My Response to Borges

Borges shows how ignorance can be destructive in his stories: “The Garden of Forking Paths”, “The Gospel According to Mark”, and “Emma Zunz”. All of which end in the death of at least one person, but different situations lead to these deaths. First, in “The Garden of Forking Paths”, the main character, Hsi P'eng, kills Stephen Albert, even though he's the only person to ever figure out his ancestors work, to prove he's not a coward. What Hsi P'eng fails to realize is that Stephen Albert is the only person that could have brought honor to his family. Second, in “The Gospel According to Mark”, the Gutres' misunderstanding of what Espinosa is trying to tell them leads to them sacrificing him. Third, in “Emma Zunz” there's the ignorance of Lowenthal's effect on Emma's father's life and the ignorance of the cops. I find it particularly interesting in the way that he shows how this is done, and even though Cortázar disagrees with this, I completely agree with Borges. If you think about it a lot of artists or scientists have been ridiculed all because of ignorance. Such as Galileo and his discoveries being persecuted by the Catholic Church. Of course, today we acknowledge and appreciate his work, but when he was alive the lack of open-mindedness of others decided his fate.

The other themes of Borges that I found interesting was his theory on time in “The Garden of Forking Paths” and the ability to make a truth like in “Emma Zunz”. His concept of time is amazing to think about and kind of mind blowing in itself. The idea that time isn't a one way street that there are many realities and all of them happening at the same time is weird to think about. It really makes the idea of how one decision can change your entire life very real. This kind of ties in with his idea in “Emma Zunz” that you can make your own truth. As we all know Emma wasn't really raped by Lowenthal, but made it appear that way. It's fascinating to wonder how much that we hear about is true. Borges makes your mind boggle in a different way than Cortázar, but is still pretty torturing to your mind. Although I have to say I loved Borges! Probably my favorite so far!

My Take On Máquez

            Unlike Cortázar, Máquez doesn't play with time, with perspective or with your mind in his writing. He rather proposes a different reality from our own. In both "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" and "The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World", Máquez brings different people to our world; different in the way that they don't live up to the people's expectations in the story. As the angel in "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" is ugly, old and doesn't speak Latin like an should, and the drowned man in "The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World" doesn't have the expected expression on his face that a drowned man is supposed to have.

            This aspect of his writing reminds me of when I first met one of my best friends. She thought I looked preppy and popular and, therefore, thought I would be a mean girl. After having made this assumption she already had her mind made up that she didn't like me. Eventually, she found that I didn't live up to her expectations obviously since she's my best friend now. But this is in sorts what happened to the angel and the drowned man. Their appearances determined the way they were viewed by society. Since the drowned man was handsome he was buried like family and even pitied based on a life that the society made up for him (like the whole doorways being too small and everyone calling him names in his own society), even though he was really just a strange man that washed up on the beach. On the same token because the angel was old and ugly he was treated poorly (like being branded). Máquez is very critical of society in his writing with how society treats people that it feels are different. In the end, I think he makes crucial and true observations about human society.

My Perspective on Cortazar

            In his writing, Cortázar uses magic to prove his points about human behavior, and talks about hypocrisy, exile, and how reading is real. This makes his writing relatable despite its incredible elements. Everyone has experienced hypocrisy at some point in their life. Whether it's a parent telling you not smoke, as they continue smoking their own cigarette, or a grandparent telling you not to cut towards yourself, as they cut the onion with the blade towards them. Generally, I agree with Cortázar. Hypocrisy is a bad thing, but in certain situations what may work for one person may not work for another.

            Even though I haven't really experienced exile, the book, The Naming shows how a girl was ripped away from her home to be forced into slavery. This caused her a sort of pain and sadness that the book allowed me to empathize and almost experience it with her. Which brings me into my next aspect of Cortázar's stories; in "The Continuity of Parks", he shows how the reader of a book becomes integrated into the story. I personally love to read and know what it's like to feel so apart of the story that you feel that it's happening to you. Especially, when there is a death of a sub character that was close to the main character. You got to know this other character with the narrator and you got just as close to this person as the narrator allows, like in Harry Potter when a very important character dies. Overall Cortázar makes great points about humanity, and even though he can be confusing to the point where your brain hurts from going in so many circles, he's ultimately a brilliant writer.

My Reader's Response to Popol Vuh

            The Popol Vuh was a very interesting perspective on human creation written by the Mayan people. Their gods reminded me of the Greek and Roman gods in the way that they were so human like. For example, it became apparent to me that the gods wanted a companion above all else in man, just as human beings do in each other. In my mind, it kind of equated with both dating to find the man you want to spend the rest of your life with and meeting and getting to know different people to find out who you want to be your friends. These gods had to go through multiple trials and errors, just like how most people have to spend time with different people in order to find their best friend. All humans really want from their friends is someone who will love them for who they are, which is also what the gods wanted from man. This was what they didn't find in the monkeys or the other animals they created.

            It reminds me of when I was younger and trying to find a friend. Even though I went through a lot of disappointment and sadness, I learned from all my different friendships what I really needed in a friend. This is what the gods were doing as well that made them very human like, they were learning how to create man into what they had imagined. The idea of gods being human like is very much like the Roman and Greek gods. They had a god of the sun just as the Mayans do and a god of the moon, and they bickered among themselves and fought for power. This concept isn't as portrayed in religion today as most modern religions are monotheistic and the gods are all knowing. It's interesting to think that this is how people related to their world and how they explained things like human existence or how the earth was created. Overall, it was definitely a new way of looking at the world and how it was created.