Society for Latin American Studies

Borges ou l'Autre
Author(s): B. J. McGuirk
Source: Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 1, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 105-107
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for Latin American Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3338544
Accessed: 31/03/2010 11:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for Latin American Studies and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Bulletin of Latin American Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 Borges ou l'Autre
B. J. McGUIRK
Universityof Nottingham

Borges does not exist. A groupof writers,led by Bioy Casares,is jointly respons-
ible for his work and the notorious Argentinianhimself has been played all
these years by a second-rateItalian actor. So ran the rumourin Pariswhen the
daily Liberation reported on the 1981 InternationalBorges Colloquium at
Cerisy-la-Salle.After Romain Gary's suicide revelation that Emile Ajar, the
prize-winningnovelist, was none other than his pseudonym,the Parisianhounds
were obviously keen to sniff out a literary hoax. To English eyes the news-
worthiness of such an item might seem bewildering.Indeed, some months ago,
when I wrote to a leadingBritishBorgesspecialistof the forthcomingcolloquium,
he expressed the view that the French had little new to say on Borges and
'besides, they're a funny lot'. In retrospect the lack of Britishand, more sur-
prisingly still, of North American participants,was unusualenough for Cerisy
but also speaks volumes on the respective receptions of Borges'swork in two
worlds often seen to be at odds in his writing itself, the Anglo-Saxonand the
Latin.
The Cerisy gatherings,ten-day sessions in a lovely Norman chateau, have
become something of an institution in France and are generally published in
the 10/18 series, an attractive formula of paper followed by discussion on a
variety of writers from Bachelardto Bataille, from Jules Verne to Virginia
Woolf. Wide-rangingas the subjects have been, it is perhapsin the area of the
nouveau roman and, more recently, la nouvelle critique, that Cerisyhas evoked
most interest. In this respect,the figureof Jean Ricardouhas servedas a rallying
point and, consequently, it was no surprisethat the Borges colloquium was
dominated by the Ricardou presence. More accurately,it is even possible that
the colloquium'stitle, 'Borgesou l'autre',wasan ironic anticipationof Ricardou's
role. Or, given the voluble presenceof the master'scoterie, that a new and very
Borgesianrumour might soon emerge, namely, that Ricardoudoes not himself
exist, but is a creation of the young Belgian novelist Benoft Peeters,revealed
to the world by the precociousFrenchcritic MarcAvelot,just as Borgeshimself
was discovered,in the early 1950s, by RogerCaillois.
It was undoubtedly the naive belief not only in the existence of the octo-
genarianBorges but in his influence on severalareasof literaturethat brought
the majority of people to Cerisy.Some may have felt disappointedthat Borges's
handling of philosophy, his sense of humour, his love of mystery, illusion,
literary games and, especially, his delight in (and subversionof) the detective
mode, were topics rendered well-nigh taboo in the pursuit of a narrowerif
undoubtedly valid objective. In a paper entitled 'Bien faire et laisser dire',Jean
Ricardou'sadmittedlybrilliantreductionof Borges's'dire'in favourof his 'faire',
a complex model elaboratedfrom the alreadydifficult distinctionsof speech-act
106 BULLETINOF MATINAMERICANRESEARCH
theory, exploited the tendency to self-reflexiveness,self-parodyand pastiche
in Borges'swriting in order to situate it as 'un texte domine par ses propres
dispositifs'.Those familiarwith Ricardou'slucid analysisof the nouveauroman
will realize why he finds in Borgesan arch example,not to say a precursorof
his dictum on the self-consciousnessof novel writing:'composerun roman ...
ce n'est pas avoir l'idee d'une histoire, puis la disposer;c'est avoirl'id6e d'un
dispositif, puis en d6duireune histoire'. I believe it is impoverishing,however,
to regardBorges'sstoriesonly as the manipulationof these so-called'dispositifs'.
After all, the theory of the constantlyself-referringfiction is hardlynew andit is
a pity to treat Borgesvirtuallyas a nouveau romancierjust because, as John
Sturrockhas pointed out in PaperTigers,'he, like they, believesit is the duty of
any particularfiction to illustratethe methodsof the genreas a whole'.
