It has been suggested that the text is referencing Borges’ relationship with his father. Shortly before Borges wrote “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote”, his father died. Both father and son admired each other. It is also noteworthy that Borges had received a head injury between the bereavement and writing the text.
I think that the text becomes the new Quixote itself.
In Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Alonso Quixano is a retired man obsessed with acts of chivalry. In a deluded manner, he calls himself Don Quixote de la Mancha and sets out on adventures to prove his belief of self-heroism, by fighting fictitious enemies.
A parallel can be drawn upon Borges’ character Pierre Menard. Both characters, Quixote and Menard, cite imaginary accounts of their doings and rationale. In the narrative reality, their delusions are both dismissed, but often backed up by ones who show concern. The list of Menard’s personal files may be a kin to Quixote’s recollections of tales of gallantry. For example, as Quixote fights what he sees as giants, they are in actuality windmills. So for Menard’s heavyweight texts, they may be considered scribbling of a mad man. Another parallel is that of Menard’s Countess de Bacourt, an advocate of Menard’s work, could be considered to be Cervantes’ or rather Quixote’s Dulcinea del Toboso, a farm girl elevated in status and renamed by Quixote to raise his deluded ego.
The question I have left from my initial thoughts on this text is, whom is Borges relating himself to the Cervantes book. Is he Cervantes himself? Or is he (which is my preferred line of enquiry), Sancho Panza, the realist who goes along with Quixote’s imaginary account of encounters, but knows Quixote’s view or interpretation is far from factual.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Mandy Sellers _ Lecture 1
Blog post to Lecture 1
Talk about a Hypertext story! This essay required a lot of crosschecking Wikapedia, google lanuguage tools, and dictionary.com to understand what Borges was on about. Had I read this back in 1939 when it was published, well, I couldn’t have if I only had my current knowledge.
To me this essay was about two things; first, the authoring of a fake essay and the blaming of Madame Henri Bachelier in vicious way for making an error not to mention Pierre Menard’s work on Quixote and miss noting some other works. Second, the philosophical point to be made about one’s work never being original, or at least the only thing original about it is the context of the reader.
So, why didn’t Borges just write an essay about the latter? My guess is that would not get the point home. He’d be just another academic saying “I think this…”, ie, having little impact, not very memorable, even a bit ho-hum boring. Now, to really get this idea across how about presenting as written by someone nobody knows because they are of course fictional. That means no one can interpret that work with the author in mind, leaving out that bit of connotation. So, that’s pretty clever really, to be talking about perspective as the only original part of a literary work, then to make sure you’re way of communicating is a twist on perspective via a fake essay.
The first part is striking because of how critical the essay is of Madame Henri Bachelier and the newspaper that is accused of misrepresenting Pierre Menard’s “visible” literary works in what I am guessing Menard’s obituary. I mean, he really drags her and the paper through the mud! And, really, the essay’s point is to talk about the non-visible work of Menard. Then he goes on to point out two highly regarded ladies who back him, justifying and adding credibility to his claims. Again we see the implications of context; he says his authority is easily challenged but apparently theirs is not. (But to me, a 21st century reader, they have no more authority than the fictional author.) I guess this is more clearly demonstrated later in the essay (p5):
“In spite of these three obstacles, Menard’s fragmentary Quixote is more subtle than Cervantes’. The latter, in a clumsy fashion, opposes to the fictions of chivalry the tawdry provincial reality of his country; Menard selects as his “reality” the land of Carmen during the century of Lepanto and Lope de Vega.”
So, it just depends on who’s reading it, if these two ladies are more credible than the author!
Then after this is the list of visible works; very deep and heavy stuff with monographs of historical polymaths and a few sonnets for the two afore mentioned ladies. This gives the reader an idea that Menard was to be taken seriously as an author and I guess that the two ladies were his patrons.
So, with all that said, the role of representation of identity I think relates to the idea he’s trying to get across, that identity will affect how someone views your work. I think he uses the list of works as a way to get the reader thinking about things related to the point of this essay. He name drops tons of philosophers and polymaths, each known for some new way of thinking. So, it’s a bit of trickery there, getting the reader to recall Raymond Lully’s debating tool for winning over Muslims to Christianity through logic… and so on to influence how the reader is thinking before they get to the big philosophical argument on perspective and originality.
As far as authenticity goes, this type of writing was at the time innovative, but again there is the paradox that no writing is really original, that all is pastiche – every story or piece of art is made up of bits and pieces of other works, and that the only original part is the paradigm and cultural climate one views it from.
