Defining 'classic' and 'literature'

I must agree with JBI's assertion that Animal Farm is so completely an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalin that it almost verges upon a parody. Perhaps this alone will not serve to limit a work of literature's life expectancy... but I will say that it would seem obvious that works which demand a great deal of extraneous knowledge on the part of the reader must offer a reward worthy of the effort. Dante survives... in spite of the demands his work often places upon the reader as a result of the brilliance of the work. It is worth the effort. The Iliad is worth the effort. I suspect that Kafka and Borges will remain worthy of the effort. Animal Farm? I don't think it put forward any ideas that were overly profound or original. I don't remember being overly impressed with the beauty of the writing. And perhaps even more telling... unlike Kafka and Borges I don't see a great number of subsequent writers of real ability looking to Orwell as a major source of inspiration.

By the way... as a huge lover of Borges I am more than aware that he has written allegories of Peron and of Argentinean politics... but I don't recall these as being his strongest works in any sense. If they were... I'd probably be willing to put forth the effort to learn more... just as I willingly went out of my way to learn more on any number of topics ranging from Gnostic "heretics" to the relationship between Borges and Neruda when his strongest work led me in such a direction.

Classics can be divided into:

1. The anceint Greek and Roman literary works
2. The books written in the period and the form of classical literature (which is itself a return to and revival of the ancients
3. The canon determines which is classical which is not, although in the twentieth century the definition of canon chnages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I must agree with JBI's assertion that Animal Farm is so completely an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalin that it almost verges upon a parody. Perhaps this alone will not serve to limit a work of literature's life expectancy... but I will say that it would seem obvious that works which demand a great deal of extraneous knowledge on the part of the reader must offer a reward worthy of the effort. Dante survives... in spite of the demands his work often places upon the reader as a result of the brilliance of the work. It is worth the effort. The Iliad is worth the effort. I suspect that Kafka and Borges will remain worthy of the effort. Animal Farm? I don't think it put forward any ideas that were overly profound or original. I don't remember being overly impressed with the beauty of the writing. And perhaps even more telling... unlike Kafka and Borges I don't see a great number of subsequent writers of real ability looking to Orwell as a major source of inspiration.

---

There goes two different things:

1 - Allegories survive - as any art work - despite the relation with real facts and watnot. That is not the reason why Animal Farm will or not be forgotten. I am also aware that Orwell wrote it as soviet revolution allegory, but luckly, the survival of the work also depends of the interpretation the work and this interpretation is something beyond what the writer wanted. So, being the allegory of Soviet Union is not the real problem. (by the way, I think people will study the soviet union as much we still study the crusades or anything else.)
2 - Animal Farm have or not artistic quality to grant immortality.I think they have. It is a great book in my opinion. (Never thinking that is better than Eneid, Iliad, etc). Bradbury and every single dude who wrote a dystopian novel is coming after Orwell. He is quite influential for someone who wrote so little fiction.

Quote:

---

By the way... as a huge lover of Borges I am more than aware that he has written allegories of Peron and of Argentinean politics... but I don't recall these as being his strongest works in any sense. If they were... I'd probably be willing to put forth the effort to learn more... just as I willingly went out of my way to learn more on any number of topics ranging from Gnostic "heretics" to the relationship between Borges and Neruda when his strongest work led me in such a direction.

---

The Alleph is an allegory of Borges's relationship with Estella Canto (I fail to see how an allegory would cease to be if is regarding someone's personal life or social life). The Babel Library an allegory of his work as librarian.
Intrusa an allegory of the rivalirty in argentina's civil wars. Di Giovanni text about his troubles while translating Borges help out because they deal with the trouble of references to specific argentina terms and events. (Yes, I am aware that when someone writes "Happened during Rosas's regime", he is not exactly making an allegory, but I suggest it because you said you likes borges anyways) My whole point listing Borges and all others is that being an allegory have nothing to do with immortality. I doubt 99% of the readers of St.John book of revelations have any notion about the specific time frame reference (Which leads to all kind of interpreations not related to Nero).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sofia82

Classics can be divided into:

1. The anceint Greek and Roman literary works
2. The books written in the period and the form of classical literature (which is itself a return to and revival of the ancients
3. The canon determines which is classical which is not, although in the twentieth century the definition of canon chnages

---

The Canon does not decide anything - It is just the list of classics, basically, a consequence. What decides is history and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The Canon does not decide anything - It is just the list of classics, basically, a consequence. What decides is history and society.

