Latin American Short Stories

13 responses so far ↓

•   jimminkc // Sep 25th 2014 at 10:18 pm

  In both of Borges’ stories he talks in first person but with two lives. In “Borges and I”, he looks at himself as two people. One for show and one for his private life. At times he struggles with which one is which. The last line of “Borges and I” reads, ” I do not know which of us written this page”. In “The Garden of Forking Paths” it a little confusing to know whether or not Borges is talking in first person because the first two pages are said to be missing then it goes on as a story. I think Borges did this on purpose to show another symbol of two sided life. In the first sentence of “Borges and I” he says, “The other one, the one called Borges is the one things happen to. I walk through the streets of Buenos Aires and stop for a moment, perhaps mechanically now, to look at the arch of an entrance hall and the grillwork on the gate; I know of Borges from the mail and see his name on a list of professors or in a biographical dictionary.” In this quote Borge explains that the difference between his public life and his more personal life. The way people see him isn’t always what he thinks of himself. In “The Garden of Forking Path” Borge used the spy to show the difference of the public life and personal life One difference in the two stories is that in “Borges and I” we know that Borges and talking about himself. In “The Garden of Forking Paths” we are left to wonder.

•   Madeleine // Sep 25th 2014 at 11:18 pm

  I chose to compare “My Delirium on Chimborazo” by Simon Bolívar and “Borges and I” by Jorge Luis Borges. These short stories are similar because they both emphasize the role of the narrator. In “My Delirium on Chimborazo,” it is possible that the narrator is Bolívar himself, and in “Borges and I,” it is assumed that the narrator is Borges. Both of these stories are written in the first person, and both serve as a self-reflection.

  However, while these two short stories share this emphasis on the narrator, the narrators arrive at different conclusions. In “My Delirium on Chimborazo,” Bolívar gives himself authority over other men by relating a command from Time: “Do not conceal the secrets heaven has revealed to you. Tell men the truth.” In the final paragraph, the narrator “become[s] a man again,” implying that before he was at the level of the gods. He prides himself on his authority and decides that he is exalted above others. At the end, Bolívar “come[s] back to life…become[s] a man again.” He is renewed and is confident.

  On the other hand, Borges approach as narrator is negative and belittling. While Bolívar beings his story with the word “I,” Borges’ starts with “the other one.” Borges’ role is self degrading as he says “I am destined to perish” and “little by little, I am giving over everything…” When comparing himself to the other Borges, the narrator finds himself inferior and helpless, and at the end, even confused. This narrator decides that he insignificant.

•   chicasi // Sep 26th 2014 at 12:05 am

  I chose to compare and contrast “Borges and I” by Jorge Luis Borges and “My Delirium on Chimborazo” by Simon Bolivar. Both are similar since both are in first person and are about the narrator in the respective stories. Assuming we don’t killed off the author, it can be interpreted that “Borges and I” is voiced by Borges, while “My Delirium on Chimborazo” is voiced by Bolivar. Both stories focus on accomplishments and failures which can be explained through both of their mindsets.

  Bolivar’s story has him imagining great accomplishments with climbing mountains, which eventually is learned that were lies. He had dreams of climbing mountains and believed they were true and boasted about them, but it was his delirium that made him think those events truly occurred. Time is Bolivar’s sense of morality, as Time explains to him to “not conceal the secrets heaven has revealed to [him]” and to “tell men the truth.” This would eventually make Bolivar possibly believe that his life wasn’t what he thought it was.

  Borges’s story separates himself by two personalities: personal life Borges, who is addressed as “I”, and famous writer Borges, who took Borges’s name and focuses on literature. Borges explains that while he tries to maintain his form of self, “little by little, [he is] giving over everything to [“Borges”]”, which includes his interests, talents, and personality. “I” would later die, but “Borges” will continue living in literature, which can be interpreted by anyone in any way, making “I”, who is Borges, lose his personality.

  Borges and Bolivar have lost their sense of selves and have tried to make better by trying to cover up the problem rather than find a solution. While their sense of accomplishment is different, that same sense have become their own failures, leading to them questioning what is the right thing to do. In the end of both stories, the reader is left wondering what is next to happen to both authors and how they could possibly resolve their failures that existed because of their own believed successes.

•   jacobsoh // Sep 26th 2014 at 12:14 am

  When reading the short story “Borges and I” by, Jorge Luis Borges it reminded my of the short story “My Delirium on Chimborazo” by Simon Bolivar. Both of these short stories are written in first person narration. “Borges and I” is written from Borges’s personal experience and “My Delirium on Chimborazo” can be seen from Bolivar’s perspective. Both of these men are powerful and respected men. They both have a position of reverence and have fame.