Dissemination and production and really, readership of this essay back in 1939 would’ve been quite limited. Borges wrote for literary journals and if you didn’t read that journal you weren’t going to see it. And, like I mentioned before, you’d have to be uber-knowledgeable to read it or else, even if you managed to have it in hand you wouldn’t understand it.
Finally, authorship seems to play two roles. First, this is a fake essay and even some fake authors are given. Next, the listing of the works… well, it’s the one work that has no physical evidence left behind that is the greatest piece. I guess the point is you read an author’s story but you author your own story of their story by merely reading it from your point of view. (wow. Pretty deep! Lol)
Talk about a Hypertext story! This essay required a lot of crosschecking Wikapedia, google lanuguage tools, and dictionary.com to understand what Borges was on about. Had I read this back in 1939 when it was published, well, I couldn’t have if I only had my current knowledge.
To me this essay was about two things; first, the authoring of a fake essay and the blaming of Madame Henri Bachelier in vicious way for making an error not to mention Pierre Menard’s work on Quixote and miss noting some other works. Second, the philosophical point to be made about one’s work never being original, or at least the only thing original about it is the context of the reader.
So, why didn’t Borges just write an essay about the latter? My guess is that would not get the point home. He’d be just another academic saying “I think this…”, ie, having little impact, not very memorable, even a bit ho-hum boring. Now, to really get this idea across how about presenting as written by someone nobody knows because they are of course fictional. That means no one can interpret that work with the author in mind, leaving out that bit of connotation. So, that’s pretty clever really, to be talking about perspective as the only original part of a literary work, then to make sure you’re way of communicating is a twist on perspective via a fake essay.
The first part is striking because of how critical the essay is of Madame Henri Bachelier and the newspaper that is accused of misrepresenting Pierre Menard’s “visible” literary works in what I am guessing Menard’s obituary. I mean, he really drags her and the paper through the mud! And, really, the essay’s point is to talk about the non-visible work of Menard. Then he goes on to point out two highly regarded ladies who back him, justifying and adding credibility to his claims. Again we see the implications of context; he says his authority is easily challenged but apparently theirs is not. (But to me, a 21st century reader, they have no more authority than the fictional author.) I guess this is more clearly demonstrated later in the essay (p5):
“In spite of these three obstacles, Menard’s fragmentary Quixote is more subtle than Cervantes’. The latter, in a clumsy fashion, opposes to the fictions of chivalry the tawdry provincial reality of his country; Menard selects as his “reality” the land of Carmen during the century of Lepanto and Lope de Vega.”
So, it just depends on who’s reading it, if these two ladies are more credible than the author!
Then after this is the list of visible works; very deep and heavy stuff with monographs of historical polymaths and a few sonnets for the two afore mentioned ladies. This gives the reader an idea that Menard was to be taken seriously as an author and I guess that the two ladies were his patrons.
So, with all that said, the role of representation of identity I think relates to the idea he’s trying to get across, that identity will affect how someone views your work. I think he uses the list of works as a way to get the reader thinking about things related to the point of this essay. He name drops tons of philosophers and polymaths, each known for some new way of thinking. So, it’s a bit of trickery there, getting the reader to recall Raymond Lully’s debating tool for winning over Muslims to Christianity through logic… and so on to influence how the reader is thinking before they get to the big philosophical argument on perspective and originality.
As far as authenticity goes, this type of writing was at the time innovative, but again there is the paradox that no writing is really original, that all is pastiche – every story or piece of art is made up of bits and pieces of other works, and that the only original part is the paradigm and cultural climate one views it from.
Dissemination and production and really, readership of this essay back in 1939 would’ve been quite limited. Borges wrote for literary journals and if you didn’t read that journal you weren’t going to see it. And, like I mentioned before, you’d have to be uber-knowledgeable to read it or else, even if you managed to have it in hand you wouldn’t understand it.
Finally, authorship seems to play two roles. First, this is a fake essay and even some fake authors are given. Next, the listing of the works… well, it’s the one work that has no physical evidence left behind that is the greatest piece. I guess the point is you read an author’s story but you author your own story of their story by merely reading it from your point of view. (wow. Pretty deep! Lol)
Friday, January 16, 2009
Paul D. Found / Lecture 1
The Borges piece actually left me with more questions than answers but that counts as reflection too.