---

So I have to change it to Classicals determine the Canon, thank you for your correction.

The Alleph is an allegory of Borges's relationship with Estella Canto (I fail to see how an allegory would cease to be if is regarding someone's personal life or social life).

Far more importantly the Aleph was an allegory on Neruda (the poet who sought to put everything into his poems... ala the Cantico General... and quite opposite of Borges own stripped-down aesthetics. Beyond their aesthetic differences Borges was very critical of Neruda's blindness to the abuses of Communism under Stalin... as well as their abuses by various leftist Latin-American leaders. Of course the Aleph was far more. It was also a comment upon infinity, immortality, omnipotence and suggests that such (as he made clear elsewhere in his essays) may be quite insidious concepts not to be so wished for.

The Babel Library an allegory of his work as librarian.

Certainly it is rooted in his love of books and libraries... and as someone who lived in books the library would be an obvious symbol of life and infinity... but on a much larger scale the Library of Babel is an allegory on the concept of infinity... a comment upon man's limited knowledge in an infinite universe... an exploration of the question of the possibility of something being unique or finite (such as the individual human) within an infinite universe. These ideas are far more universal and far more important to an appreciation than any knowledge of Borge's work experience.

Of course Borges does make allusions to his own personal history and the history of Argentina and Latin America... although as he stated in various essays he was not the least interested in being a Latin-American or Argentinean writer through writing primarily of or about those themes. Borges also made many allusions to any number of literary figures (actual writers and their fictional inventions) ranging from Don Quixote, the unknown inventor of the sonnet, Shakespeare, Homer, Gnostic writers, Icelandic bards and Viking warriors, Sherlock Holmes, etc... Indeed, as one of the most well-read writers he assumes a great deal and demands a great deal of his audience... but these demands are rewarded with a aesthetic experience that is worthy of the effort. An allegory... a historical novel... a satire may all become too obscure if the work does not function on a far larger... more "universal" level. There are certainly satirical poems by Pope and Swift (among others) that have become almost unintelligible to all but specialists because they refer to events and persons largely unknown without offering an aesthetic experience great enough to make researching these seem worth the effort. Such has not yet occurred with Animal Farm... but with time I can certainly see it becoming more and more of a period piece.

Bradbury and every single dude who wrote a dystopian novel is coming after Orwell. He is quite influential for someone who wrote so little fiction.

Actually there are quite a few great Dystopian novels before Animal Farm, including H.G. Wells' Time Machine and The Shape of Things to Come, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, any number of works by Kafka, Huxley's Brave New World, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, Karel Čapek's War with the Newts, etc... Of course I am not suggesting that all of these are superior to Animal Farm, but rather questioning the supposition that all the dystopian literature post-Animal Farm was rooted solely in Orwell. I have no doubt that Kafka has had a far more reaching influence upon such than Orwell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Anyways, I would love to chat about the topics of what is literature and art or what is classic, and I do not want to sound nasty to you Anastasija either, but if we think in the intentions of the thread starter, it is bit silly, no. Even if we figure out definitions that are good, that does not mean the discussions in this forum would follow our definitions, actually, considering how much authorities have worked with those questions in the past and they fall in watever people think, we can be sure, nothing will be defined.
We could talk about the sun and the warm day, no?

---

I actually think it's a great thing to discuss - despite the fact the definitions will always vary from one authority to the other - as long as nobody pretends to have the monopoly over truth.
The sun and warm day are great too. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sofia82

So I have to change it to Classicals determine the Canon, thank you for your correction.

---

One good thing about Harold Bloom is that he do know a lot about literature and is totally focused in in the literary merits of the texts. One bad thing is that he ended creating the impression there is an old dude, with long beard, dressed in black burning books that he didn't like, hitting kids with a wood cane saying :
"I am the Cannon, I am the Canon, feed me or I will obliterate you!"