  The difference between the two short stories is how the narrators- Borges and Bolivar- view themselves and their power. In “Borges and I”, Borges sees that his power and fame has caused him to have two identities. There is “the one called Borges, [the] one things happen to” and the other Borges who is not in the public eye. Borges does not like what his power and fame has done to his life. He feels out of control with his life. He has lost his inner self to his public self. His “life is a flight and [he looses] everything and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him.” The power and fame Borges has received has caused him to lose all sense of who he is. He has to succumb to his outer self and lose his sense of inner identity. He is unhappy with his life after he gainer power.

  In “My Delirium on Chimborazo” Bolivar is happy to accept his newfound power and fame. He shows his superiority in his narration as he climbs Chimborazo. He was the first “human foot [to] ever blemish” the mountain. He even went further than the great explorer Humboldt, leaving his “tracks behind and [beginning] to leave [his] own marks” on Chimborazo.” Bolivar shows how highly he thinks of himself when he associates himself with Gods by having conversations with them on the mountain. Bolivar sees his power and fame as a marvelous thing and embraces it, unlike Borges who feels negatively affected by it.

•   Hannah // Sep 26th 2014 at 1:56 am

  “The Garden of the Forking Paths,” by Luis Borges and “The Rain of Fire,” by Leopoldo Lugones, both speakers face imminent death, but they differ greatly in how they handle the situation.

  In “The Garden of the Forking Paths,” Yu Tsun, the speaker, becomes disembodied from himself when he realizes that he will definitively die. He begins to observe his surroundings in a disconnected manner, commenting on how he is a “man already dead.” (22) In “The Rain of Fire,” the speaker doesn’t become as disembodied, but he, too, realizes that he will die and he has a desire to control what will happen to him. He comments how he is “Unable to escape, death awaited [him]…but with [the] poison, [he] owned death.” (8) He feels more powerful over death.

  Despite his disembodiment, Yu Tsun has more empathy for those around him than the speaker in “The Rain of Fire,” which is an ironic turn since in the end Yu Tsun harms far more than the other speaker. Yu Tsun observes the people around him, and instead of just looking into their functions, he observes their emotions, remarking on the “women dressed in mourning,” “young boy who was reading with fever,” and the “wounded and happy soldier.” (21) As he begins his journey to death, he takes time to look at those around him, likely because he knows his last decisions could change the lives of these people permanently. Contrastingly, the speaker in “The Rain of Fire” has little interest in the emotional well-being of those he is surrounded by. He describes the “wailing louder than the crackling of the fire…the ineffable, eternal terror of all creatures!” (9) Although disturbed by the sound, he makes no effort to help those he listens to. Instead, he seems irritated and detached. He makes does not affect his environment and his environment does not affect him.

  Yu Tsun, in his final actions, makes a decision which ends in the deaths of many, while the speaker in “The Rain of Fire” dies alone and without making any impact. Yu Tsun’s murder of Stephen Albert results in the bombing of the city of Albert, and he reports that he knows Germany “bombed it yesterday.” (29) He dies in the company of what is likely, thousands, even though he is physically isolated. The speaker in “The Rain of Fire,” however, leaves his companion and brings “the flask to [his] lips, and…” (14) He dies in solitude.

•   applegsa // Sep 26th 2014 at 2:07 am

  Although for the most part “Borges and I” and “The Garden of Forking Paths” are very different works, they do have their similarities other than the fact that they are both written by Borges. On the surface, the stories are obviously different because “Borges and I” is very short and is almost more of a passage than a story. “The Garden of Forking Paths” is also a short story, however it is long enough for a plot to be developed, for characters other than the narrator to be introduced, and for quotes and outside references to be inserted into the story. Additionally, what small plot “Borges and I” does have is completely different than that of “The Garden of Forking Paths”.

  However, despite these major differences, the stories do have somewhat of a similar structure. In both stories, there is an anonymous first person narrator. They also both have somewhat abrupt endings. These similarities in writing style are due to the fact that they are written by the same author. For the most part, these stories are different.

•   danona // Sep 26th 2014 at 2:40 am

  Written by two different authors, Borges and I and My Delirium on Chimborazo are two very different stories. Borges and I deals with the struggle of someone not sure of who they really are or how they are to act. My Delirium on Chimborazo on the other hand, portrays the confidence of someone sure of themselves and their task. Upon analyzing these stories further however, it becomes clear that these difference do result in a similarity.

