Borges’ fateful attachment to poetry was evident from his loyalty to this form of writing until the last moments of his life. He wrote his last poetry group “The Conspirators” a year before his death, revealing that poetry was not at all just a moment in the path of Borges that prepared him to move to another moment, nor was it a form of writing that was separated from it by changing to another form, but the loyalty of poetry was part of his vision. It is profound about literature with its main face, about the complex relationships of written forms, and about the unity that governs these forms even if they appear separate in textual practice. An obscure separation, only on the surface, when the writing of Borges is governed by bonds and connections not seen, because Borges did not exaggerate the weaving threads of these links and implicitly link between storytelling and poetry, as the two forms on which Borges, throughout his life, practiced writing.
Poetry remained within these unseen interlinkages and based on the perception of Borges, who considered poetry the basis of literature, building the path of this literary writer, even in the years that witnessed his poetic silence. It is the silence that was evident, for example, from the interval between his third collection of poems, “San Martin’s Notebook”, published in 1929, and his fourth collection of poems, “The Creator,” published three decades later, that is, the year 1960. From the heart of this same poetic silence, a relationship was organized. Borges, in the sublime saying, concurred with a large circle determined on the basis of the relationship between the beginning and the end of writing with him, as revealed by the connection of his first group of poetry with his last group, as it was organized according to a smaller circle that closed on to silence that made poetry endlessly returning from within this silence itself, as a tributary. Poetically and a need that poetry itself requires. This circular path guided Borges’s relationship with poetry, starting with the constant return of poetry in his writing. The path also made this relationship itself a manifestation of the circles in which Borges was passionate about its secrets, and transformed the pattern of connection, in this relationship, into a feature of the features of the fateful connections that he lived and contemplated at the same time, in a way that the strings of which, throughout the course of his life, did not cease to return and renew .
In addition to this path of secrets, Borges used to see himself as a poet in origin, which he expressed in a press statement he made in 1978, in which he stated: “Personally, I believe that I am a poet. I feel that I am very close to what I write in a semi-immediate relationship, while stories are something prepared in advance with premeditation. It requires long work, and once I write it I see her very far away, but everyone tends to look at me as a prose writer. ” Borges considered himself a poet, and married in his writing between poetry and prose, in a way that permits the question of the written need for this marriage, what each writing form achieves in it for Borges, what their silent harmony achieves in his textual practice, and what the deep vowel between them contains. Borges’s statement that he was, in the first place, a poet is matched by the tendency of most studies on him to consecrate him as a storyteller. Although the interpretations accomplished on the author’s works are inconsistent with his statement, which is part of the law of reading and of the rights established in the reading act, Borges’s preference for the trait of the poet is very significant, which opens an interpretive path other than the one opened by an approach that gives priority to the character of the narrator. Also, meditate on his written experience from the position of his marriage between the two forms: The poetic and prose, he himself clears a third path of interpretation and approach. Moreover, this same pairing permits itself, from another angle, of a unity manifested by two sides, which opens a fourth way of interpretation. The multiplicity of the reading rivers made possible by the works of Borges is not alien to this writer who, in his creative texts as well as in his interpretive meditations, was entrusted in the making of mazes, on the infinite meaning, and on the rift paths of reading that lead only to suspicion.
In general, the marriage between poetry and narration, in Borges’ textual practice, has also turned into a subject of interpretation, as meditations were carried out on it that touched even the reason for critical studies to be more preoccupied with the writing of Borges prose rather than with his poetic writing. It is true that what resulted from some of these reflections, and the fertile questions they opened and the issues they raised, involved problems affecting the verb of Borges, in his textual practice, between two forms of Scripture, but it seems that the approach of this action for him can be launched at the beginning, before listening Because of its ramifications and issues, from the unifying element of Borges’ marriage between poetry and prose, that is, the element of his fateful relationship with the question of literature; Whatever form it is in and in which literature is revealed. Borges’ marriage between poetry and narration is tied, in depth before any other consideration, to his fascination with literature, that is, the main motive for this marriage, before all that may result from the contemplation of each of its two parties and the questioning of the relationship between them, is the fascination with the unknown of literature that Borges vowed His life in its entirety, as evidenced by the path of this life, and this is what Borges himself acknowledged in the “introduction” in which he singled out the French edition of “Dar Labliad”, on the occasion of its publication of his “complete” works. In this “introduction”, Borges stated that he had realized, from his childhood, that his destiny would be literary, and that he devoted his life to literature without acquiring any certainty that he had known him at the end of his life.
Fascination with literature, then, is likely, in the beginning, to comprehend the marriage between poetry and prose before any contemplation of the ramifications of this marriage and the consequent questions affecting Borges’ textual practice, especially since this infatuation was the basis of life that Borges chose or chose, and was also directed towards the path of Borges. Who ruled this life, whatever form this attraction took in textual practice.
