Borges on Tolkien

[Larry.]

Thismight be of interest to a few. Taken from Jorge Luis Borges: Conversations:

Question: I'd like him to comment on how that relates to the creative aspects of the reader, that he brings to his reading of Borges. I feel sometimes as though…

Borges: Well, how is the case of Borges different from the case of any other writer? When you are reading a book, if you don't find your way inside it, then everything is useless. The problem with The Lord of the Rings is you're left outside the book, no? That has happened to most of us. In that case, that book is not meant for us…

Yates: In Chicago, last night and here before and every place else, people come to Borges eager to find out his opinion on Tolkien.

Borges: Well I could never…I wish somebody would explain it to me or somehow convey what the book's good for. Those people say if I like Lewis Carroll, I should like Tolkien. I am very fond of Lewis Carroll, but I am disconcerted by Tolkien.

Yates: Last night you mentioned the difference between Tolkien and Lewis Carroll. You said Lewis Carroll is authentic fantasy and Tolkien is just going on and on and on.

Borges: Maybe I'm being unjust to Tolkien but, yes, I think of him as rambling on and on. (pp. 162-163)

[Horza]

Whatevs, Jorge.

[Renasko]

He's right, in my opinion. Lord of the Rings was Tolkein's private project, that never felt like it was intended purposefully for the rest of the literary world to enjoy. No harm in that, at all. I haven't a damned notion why it has succeeded so well and won so many people over, though. :dunno:

[Hereward]

He should stick to tennis, because he clearly knows nothing about literature.

[kcf]

When was this interview? It seems comparible to when nobel prize-winning economists think everything is great just before the economy destroys itself. Even 'experts' fail to be in tune with reality.

[Prince of the North]

I'm with Hereward. I don't know much about Bjorn ( ;) ) but in this case it seems to me like someone taking a contrary position simply to garner attention.

[Renasko]

I smell a LotR appreciation thread coming on.

[Procrastimancer]

When was this interview? It seems comparible to when nobel prize-winning economists think everything is great just before the economy destroys itself. Even 'experts' fail to be in tune with reality.

I could be wrong, but it appears to be from 1976.

[alguien]

For me, Borges's strength were his short stories. Tolkien was primarily a writer of epic books.

So it makes sense that Borges thought LOTR was too long. It also dealt with a cosmology pretty different than Borges.

[Nerdanel]

Borges's opinion is... funny. The defining impression I got from reading his short stories is that reading them is like reading nonfiction essays about philosophy. The ideas might have been interesting, but I certainly didn't feel any immersion.

As for Tolkien, well, now that's immersion. It sounds like Borges just doesn't get self-consistent secondary-world fantasy.

[Shryke]

I smell a LotR appreciation thread coming on.

How could it not? It's inconceivable that someone could not like LOTR!!! They must just be trying to be all contrarian.

[Renasko]

Funny how Tolkein going on can be seen as a 'immersion', whereas in other cases - namely Robert Jordan's - it's seen as the author's work being 'overwritten'. :rolleyes:

[Old Nan]

Somehow I manage to like all three of them (Tolkien, Carroll, and Borges). It's only natural for an author to feel a parental defensiveness when comparing his work to another's, though.

Oh, and rambling? That's a good thing.

[slim da reaper]

To Mormont's reasoning not an indication of Tolkiens value as there is alot to be gained from LoTR about Power in the main, but to Mormont: Even if everyone says the emperor has fantastic clothes will never make it so.

There's many important thinkers who were completely unappreciated in their own lifetime, for example: Vincent van Gogh Doctor Who done a great great episode on him quite recently :)

[Nerdanel]

Funny how Tolkein going on can be seen as a 'immersion', whereas in other cases - namely Robert Jordan's - it's seen as the author's work being 'overwritten'. :rolleyes:

It's because the entire LotR could be one volume of WoT while the story of WoT doesn't demand anywhere as many pages as it uses. LotR actually moves fairly fast, while WoT gets mired in endless sideplots about minor characters and descriptions of what everyone is wearing, so that the actual main plot moves at a glacial pace, especially in the later books.

[Arataniello]

Lord of the Rings was Tolkein's private project, that never felt like it was intended purposefully for the rest of the literary world to enjoy.

LotR - written specifically as a follow-up to the success of The Hobbit.

The Silmarillion - started by Tolkien (NB spelling) during his time in the trenches of the First World War, worked on continually throughout his life, never completed before his death.

I know which one sounds to me like a "private project never intended for the rest of the literary world to enjoy".

[Stalker]

, that never felt like it was intended purposefully for the rest of the literary world to enjoy.

Seeing as how books written for the 'literary world' tends to be dreadful, I am not sure why that should be relevant.

[aidan]

I love The Hobbit, but he's right about LotR.

[polishgenius]

Funny how Tolkein going on can be seen as a 'immersion', whereas in other cases - namely Robert Jordan's - it's seen as the author's work being 'overwritten'. :rolleyes:

The difference pretty much does rely on one's opinion of the quality. But I don't see how that's :rolleyes: worthy.

[Flying Halftrak]

"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

- J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien would doubtless be as critical of Borges. Who the hell cares? Authors are authors - they are not critics and are usually poor at it when they try to be.

There's nothing wrong with Borges disliking Tolkien...but it's not like it means anything. His opinion (or Tolkien's) counts for nothing more than anyone else's.