  Borges and I reveals the struggle Borges went through of living in the public eye as well as his own private eye. He allows himself to “go on living” (Borges 246) but only so that “Borges may contrive his literature” (Borges 246). Borges separates himself into two different people—a public Borges and a private Borges; the private Borges only lives so that the public Borges may continue to write. This represents a struggle Borges feels of wanting to pursue his writing career but not wanting the attention. He is not confident of who he is as seen from the last sentence, he is unaware who “has written this last page” (Borges 247). Over the years, public and private Borges have constantly been turned on and off, but it has gotten to a point where Borges does not know who is who, or who he himself is.

  My Delirium on Chimborazo portrays the confidence of Bolívar and his role in Colombia’s independence. Assuming that Bolívar is the speaker, his determination is easily portrayed through tone and diction. He makes bold claims such as “nothing could stop me” (Bolívar 1), states that “no human foot had ever blemished the diamond crown” (Bolivar 1), and questions why he should “hesitate” (Bolívar 1) to continue. This display of confidence shows Bolívar’s certainty and self-assurance. Bolívar continues to remain sure of himself even after his interaction with Time. Time forces Bolívar to see clearly, that Bolívar is not the greatest or most important person. After this interaction, Bolívar “come[s] back to life” (Bolívar 2) and writes down what he has witnessed.

  Although both stories deal with two different people, both deal with some internal struggle or feeling. Borges and I reveals the struggle Borges has between dealing with the public eye and the private eye. My Delirium on Chimborazo displays the internal struggles of becoming a leader—wanting to seem strong, but not too overbearing. Both stories reveal the internal struggles of a person in the midst of their lives.

•   Cailin // Sep 26th 2014 at 3:14 am

  The two texts “Borges and I” and “The Christ in Agony” at first seem extremely different. In one, the story centers around a painter in the 1600s; in the other, the speaker is the author describing two versions of himself, his private self and the image that the public sees. One is a narrative, while the other is written in third person and is told like a story. The two main characters also have wildly different temperaments- in “The Christ in Agony,” Miguel de Santiago has a very fragile temper, and becomes violent when angry or frustrated. Borges seems much calmer on the outside through his tone in the piece- it is very matter of fact and exploratory.
  However, through all these differences, striking similarities have popped out at me. While Borges describes his two selves, his real self and the self he thinks is reflected to and morphed in the public eye, Miguel de Santiago could also have “two selves.” On the one hand, he is extremely passionate and loving with his artwork, and years after his life, the people who adore his artwork see and remember this aspect of him instead of focusing on the violent acts he committed against his wife and the model. Continuing with the idea of violence, though the outer tone of “Borges and I” is extremely calm, some phrases stick out in the text, such as “hostile relationship” and “I tried to free myself from him.” These suggest the deeper anguish felt by Borges, and his internal war. While not necessarily violent on the outside, a similar anguish is felt in both characters from the stories.

•   medinaeg // Sep 26th 2014 at 3:15 am

  In “The Garden of Forking Paths” and “Borges and I” by Borges, both readings have narrators with conflicting identities and are deciding how to continue life.

  The narrator in “Borges and I” does not know which one of his personas wrote the piece, while the narrator in “The Garden of Forking Paths” is deciding which identity to choose. The difference in the readings is the narrator in the “The Garden of Forking Paths” knows his existence and is deciding how to act to a circumstance. In the end he kills Albert in order to send “the Chief [the] deciphered [mystery].” Though in the beginning of recognizing his role in life he mentions his “barbarous country [imposed] upon [him] the abjection of being a spy.” Trying to prove himself as a “yellow man.” While the narrator in “Borges and I” knows he is “little by little… giving over everything to him.” The second personality is known as is mentioned as “him” or the “other one.” Both narrators are conflicting with identity.

  Borges mentions mirrors in both texts, as there are two people in one reflection. There are two personalities in one person and one must take hold in order to live. Having conflicting personalities in the end will only end with one. With “Borges and I” the narrator loses sight of which personality is in control and is finished with “I do not know which of us has written this page.” One personality is taking control while one is unaware. In “The Garden of Forking Paths” the narrator “[bids] farewell to [himself] in the mirror.” Two identities exist one in the mirror and one on the other side. The narrator claiming to be a descendant of Ts’ui Pen, while also working for a government, which gave him an order to execute. Though in the end he executes the order while on one will know his “innumerable contrition and weariness.” The narrator is not happy with the personality in control feeling tired.