The first thing that struck me was - why? Why write a review of a work that does not exist, by a person who does not exist? Was it a piece intended as a "joke" just to amuse Borges himself, or was the intention to hoodwink people into believing Menard and his version of Quixote? Was it doing this that amused Borges?
Was Borges just mocking those who believed what he wrote to be true, or those who take what they are told or read at face value? A modern parallel that came to mind was the start of their film Fargo, which states it is "Based On A True Story" even though it is not.
Was Borges being satirical by attacking critic's pretentiousness, or was in attacking the power critics have to decide what is valid art?
With regard to Digital Cultures, perhaps Borges was suggesting that the imitation or fake version of a work becomes "the thing" rather than the original. This could apply to remakes of films, cover versions of songs, and to digitally created and reproduced artworks. This questions the authorship of the original creative work.
Is Borges commenting on the context of the work being most important? Would Don Quixote still be regarded as a masterpiece if it was written "now"?
Addendum
I still stand by everything I said. Barthes' "Death of the Author" says the same thing much better...
The first thing that struck me was - why? Why write a review of a work that does not exist, by a person who does not exist? Was it a piece intended as a "joke" just to amuse Borges himself, or was the intention to hoodwink people into believing Menard and his version of Quixote? Was it doing this that amused Borges?
Was Borges just mocking those who believed what he wrote to be true, or those who take what they are told or read at face value? A modern parallel that came to mind was the start of their film Fargo, which states it is "Based On A True Story" even though it is not.
Was Borges being satirical by attacking critic's pretentiousness, or was in attacking the power critics have to decide what is valid art?
With regard to Digital Cultures, perhaps Borges was suggesting that the imitation or fake version of a work becomes "the thing" rather than the original. This could apply to remakes of films, cover versions of songs, and to digitally created and reproduced artworks. This questions the authorship of the original creative work.
Is Borges commenting on the context of the work being most important? Would Don Quixote still be regarded as a masterpiece if it was written "now"?
Addendum
I still stand by everything I said. Barthes' "Death of the Author" says the same thing much better...
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Max Armstrong: Lecture 1
Although the reading is a piece of fiction, it is written as an authentic account of the author Menard’s rewriting of the ‘Don Quixote’ story, that even includes fictional references from aristocratic sources. But Borges writes with authority, as if he respectfully knows and is familiar with both the author and the writing process of the fictional account. Borges suggests that Menard’s story is superior to the original, as it was more difficult to write, but the quotes are exactly the same. It suggests that a piece of literature needs to be read in context of when it was written and when it is read.
I actually found it quite difficult to read as I found it very confusing. As I read it I felt that I should be looking up these references even though I knew they were fictional.
In the context of digitalisation it made me question whether the digitalisation of a piece of artwork, for example a painting, could be considered a new artwork, or only a copy, or perhaps a facsimile of the original. I can only suggest that it depends on the context. If a print is considered an artwork in its own right, what about a digital artefact? Digital copies of old masters can reveal details lost to the naked eye, so does that add or detract from the painting?
My interpretation has changed a little, understanding the wider context helps my understanding. Knowing that the joke is not just on me helps.
I actually found it quite difficult to read as I found it very confusing. As I read it I felt that I should be looking up these references even though I knew they were fictional.
In the context of digitalisation it made me question whether the digitalisation of a piece of artwork, for example a painting, could be considered a new artwork, or only a copy, or perhaps a facsimile of the original. I can only suggest that it depends on the context. If a print is considered an artwork in its own right, what about a digital artefact? Digital copies of old masters can reveal details lost to the naked eye, so does that add or detract from the painting?
My interpretation has changed a little, understanding the wider context helps my understanding. Knowing that the joke is not just on me helps.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Amanda Moffat / Lecture 1
After reading 'Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote' (1939) by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986), my initial thoughts were that it was a confusing text to read, with very elaborate, highly academic and in places contradictory language, that seemed to be trying to disguise the truth. The mention of two members of the aristocracy that have supposedly verified this work adds to the deception, giving his story additional authority and authenticity. In addition, you are led to believe that the narrator/reviewer knows the writer personally as he includes quotes from direct correspondence to support his claims.
The truth is that this review is fiction and the work he is discussing - written by Menard, a fictitious 20th Century French writer - is a direct copy of the original 'Don Quixote' (1605 & 1615) by 17th Century Spanish novelist, Miguel De Cervantes (1547-1616). Borges implies that Menard has brought something of himself and of his historical context to the 'translation' and, in so doing, has made it somehow superior. This irony is highlighted by his humorous comparison of two identical passages.