If we shrug and see that the Canon is just a list of books, we are going to see how important is this thing without importance. (And by the way, didn't want to sound like correcting you, I am yoda, you young apprendice, etc. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Far more importantly the Aleph was an allegory on Neruda (the poet who sought to put everything into his poems... ala the Cantico General... and quite opposite of Borges own stripped-down aesthetics. Beyond their aesthetic differences Borges was very critical of Neruda's blindness to the abuses of Communism under Stalin... as well as their abuses by various leftist Latin-American leaders. Of course the Aleph was far more. It was also a comment upon infinity, immortality, omnipotence and suggests that such (as he made clear elsewhere in his essays) may be quite insidious concepts not to be so wished for.

---

Yes, I know there is a bit of irony in the Alleph related to Neruda and mostly, their own Walt Whitmanian take on the universe. But I wonder if we can classify something as blatant as allegory - Borges have a rival who misunderstands the Alleph and is famous. He just is not called Neruda. But the other aspects of the story - He started to write it when he was about to ask Canto to marry him, he ended when their relationship was getting over, He used to label her as his muse, as it is the dead woman, he was seeking a true great work and fealt that without her he would be unable to go on (even the prize of literature that he lost was something that happened with him just recently as well).
Yes, you are right that the theme of The Alleph is neither about Neruda or Canto - that was just one aspect, the allegorical aspect of the text, and with borges, there is always more than one aspect.
Aside this, it is true that Borges was always a critic to the sovietic communism and shards have hit Neruda in the process but funny enough, to borges, Neruda - a second rate romantic poet - was a superior poet in the political poems. I think you confused a little, Borges was the one attacked by Neruda and others for the "blindness" towards the actions of leaders in SA, even because we barelly have lefty governaments here, only in the 60's Chile and Brasil had such leaders and by them, Borges was already famous as "pro-militars, pro-tyrants, etc. Borges refusal to acknowledge the massacre in the early 70's in Buenos Aires is quite famous.

Quote:

---

The Babel Library an allegory of his work as librarian.

Certainly it is rooted in his love of books and libraries... and as someone who lived in books the library would be an obvious symbol of life and infinity... but on a much larger scale the Library of Babel is an allegory on the concept of infinity... a comment upon man's limited knowledge in an infinite universe... an exploration of the question of the possibility of something being unique or finite (such as the individual human) within an infinite universe. These ideas are far more universal and far more important to an appreciation than any knowledge of Borge's work experience.

---

I would not classify the infite as allegory there. It is the infinite even there. But Borges relates how he created it after he started to work in the library, where the books are not marked and when he discovered how the other workers didn't give a damn about it, creating a lack of order that he could barelly understands at first.

Quote:

---

Of course Borges does make allusions to his own personal history and the history of Argentina and Latin America... although as he stated in various essays he was not the least interested in being a Latin-American or Argentinean writer through writing primarily of or about those themes.

---

And that is how a true Argie would say. Argentina, mainly Buenos Aires which is what matters here, was in South American the most european of all cities. They burrowed the culture and having a rich first half of the century they could copy the Europeans better than anyone, turning into a rich city with a great culture (hence the strong reading habit there that was a fertile place for Borges and his generation of great writers). They have that snob way - I am not from SA, just living here.
A funny way to analyse this is studying the history of rivalirity between Brazil and Argentina in football.
Another clue is how Borges dismissed it but also dismissed the impossibity to run from it (For example, saying that all National Writers are not national at all).

Quote:

---

Borges also made many allusions to any number of literary figures (actual writers and their fictional inventions) ranging from Don Quixote, the unknown inventor of the sonnet, Shakespeare, Homer, Gnostic writers, Icelandic bards and Viking warriors, Sherlock Holmes, etc... Indeed, as one of the most well-read writers he assumes a great deal and demands a great deal of his audience... but these demands are rewarded with a aesthetic experience that is worthy of the effort. An allegory... a historical novel... a satire may all become too obscure if the work does not function on a far larger... more "universal" level. There are certainly satirical poems by Pope and Swift (among others) that have become almost unintelligible to all but specialists because they refer to events and persons largely unknown without offering an aesthetic experience great enough to make researching these seem worth the effort. Such has not yet occurred with Animal Farm... but with time I can certainly see it becoming more and more of a period piece.

