Borges on Tolkien

[alguien]

Keep in mind this is not my personal bias (well, not fully) on display, but from 1968-1970 at least, Borges frequently had his fiction published in venues like The New Yorker, while Tolkien was looked down upon. Sales figures? Probably in Tolkien's favor in books, but considering that magazine circulation numbers were higher then than today, I'd have to say that Borges was a) very visible in the US (based on what his translator seems to say in his memoir on his time with Borges), and B) there wasn't really yet an "all-ages" (you left that part of my response out of your reply) factor with Tolkien.

Remember that "more renowned" doesn't equate with "most popular." There is a subtle difference, which is why I used renowned instead of popular to describe the two. One got some "interesting" letters from hippies, the other got a lecture tour. Which gets the press coverage? That's all I was noting. Today, if both authors were alive, I imagine Borges would get more of the kooks and Tolkien get around the same number of requests for lectures and other press coverage. But 40 years ago, things were a bit different here in the US and I think it's not best to say in passing that Borges' influence was just more in "Hispanic countries" (itself a term I wouldn't use around several Latin Americans), as he had already gone global (Europe and even parts of Asia) around this time, while I am uncertain if Tolkien had become popular outside of the UK, North America, and parts of Western Europe then.

But this really isn't a pissing contest and I realize we just have some honest differences of opinion. My original apologia was to note that Borges, when he made those comments (benign as I think they were), was a fairly well-known figure, one that apparently enjoyed some popular success as well as critical success, if his comment in 1973 is true concerning Perón's re-emergence, about how he now has enough money that Perón and his cronies couldn't humiliate him like they had done in the 1940s and early 1950s. Haven't found an exact figure, but it seems Borges' estate could be worth into the hundreds of millions. While Tolkien's certainly is larger, not many literary estates approach $100 million.

Fair enough. I'm sure that in the 70's, there probably was a bit more of a "youthful" stigma for LOTR. I do think its hard to analyze because the two writer's works aren't really apples to apples. As you said, besides Labyrinths, Borges doesn't really have many well-known books in the US and its hard to compare magazine sales to book sales, etc., etc.

Btw, I didn't realize the term "Hispanic countries" was potentially offensive. Normally, I'd just use the descriptor Latin-American, but I was typing fast. Why is it offensive? I lived in Costa Rica for a time and go back to visit would like to know if "paises hispanos" is a term I should avoid and solely use "paises latinos". Is it because its not applicable to Brazil, since they speak Portuguese?

[MinDonner]

Only skimmed the thread cos I know how these things go... but really, no-one can call themselves a credible literary critic if they can't even distinguish between CS Lewis and Lewis Carroll.

[Werthead]

Only skimmed the thread cos I know how these things go... but really, no-one can call themselves a credible literary critic if they can't even distinguish between CS Lewis and Lewis Carroll.

I don't see where this happened. Lewis Carroll was brought up by Larry as an example of fantasy writing Borges liked, whilst I brought up CS Lewis as a contemporary critic of Tolkien's who loved Lord of the Rings (but he certainly wasn't unbiased, as Tolkien was his friend, colleague and sometimes-collaborator). I don't see where they got confused.

[Larry.]

Fair enough. I'm sure that in the 70's, there probably was a bit more of a "youthful" stigma for LOTR. I do think its hard to analyze because the two writer's works aren't really apples to apples. As you said, besides Labyrinths, Borges doesn't really have many well-known books in the US and its hard to compare magazine sales to book sales, etc., etc.

Btw, I didn't realize the term "Hispanic countries" was potentially offensive. Normally, I'd just use the descriptor Latin-American, but I was typing fast. Why is it offensive? I lived in Costa Rica for a time and go back to visit would like to know if "paises hispanos" is a term I should avoid and solely use "paises latinos". Is it because its not applicable to Brazil, since they speak Portuguese?

I taught Latinos/as for two years of ESL History in Florida and what I recall (and having done a search, I see my thoughts were confirmed) is that Latino/a follows the term that latinoamericanos would use, while Hispanic is used so interchangeably by Anglos that it's misapplied and thus has become viewed as being an insensitive term (similar to Okies in the 1930s and beyond in California).