Takingbut two of Borges'srecurrentconcerns,the book and the labyrinth,
the benefits of the Ricardouapproachmay none the less be shown. To search
for the meaningof either or both in Borges'swork focusesattentionon expres-
sion ('dire'), coinciding with the numerous Borgesiancharacterswho pursue
futilely and, often, fatally, either a 'deciphering'or a 'centre'. Yet, in The
Gardenof Forking Paths, for instance, the book and the labyrinthare shown
to be one and the same, not in what they might be consideredto expressin
common (their 'dire'), but ratherin their function ('faire'). They are rescued
from the nothingnessof their 'dire'by their 'faire',that is, their generatingin
the readeran awarenessof the endless meaningspotentialin a given form, be
it a labyrinth,a book or, indeed, any conventionof signs.Thisfunction empha-
sizes not only the chance nature of ever-changingreference,but also that the
silence of Borges'sbook-labyrinthmay be seen as active('faire')not as absence
('un dire silent'). This demonstrationin itself servesas reminderof Mallarmean
echoes in Borges and suggeststhat Borges'spractice may cast light on (or be
a reading of) the poetics of Mallarme.Namely, it expressesthe idea that all
writings are ficciones; that all writing invites analysis of its function rather
than of its truth.
Unfortunately,becauseof the rigorousnouveauromanperspective,the poetic
rhythm of Borges'swritingwas as neglectedat Cerisyas it has been elsewhere.
Wheneverthe question did arise,it was alas, in the context of literaryhistory,
a dull or dismissivereminderof his early contact with 'Ultraism',that late and
short-livedrevampingof lmagist preoccupations.In vain did one seek a relevant
relatingof Borges'spoetry to the short stories and essayswhich accountfor his
internationalfame. The point is that the metaphorsand, above all, the rhythm
which characterizethe stories, may be found, too, in the poems. Instead of
discussion of Borges's own poetry, participantswere treated to a series of
glosses, translationsinto French and, irrelevantly,the Borges-inspired texts of
others. For this, the responsibilitymust be attributedto Gerardde Cortanze,
directorof the colloquiumand mentorof its dilettantewaywardness.
If the Frenchvintagewas a predictablemixture of closed-shopmethodology
and misplaced lyricism, the Argentinianbrew was, so to speak, a stale-mate.
Negative, the amiably nostalgic and patriotic ramblingof the writer Alicia
Dujovne-Ortiz;positive, the presence of Hugo Santiago,the film-maker.The
cinemahas long been a source of borrowingsfor Borgesand, with Bioy Casares
in particular,he has collaborated,too, in writingseveralfilm-scripts.At Cerisy,
BORGESOU L'AUTRE 107
there were two such films, the earlyInvasion,set in BuenosAires,and the more
recent Les Autres, set in Paris. When dealing with collaboration,it would be
unwise to draw over-hastyconclusions about Borges'spresumedcontributions.
However, the films themselves, taken together, consistituted a virtualpastiche
of Borges's production. The splendid, stark, deeply portefo Invasion was not
only a reminderof the national flavour of much of Borges'soeuvre, his Argen-
tinianism, but faithfully reflected also the geometric, repetitive, characterless
scenariosof so many of his stories. A political clash of two rivalfactions-yet
who? why? which side, if either, good or bad? The meaningof the stated yet
unfathomableoutcome? All these questions are renderedirrelevantin a black
and white manipulationof unchangingthough distinctly LatinAmericanforms,
namely, revolutionaryupheavalswhich, ultimately, engage Borges as patterns,
as rhythms and, dare one say, since he has so often been pilloried for this, as
furtherunrealfictions.
Hugo Santiago'sown testimony on this film suggested that, as a youthful
cinematographer,he was more noticeably led by Borges than could possibly
have been the case in the making of Les Autres. Patterns, intersubjectivities
rather than individual psychologies, legerdemain,even humour, all these were
familiarlyBorgesian.But the handlingwas ever too heavy and rathertoo literary-
Parisian,as much a pastiche on film as the many imitators of Borgeshave pro-
duced in print. This is not to say that the film lacked style or merit, merely to
suggest that the Borgeshere was very much l'autre, that is, the public property
of literary consumers, writers, critics, cinematographers,constantly producing
readings and re-readingsof his work. And, of course, these include himself.
Perfectly concomitant with his view of literary production, this plagiarismcan
be fun for the audience preparedto spot the Borges . .. or the Brecht (an
8-minute camera-rollingprologue and three further interspersedalienations)or,
especially, the Bioy, the Cortazar.A model, then, of the Borgesianaesthetic
of anti-authorship.Ricardouarguesthat 'dire'gives way to 'faire';Borgesantici-
pates him in ensuringthat 'dictor'givesway to 'factor',le faiseur,El hacedor.
It is to be hoped that the 1981 InternationalBorges Colloquium will be
published very soon in the 10/18 series, though the quality of some of the
papers,especially the Latin Americancontributionof Goloboff, Yurkievichand
Saer was, sadly, disappointing.'Funny lot' or not, it was the French, in the
brillianceof Ricardou'smethod, the academicrigourof MilagrosEzquerrosand
the unerringly perceptive contributions to discussion of the novelist Suzanne
Allen which ought to have stirred the imaginationsand will, in time, provoke
the belated responseof the absent Britishand North AmericanBorgesians.