---

Of course, as I said: What matters is Not if it is an allegory (We are going to find also several works that are not an allegory, but since they are making reference to specific events, they fadded away) but what matters is if the work is good or not.

Quote:

---

Actually there are quite a few great Dystopian novels before Animal Farm, including H.G. Wells' Time Machine and The Shape of Things to Come, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, any number of works by Kafka, Huxley's Brave New World, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, Karel Čapek's War with the Newts, etc... Of course I am not suggesting that all of these are superior to Animal Farm, but rather questioning the supposition that all the dystopian literature post-Animal Farm was rooted solely in Orwell. I have no doubt that Kafka has had a far more reaching influence upon such than Orwell.

---

Yes, that is why I didn't said Orwell invented the dystopian novel. I was thinking more of 1984 since Animal Farm seems to me "how the dystopias come to be" rather than presenting one. But the main dystopian model is 1984 - Bradbury who knew all others, name it for example, as model of Fahrenheit 451 (which is maybe the best dystopian work we have after the 50's, considering both the book or the movie) and of course, not just in Orwell, as Brave New World will have influence every time the critics is rooted on consumism.
Kafka, of course, have more influence than Orwell in anything. (Close to Kafka, Borges, Joyce and a few others, Orwell is a minor writer, but this does mean he won't have his immortality).
Anyways, just see how Animal Farm have rooted his place in western culture despite the soviet relation because Orwell did a very good work there - from the option to use a fable (with great competence), using pigs as the "evil", creating sittuations for the characters (the horse trio for example, are lively as any character in the world) and the precision and efficience of the slogan "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" which I am sure will be repeated over and over, for any sittuation where democracy (and not the soviet regim) fails to treat with equality. I am sure you have seen it used in this context. That is one of the smells of immortality in my opinion and all because of Orwell talent.

JCamilo, your reading of Animal Farm seems to be a little basic, and your reading of Borges seems to be too focused on politics. Borges himself said he tried not to use any neologisms and complicated language as a way of not rooting his work in the period he was writing them in. You also seem to suggest that all of Borges' stories, if not any of them, will survive. I doubt very much that they will be read for political overtones, and think they will simply just be read for their themes on the human condition and the universe.

Orwell on the other hand will probably survive for his essays and for 1984. As it is, We is probably the best dystopian novel, and the first, and seems truer and more original than anything Orwell cooked up. Some things in 1984 seem to be borrowed, if not stolen from We, to the point of near-plagiarism. Orwell just has the striking ability to be quoted without being read, as he was quite fashionable for such activity in the previous generation, and that obsession seems to have carried down to this generation. Big Brother is in every text book on politics starting at the high school level. It is inevitable that kids will appear to have read more Orwell than they actually have, if they are being fed Orwell for breakfast. His sales do not even come close to the number of people who quote, and often misquote, him, showing a thick margin of pretend-readers.

I think you confused a little, Borges was the one attacked by Neruda and others for the "blindness" towards the actions of leaders in SA, even because we barelly have lefty governaments here, only in the 60's Chile and Brasil had such leaders and by them, Borges was already famous as "pro-militars, pro-tyrants, etc. Borges refusal to acknowledge the massacre in the early 70's in Buenos Aires is quite famous.

I certainly don't think that Borges was ever pro-military or pro-tryrants. He signed any number of pro-democracy petitions, wrote numerous pro-democracy essays, and openly denounced the very concept of dictatorships: "Dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." He also openly spoke out against antisemitism and the support of the Nazis (I, a Jew, A Pedaogogy of Hatred, A disturbing Exposition, Definition of a Germanophile, etc...) that existed in a great deal of the Argentine society, press, and among the literati... this in spite of being a well-known lover of German culture. Later, Borges was unable to ignore the hypocrisy of those who railed against Anglo-American abuses and the despots that they supported while ignoring the very real and more horrific abuses that occurred with Communism... in the Soviet Union and abroad. Undoubtedly he had his blind spots and misunderstandings/misinterpretations of certain leaders, but never politicized his art anywhere near to the point of Neruda... to his detriment.