Borges is clearly interested in Menard's interpretation of the text, suggesting that history and context will always change a text's meaning. Although the words are the same, Menard's version is unique because he brings something different to the 'rudimentary art of reading' - as does every new reading - thus giving centrality to 'reader-response' and raising questions over authorship...
The truth is that this review is fiction and the work he is discussing - written by Menard, a fictitious 20th Century French writer - is a direct copy of the original 'Don Quixote' (1605 & 1615) by 17th Century Spanish novelist, Miguel De Cervantes (1547-1616). Borges implies that Menard has brought something of himself and of his historical context to the 'translation' and, in so doing, has made it somehow superior. This irony is highlighted by his humorous comparison of two identical passages.
Borges is clearly interested in Menard's interpretation of the text, suggesting that history and context will always change a text's meaning. Although the words are the same, Menard's version is unique because he brings something different to the 'rudimentary art of reading' - as does every new reading - thus giving centrality to 'reader-response' and raising questions over authorship...
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Lecture 1: Introduction to Digital Cultures
Welcome to the first session of the Digital Cultures module on the IOCT Masters. I hope everyone enjoyed a good break and are ready for 2009.
Following our discussion in class, I'd like you to adress the following issues in regards to analogue/digital devices/objects here in the comments.
Remember to include:
Assignment for next week:
Read "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) (this was handed out in class).
Please write a reflective blog post on your reading. I have added you all as an author to this module blog so please sign in and choose to "create" a new post. Be sure to include your name and "Lecture 1" in the title of the blog post.
Some things to consider:
If you like Borges do check out some of his fiction including the very well know "Garden of Forking Paths" included in this collection.
Following our discussion in class, I'd like you to adress the following issues in regards to analogue/digital devices/objects here in the comments.
Remember to include:
- a list of features
- an overview of what the device is and how it works
- why it is important
- why people use or don't use it
Assignment for next week:
Read "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) (this was handed out in class).
Please write a reflective blog post on your reading. I have added you all as an author to this module blog so please sign in and choose to "create" a new post. Be sure to include your name and "Lecture 1" in the title of the blog post.
Some things to consider:
- role of representation of identity
- trickery of language
- authenticity
- dissemination
- production
- readership
- authorship
If you like Borges do check out some of his fiction including the very well know "Garden of Forking Paths" included in this collection.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Welcome to the 2009 Digital Cultures Module
Ok, it's not quite 2009 yet but I know you are all eager to get started over the Christmas break.
So, here is a project for you.
I would like you to craft an annotated bibliography of at least 10 texts that we should read as part of our Digital Cultures curriculum, feel free to add more than ten sources. In your annotation please include the following information:
- Main focus or purpose of the work
- Intended audience for the work
- Special features of the work that were unique or helpful
- Background and credibility of the author
Since we're talking about digital cultures, try to include ONLY online resources. There is an amazing array of excellent academic research available online - either in journals through the DMU library subscriptions or via open access journals, blogs, newspapers and other websites. Even on Amazon some text is available (see last year's reading list in the right hand column of this blog). You don't have to include an entire book but you can refer to chapters or individual blog posts.
One possible resource might include Lev Manovich's latest which he "published" during his talk at our Future of Creative Technologies conference on 20th November 2008.
Some print books that we will be referring to throughout the module include:
- George Landow, Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in a Global Era
- Roland Barthes, Image, Music, Text
- Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus
- Rosi Braidotti, Nomadic Subjects
- Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One
- Rosi Braidotti, Cyberfeminism with a Difference and Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory
Also very important is that each of you have a twitter and facebook and delicious account, if you don't already. I'm JessL on all of the above. Please start a blog as we'll be using that in our lecture sessions too along with flickr.
Please tag all the suggested course reading materials with "digitalcultures09" and please send them me too: http://delicious.com/jessl.
Things to keep in mind when you're choosing texts:
- they should align with our topics of feminism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, cyberculture, creative technologies, critical literacy, digital literacy
- be sure to look at the suggested reading on the blog from last year's course
- use any reference style (MLA, Harvard, etc...) but remain consistent
If you know of any web 2.0-type tools/applications that you would like to use (think of tools to facilitate podcasting, videos and other communication) include them in your annotated bibliography (but they don't form part of your ten items to read).
Let me know if you have any questions, concerns or thoughts by adding a comment here or e-mailing me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