•   Aden // Sep 26th 2014 at 3:20 am

  There are many similarities and differences between “Garden of the Forking Paths” and “The Rain of Fire.” In “The Garden” Ts’ui Pen “renounces the pleasures of both tyranny and justice, of his populous couch, of his banquets and even erudition” all to complete his work. In “The Rain of Fire” the narrator also gives up pleasure in his life for “reading and eating.” They are both men that are focused on their work and they do not partake in the common vices of man. They are obsessed with the finer and nobler things of life. Both men also seem to be unproductive in their work. Ts’ui Pen has work that is an “indeterminate heap of contradictory drafts.” The narrator in “The Rain of Fire” only reads and eats, which is the definition of unproductive. The difference is that Ts’ui Pen’s work is in fact genius and deals with the infinite possibilities of stories while the narrator of the other story is simply lazy. Both men seem to also be disillusioned. Ts’ui’s “chaotic manuscripts” turn out to be genius as well, while the narrator of “The Rain of Fire” is simply delusional, and believes he leads a full and vivid life when he does not. Both texts deal with idleness and the perception of idleness. The narrator of “The Rain of Fire” is idle and believes he is not while Ts’ui was not idle and believed by many to be. Ts’ui Pen’s work is dependent on the missing word time, while “The Rain of Fire” focuses on the mysterious copper falling from the sky and why it is falling. Both stories hinge on the unknown factor in them; the falling copper and time. “The Garden of Forking Paths” resolves itself while the rain of fire remains unresolved.

•   Estiven // Sep 26th 2014 at 4:01 am

  Both “The Garden of Forking Paths” and “Borges and I” were written by Jorge Luis Borges are similar because of their differences. In “Borges and I” the narrator has clear struggle in his double personality, however the personality that dominates Borges is what will leave a legacy behind. The private Borges not many people know about he is not described through his works of literature nor ever seen in the public eye. But Borges is the opposite, he is literature is well known and respected. This personality owns the name Borges, he has the title and therefore shows his control over Borges. In fact the other personality simply is taken over and gives in to the advantages that come form being Borges ” I Live, I Let myself go on living, so that Borges may contrive his literature, and this literature justifies me”. The point made here is that even though there are different personalities in place one is not exactly more important than the other they combine to leave a greater legacy and that is the literature left behind that shaped a culture, added many contributions and started a tradition. Borges’s literature brought something to the table it benefited the people who read the stories and other audiences, in ” The Garden of Forking Paths” there is a double personality but the outcome is not the same. The asian spy is part of the axis powers in World War 1, his loyalty lies with German army but is spying on the English army. In this situation he is a spy that has information but is overwhelmed by the thought that one of the German official was killed by Captain Richard Mandel so he now feels he will be the next killed. Both Borges and the spy have two different personalities, the spy does have valuable information that will benefit the German army but is his contribution really leaving a legacy and impact for a lifetime. Borges’ literature will be here forever, the spy’s information won’t be it will benefit the German army until the war and then the information will be useless.

•   grandam // Sep 26th 2014 at 8:04 am

  The short stories “Rosa” by Lastarria and “Borges and I” by Borges portray their protagonists as torn between two halves of themselves. Rosa struggles between her lover Carlos and her love and respect for her father. Through these two men, she is also hanging, undecided between two sides of a revolution. She doesn’t know which of the men she should follow because she knows that she will lose one in picking the other. Borges is in a similar situation as he struggles between his personal and public selves. He fears that by only living within his public persona, he will lose his true self entirely. “Little by little, I am giving over everything to him” (Borges, 246). In both stories, the fight for control over the protagonist’s life is zero sum, with only one side coming out on top. Rosa will lose either Carlos or her father and Borges will lose his reputation or his true self.
  Both Rosa and Borges struggle between their choices but Borges is combatting two parts of himself whereas Rosa is being forced to choose between two outside influences. Borges’ primary conflict is his identity crisis which stems from his own insecurities. Rosa on the other hand is stuck between two outside people who, through their competition, cause her to experience internal strife like that of Borges. While both people are in a time of uncertainty due to their untethered loyalties, Rosa’s source is external and Borges’ is wholly internal.

•   Kienan // Sep 26th 2014 at 3:17 pm

  “Then I reflected that everything happens to a man precisely, precisely now. Centuries and only in the present do things happen; countless men in the air, on the face of the earth and the sea, and all that really is happening to me…”
  In “Gate No. 12”, the cycle that the miners and their families are stuck is is what is talked about in the quote above. Pablo is destined to enter and work in the mine for the rest of his life, and he was made for him to start on that precise day. He was bound by fate and there was nothing possible that he or his father could do to alter that. It could have been fate when the ram appeared trapped in the bushes right before Moses sacrificed Isaac, saving Isaac’s life. Had Moses not noticed the ram at that precise moment, he may have killed Isaac and many generations of people would not have ever existed.
  While these are similar, the difference is glaring. “Gate No 12” is about a cycle that is constant, the never ending rooster coop, while the quote from “The Garden of Forking Paths” is about fate and precision. There are ways to avoid entering the mine, but there is no way to avoid something so precise as a lightning strike that sparks a fire to change someone’s life.

Leave a Comment