Criticism of Borges took the form of his being called "Jewish" (ie. not purely Argentinean enough) by those pro-German fascism and anti-Anglo-American. He was also criticized as creating literature that was not rooted in the real world, that focused to much on abstract themes and concepts as opposed to the lives of real men and women in Argentina. His writings were dismissed as too experimental and too strongly influenced by non-Argentine sources (Anglo-Saxon, Latin, German, American, Arabic, etc... literature). Most of the criticism came from leftist sources... including Neruda... who felt that Borges was the artist living outside reality in his proverbial ivory tower (or library, in Borges' case). Borges countered in his essay entitled The Author and Tradition, that the very absence of camels in the Koran was proof enough that it was an Arabian work, inferring that only someone trying to write an "Arab" work would purposefully include a camel thus suggesting that his exploration of universal existential concerns was just as Argentine as writing about gauchos and tangos (both of which he also did). Both Borges and Neruda have survived due to their production of equally brilliant work, but Neruda certainly comes off the worse in his work when it does become openly politicized. The pro-Communist/Stalinist portions of the Canto General are certainly the most embarrassing.

I would not classify the infite as allegory there. It is the infinite even there. But Borges relates how he created it after he started to work in the library, where the books are not marked and when he discovered how the other workers didn't give a damn about it, creating a lack of order that he could barelly understands at first.

That may have been the initial impetus of the work... but the source of inspiration and what a work of art eventually becomes are not necessarily one and the same. The Library of Babel is most certainly an allegory of the infinite... of man's struggle to find order and sense within the infinite... of the almost comic absurdity and certitude of failure of these efforts. He speaks of the search for that one book... the catalog of the library... which undoubtedly is the search for the one book (religious? scientific?) which will explain the universe. There are battles between men of opposing beliefs and differing regions... and there is the very opening sentence, which should be a clue as to Borges' intentions, "The Universe (which others call the Library)..." Again, the idea to utilize the library as such a symbol may have grown out of Borges' personal work experience (as well as his obsessive reading habits), but these need not be known to fully understand the symbolic allusions. This is less true of a work such as Animal Farm.

Orwell is a minor writer, but this does mean he won't have his immortality.

But in the long run that is exactly what being a minor writer means. certainly I have far more modern literature on my shelves than I do literature of any other period. There is less of 19th century literature and far less from the Renaissance. As time goes by only the strongest works survive. The rest is relegated to the specialists. Certainly there must have been far more writers of real talent writing in Italy at the same time as Dante, Boccaccio, and Cavalcanti... but who else is still read? (And even Cavalcanti is not a household name even among some of the most well-read.) When future generations select the literature of the 20th century that remains "essential" just how highly will Animal Farm rank on that list considering all the other possibilities?

We is probably the best dystopian novel, and the first, and seems truer and more original than anything Orwell cooked up. Some things in 1984 seem to be borrowed, if not stolen from We, to the point of near-plagiarism. Orwell just has the striking ability to be quoted without being read, as he was quite fashionable for such activity in the previous generation, and that obsession seems to have carried down to this generation. Big Brother is in every text book on politics starting at the high school level. It is inevitable that kids will appear to have read more Orwell than they actually have, if they are being fed Orwell for breakfast. His sales do not even come close to the number of people who quote, and often misquote, him, showing a thick margin of pretend-readers.

Of course Orwell also had the "advantage" of writing in English while Zamyatin was banned by the Soviet censors and eventually allowed to emigrate to France. The book, which exists in draft form in 1919 (and was banned by official censors in 1921) was not published until 1924, in New York. Orwell has openly admitted to having been deeply inspired by the book. I must read this one again. Its been a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

JCamilo, your reading of Animal Farm seems to be a little basic,

---

I found funny you trying to imply that my reading is basic while my critic to you is that your interpretation of Animal Farm is basic.

Quote:

---

and your reading of Borges seems to be too focused on politics.