As for the other, I guess we did find some common ground that we can agree upon :D

[MinDonner]

I don't see where this happened. Lewis Carroll was brought up by Larry as an example of fantasy writing Borges liked, whilst I brought up CS Lewis as a contemporary critic of Tolkien's who loved Lord of the Rings (but he certainly wasn't unbiased, as Tolkien was his friend, colleague and sometimes-collaborator). I don't see where they got confused.

Settle down, Wert, I didn't mean you. Just that the idea that someone might sensibly try and compare LotR to Alice in Wonderland is so baffling that my immediate assumption was that Borges must have got the names mixed up - well, either he did or whoever recommended Tolkien as their "similar to Alice" suggestion. I mean really, Carroll's books are many good things, but not even Amazon is daft enough to go "if you liked Through the Looking Glass, you may enjoy The Silmarillion" - it's like someone saying "so, you're a fan of Dr Seuss; well, TS Eliot wrote some poems about cats, so here's a copy of The Waste Land" and then being surprised when it didn't go down so well. :dunno:

[fionwe1987]

Settle down, Wert, I didn't mean you. Just that the idea that someone might sensibly try and compare LotR to Alice in Wonderland is so baffling that my immediate assumption was that Borges must have got the names mixed up - well, either he did or whoever recommended Tolkien as their "similar to Alice" suggestion. I mean really, Carroll's books are many good things, but not even Amazon is daft enough to go "if you liked Through the Looking Glass, you may enjoy The Silmarillion" - it's like someone saying "so, you're a fan of Dr Seuss; well, TS Eliot wrote some poems about cats, so here's a copy of The Waste Land" and then being surprised when it didn't go down so well. :dunno:

I don't think that was the implication of the comparison at all. I think Borgess was saying that Alice was a "true" example of a fantasy, unlike Tolkien's works. I don't think he's saying they're comparable works at all.

[Larry.]

I don't think that was the implication of the comparison at all. I think Borgess was saying that Alice was a "true" example of a fantasy, unlike Tolkien's works. I don't think he's saying they're comparable works at all.

That's how I understood it as well. Flash-forward 40 years or so from then, and the situation might be reversed for some fantasy fans. Irony.

[fionwe1987]

That's how I understood it as well. Flash-forward 40 years or so from then, and the situation might be reversed for some fantasy fans. Irony.

The problem with Borgess' statement, of course, is that for all its faults, the Lord of the Rings uses the fantasy setting to make more of a point than Alice in Wonderland. Both authors created a very memorable secondary world, but Tolkein uses it better. Carrol's world seems to exist so the reader could say "oooh... So cool!".

[Larry.]

The problem with Borgess' statement, of course, is that for all its faults, the Lord of the Rings uses the fantasy setting to make more of a point than Alice in Wonderland. Both authors created a very memorable secondary world, but Tolkein uses it better. Carrol's world seems to exist so the reader could say "oooh... So cool!".

I would debate this with you, but how about later today I translate what Borges wrote about Carroll in a book from around this time, so we could have a thread on Carroll rather than just appending it to Tolkien? Does that sound reasonable?

[fionwe1987]

I would debate this with you, but how about later today I translate what Borges wrote about Carroll in a book from around this time, so we could have a thread on Carroll rather than just appending it to Tolkien? Does that sound reasonable?

Sure, that's fine.

[alguien]

I taught Latinos/as for two years of ESL History in Florida and what I recall (and having done a search, I see my thoughts were confirmed) is that Latino/a follows the term that latinoamericanos would use, while Hispanic is used so interchangeably by Anglos that it's misapplied and thus has become viewed as being an insensitive term (similar to Okies in the 1930s and beyond in California).

As for the other, I guess we did find some common ground that we can agree upon :D

Thanks for the link. Next time I go back to Costa Rica, I will keep that in mind. :thumbsup:

(although usually we just say "tico" and "tica" for everything in that country)

[Larry.]

Thanks for the link. Next time I go back to Costa Rica, I will keep that in mind. :thumbsup:

(although usually we just say "tico" and "tica" for everything in that country)

I think of them as ticos/as as well, just like I call the people from Buenos Aires porteños/as all the time.