the history. Menard is the smart game. It's like a play chess with words and ideas 🎉

Thanks 🎉. Brilliant lecture.

What a wonderful video! I have never read Borges but he is definitely high up in my priorities now :) I love love love this style of video, it’s like sitting down with a friend and having a thought session in the loveliest way possible

Love your videos, thank you for uploading!!!

Greetings from the UK 🇬🇧 Great video Maria ,aslo looking very perfect lol 👌🏼😚!!

This was a fascinating video, thank you so much! I really appreciate your educational content. Unfortunately, I won't be studying literature when I start university this fall, but your channel has been very helpful in expanding my knowledge of literature. I would be very interested to learn more about your (critical) approach to texts/how you analyze and engage with fiction on an academic level. So far, I haven't been able to find helpful videos on RU-vid, since most focus on literary devices as opposed to theories and broader narratological questions. I took a few comp lit classes during high school in Germany, and it was very interesting to focus more on theories, processes of figuration, etc. Thank you!!

I find it helpful if one wishes to know about a writer and the craft of writing, an engaged dialogue with the writer, as opposed to reading about the writer, would suffice. Everyone brings something individualistically unique to the table. The idea that anyone can try to emulate the writing style of a classical author, while bold, is also a bit delusional. The most one can do is subject a given work to the art of parody, which is what Cervantes working through the tradition of chivalric Medieval romances coincidentally does in Don Quixote.

Thank you very much for your videos, exploring some ideas. I like that I've found your channel. From my childhood I like reading especially fictions. Not many people around me read books as usually as I read. I'm a Russian and what I want to ask you if you're interested in Russian classic literature(Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Bulgakov etc), could you make some video about our own literature. Thanks^^ P.S. Sorry for my weird English(

♥️

Yesterday I was reading Paul Auster who just died last month here in Brooklyn. He is a postmodernist as well and I found myself asking if I enjoyed the writing because I think of myself as enjoying more grounded works. I did look him up in Wikipedia and they say he was influenced by Kafka and, indeed, Borges. I'm reading "City of Glass" (Volume 1 of the New York Trilogy). I picked it up because I wanted to read a local and living author in lieu of the classics for a change but Auster died last month here in Brooklyn of lung cancer.

Wow❤ i watched it all , dont know if i understood everything😅 , i surely would have supported you if i had the means to , but all i can send is my thanks and my heart❤

EL INMORTAL, MI CUENTO PREFERIDO DEL GENIO. SALUDOS DESDE ARGENTINA.

An Author is someone who portrays thoughts in a way which allows their readers to experience those thoughts and impressions in a clarity that holds the same meaning: or is this simply a supposition and a Hope?!

Have you read Roland Barthes' essay 'The Death of the Author'? It has been much misunderstood, but is a brilliant discussion of the idea of authorship.

Gerard Genette made Transtextualite theory by supporting the idea Palimpsesto in this story from Borges. Palimpsesto. Transtextualite.

If you are like me you know of the mystique of Byron but not the situation and specifics of his life. I recently got schooled on Byron by listening to an episode of The Rest Is History podcast with Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland. Byron was in all sincerity by today's social and political and moral constellation the personification of a 'monster'. Check him out

Did you try to read Borges in spanish? Many people outside of Latinamerica has not done that.

"I tried Stephen Kings writing routine & now I'm severely dependant to illicit substance"

Hi Maria, your hair looks interesting today and very lovely.

I find it striking how people use something being depressing as an argument against it. There’s nothing about that observation that has any real substance but a voicing of emotion. Just because postmodernists point out that literature today is just an echo-chamber and that everything has already been said is not wrong because it is uncomfortable. Of course there could be an argument against that position, but it would have nothing to do with the emotions it illicits.

Using the same piece of paper continuously rapidly and eventually leads to illegibility...

Thank you for the videos; in particular your thoughts on why you read fiction is well done, though I do not concur with everything. I am writing here because I am not wholly certain as to why you think the sentence which begins with 'truth, whose mother is history...' is beautiful (around 17:00; and apparently the author here thinks the idea is 'staggering'), as I do not see the connection between the two ('truth' and 'history'). Further elaboration would be appreciated; perhaps the definition of in particular 'truth' is not shared -- I do not believe the sentence is telling in any way, and I tend to see it as rather indicative of a weak and diluted understanding.