---

Muah, If you consider this very little (where the topic of allegory is brought) to represent all my readings of Borges, You do seem to have a problem of not understand to the context of this discussion. There is no point to deal with others topics of Borges if I was pointing to you that borges wrote allegorical works with relation to political/historical facts since you seem to have ignored it in your post. I mean, stlukesguild clearly moved this discussion ahead because he reckonize it.

Quote:

---

Borges himself said he tried not to use any neologisms and complicated language as a way of not rooting his work in the period he was writing them in.

---

neologism such as those by Joyce. Borges used a considerable ammount of specific language of Argentina when he dealt with the appropriate themes and one of his biggest critics to Martin Fierro and other of the texts gauchos was the lack of real language. But this of course is only possible if you read borges in the original.

Quote:

---

You also seem to suggest that all of Borges' stories, if not any of them, will survive. I doubt very much that they will be read for political overtones, and think they will simply just be read for their themes on the human condition and the universe.

---

I have no idea where you got this idea that all this stories will survive. I only listed 3, all of them among the best of Borges, so good options of what will survive of Borges. (Besides the obvious since the guy essays already survive on their own) - and I never said they will be read by the political tones - altough Borges was read a lot like that - and that is exaclty what I am arguing about Animal Farm while you insist only those with familiarity with the soviet revolution will read it I argue several Stories survive despite the History.

Quote:

---

Orwell on the other hand will probably survive for his essays and for 1984. As it is, We is probably the best dystopian novel, and the first, and seems truer and more original than anything Orwell cooked up. Some things in 1984 seem to be borrowed, if not stolen from We, to the point of near-plagiarism. Orwell just has the striking ability to be quoted without being read, as he was quite fashionable for such activity in the previous generation, and that obsession seems to have carried down to this generation. Big Brother is in every text book on politics starting at the high school level. It is inevitable that kids will appear to have read more Orwell than they actually have, if they are being fed Orwell for breakfast. His sales do not even come close to the number of people who quote, and often misquote, him, showing a thick margin of pretend-readers.

---

I doubt and I already have give the example about the the "All animals are equal.." that is as popular as the term Big Brother and used everywhere, not just with relation with sovietic union because the universaility of the ideas in Animal farm (which is how allegories survive anyways).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

I certainly don't think that Borges was ever pro-military or pro-tryrants. He signed any number of pro-democracy petitions, wrote numerous pro-democracy essays, and openly denounced the very concept of dictatorships: "Dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." He also openly spoke out against antisemitism and the support of the Nazis (I, a Jew, A Pedaogogy of Hatred, A disturbing Exposition, Definition of a Germanophile, etc...) that existed in a great deal of the Argentine society, press, and among the literati... this in spite of being a well-known lover of German culture. Later, Borges was unable to ignore the hypocrisy of those who railed against Anglo-American abuses and the despots that they supported while ignoring the very real and more horrific abuses that occurred with Communism... in the Soviet Union and abroad. Undoubtedly he had his blind spots and misunderstandings/misinterpretations of certain leaders, but never politicized his art anywhere near to the point of Neruda... to his detriment.

---

Borges was pro-militar in one sense, and that was a romantic sense. In a country from Latin America there is nothing romantic about militars. Borges was indeed the first to attack Nazism (consider that Argentina was almost pro-nazi during that time) and I am certain he was no favorable of the tyrants and all abuse. But Borges was almost naive when dealing with humans, supporting militars just because they throwed Peron out (who Borges really hated) and you know... Borges is what we could call aristocratic (in the literary sense), surpoting Carlyle quotes about democracy didn't helped him much and he was heavily accused of being pro-militars. Of course, being the most important intelectual of Latian America, during the cold war period where other intelectuals are "supposed" to have a side (Sartre, Neruda Himself for example) was seem (wrongly) as supporting the sittuation.
He had more fame for this that anything else, and that is what I am saying and mostly likely reason of his non-nobel nomination.

Quote:

---

Criticism of Borges took the form of his being called "Jewish" (ie. not purely Argentinean enough) by those pro-German fascism and anti-Anglo-American. He was also criticized as creating literature that was not rooted in the real world, that focused to much on abstract themes and concepts as opposed to the lives of real men and women in Argentina. His writings were dismissed as too experimental and too strongly influenced by non-Argentine sources (Anglo-Saxon, Latin, German, American, Arabic, etc... literature). Most of the criticism came from leftist sources... including Neruda... who felt that Borges was the artist living outside reality in his proverbial ivory tower (or library, in Borges' case). Borges countered in his essay entitled The Author and Tradition, that the very absence of camels in the Koran was proof enough that it was an Arabian work, inferring that only someone trying to write an "Arab" work would purposefully include a camel thus suggesting that his exploration of universal existential concerns was just as Argentine as writing about gauchos and tangos (both of which he also did). Both Borges and Neruda have survived due to their production of equally brilliant work, but Neruda certainly comes off the worse in his work when it does become openly politicized. The pro-Communist/Stalinist portions of the Canto General are certainly the most embarrassing.

---

You know, I think Borges was lying about the Camels (he did it once or while, fair game I think) because I once read a portuguese translation of Koran and there was a camel there. Anyways, I agree with Borges point - Much of the pressure was to him to have a side during that world of two-sides and to Borges world was slightly more complicated. I understand also - Ernesto Sábato, another good writer who had difficulties with Borges, later in a joint interview with Borges said to him "you are a writer for writers.", placing Borges in a level of writing that would give him his ivory tower. An Intelectual.
I also prefer Neruda when he was romantic and his ode to Stalin is awful. But I saw Borges saying that and sometimes I wonder if he was trully doing a criticism, if he saw something I can not see or if it was another of Borges Jokes. (Btw, in terms of poetry, I think Fernando Pessoa surpassed both, even in his Walt Whitmanism).

Quote:

---

That may have been the initial impetus of the work... but the source of inspiration and what a work of art eventually becomes are not necessarily one and the same.

---

Of course not, but still an allegory of his library. But again, Allegory is a form, what the text became is always something else.

Quote:

---

The Library of Babel is most certainly an allegory of the infinite... of man's struggle to find order and sense within the infinite... of the almost comic absurdity and certitude of failure of these efforts. He speaks of the search for that one book... the catalog of the library... which undoubtedly is the search for the one book (religious? scientific?) which will explain the universe. There are battles between men of opposing beliefs and differing regions... and there is the very opening sentence, which should be a clue as to Borges' intentions, "The Universe (which others call the Library)..." Again, the idea to utilize the library as such a symbol may have grown out of Borges' personal work experience (as well as his obsessive reading habits), but these need not be known to fully understand the symbolic allusions. This is less true of a work such as Animal Farm.

---

Yes, Yes. Borges, as I said, is in a level on his own. I really think only Joyce managed a literary work with such power and ambition (as much borges is not ambitious) in the XX century. I am not comparing the quality of both, Borges is superior and all.
An allegory can have more than one meaning. He used labyrinth (a library) for the universe before (other use of his symbolism is using a Book), they are all part of a system of symbolism that we can classify as borgesian. But here enters the allegory - The Library is not just any library (any library is the infinite) but also his own library. Depths and depths in borges allegories.

Quote:

---

Orwell is a minor writer, but this does mean he won't have his immortality.

But in the long run that is exactly what being a minor writer means. certainly I have far more modern literature on my shelves than I do literature of any other period. There is less of 19th century literature and far less from the Renaissance. As time goes by only the strongest works survive. The rest is relegated to the specialists. Certainly there must have been far more writers of real talent writing in Italy at the same time as Dante, Boccaccio, and Cavalcanti... but who else is still read? (And even Cavalcanti is not a household name even among some of the most well-read.) When future generations select the literature of the 20th century that remains "essential" just how highly will Animal Farm rank on that list considering all the other possibilities?

---

[/QUOTE]

As minor I am already ignoring all those who will be forgotten. Minor as George Bernard Shaw, H.G.Wells, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Rousseau, Petronio are minors when compared to Joyce, Woolf, Dickinson, Poe, Voltaire or Horace.
I think it will survive, but are we prophets ?