It is evident from Borges’s scriptural path that his fateful attraction to literature in which the two forms of writing fuse and interact from within their contrasts and in which the relationship of this writer to writing unfolds before the branches of marriage in form took many manifestations, including:
– The literary exuberance of Borges and his adherence to the book, as a necessity in which life is focused on reading. Perhaps this is what led Borges to consider himself a primarily reader, and what he read is more important than what he wrote. This importance is not only due to the type of recitation, in which poetry intertwines with narration within the aforementioned attraction, but also refers to two things that guarantee Borges’s worthy of the reciter: The first of them is the brightness of his literary reciter, and the second is the unique way in which he read literature, whether this literature is manifested in poetic texts or in narrative texts.
– Borges’s textualization of the epistemic power contained in literature; Poetry or story. It is an energy comparable to thought, and may even reach areas that the thought itself does not reach. Therefore, it was remarkable that Borges was keen in his lectures, research and introductions of altruism, to cite, mostly in the public, the writers and thinkers, not the critics, because Borges is a news of the power of epistemological literature, reading and writing. With this strong experience, Borges transformed poetry and narration as an argument in the production of a profound knowledge of the issues on which he wrote and in which he was occupied, or about which he gave lectures or gave dialogues about them.
– Borges’ realization that, on the level of textual practice, the unknown of literature does not unfold according to one form. Rather, it must have more than one form, because going towards this unknown only leads to suspicion and suspicion. Perhaps the most important thing that Borges left behind is basically the skeptical, penetrating tone of his poetic and prose writing on the one hand, and the way in which he formulated this tone, on the other hand, so that it can be assumed that there are, in the works that Borges succeeded, shades that have foundations for the compilation of what enables writing History of the suspicion. And how useful it would be if it was possible to write the history of suspicion, similar to the testimony that can be obtained from writing the history of plagiarism, the history of envy, the history of illusion, and other illuminating histories of the unknown of life, the mystery of man, and the mysteries of the human soul. They are postponed dates, literature contains a large part of its fertile material. Borges is rightly considered one of those who have enriched the material required to write the history of suspicion.
– Borges was careful not to differentiate between his poetry and his prose, and he himself declared: “I do not differentiate between my poetry and my prose, but others do.” Borges’s failure to differentiate between his poetry and his prose is an exegetical approach to his works that is added to his statement that he is originally a poet, especially since the statement issued by a reader of the news of the news of the great vitality that the choice of approaches to interpretation is. However, this approach does not preclude the approach, as in the studies that are based on this distinction, from paving other ways of interpretation contrary to the opinion of the literary work owner. Perhaps Borges was keen not to differentiate in his literary achievement between these two forms of writing, which is very significant in this context, due to his vision of literature, which he has always seen as based, in the first place, on a concrete unity between poetry and narration. These two forms, in his conception, were merging in the beginning, and he therefore hopes to restore their unity in the coming time. Perhaps this is what justified Borges’ bias, for example, to epic poetry as based on this fusion.
– Borges’ intellectual interest in the question of literature and his practice of writing based on a literary vision that does not separate its essence from thought, as if Borges’s reading of literary texts and his writing of literature only serve to bridge the gap between literature and thought, in a way that can restore their original unity and unity at the present time. It is the unity that Borges was keen to establish in his fictional texts as well as in his poetic texts, and its impact extended even to the construction of his written form, especially in his prose writing, in which the story was based on its literary intersection with a tight overlap between the story and thought.
Borges’ awareness of the vitality of form in constructing literary text. The dazzling literary energy of Borges is attributed, among other things, to his formulation of a written form with two sides intertwined to the point of ambiguity, since the interplay between the two sides of the written form is the product of the intuitiveness of this form, and the ability of my other formulas towards the intuition of this form. This was achieved in a major way in his prose writing, which was built at the point of contact between narration and thought, i.e. the intersection of the narrative form with the form of the research article. However, the rise of the intuitive form on the connection between narration and thought does not mean that shades of poetry were not applicable to this contact. Just as the stories of Borges allow it to be read as thought, it allows, at the same time, to monitor the flow of poetry in it from outside its familiar form, because thought in Borges’ stories nourishes the imagination with a chief face. Perhaps this basis was what justified, along with other foundations, the extension of thought in Borges’s poetic texts. Texts in which thought has received poetry hospitality to it, in a way that can only be achieved in poetry and poetry, through metaphors drawn to far-flung original patterns, and through an intellectual rhythm that testifies to the power of the word in the poetic composition.
Perhaps this fascination with literature, which Borges identified with the concept of life itself, is what determines, in general, his biblical attraction, which is marked by the characteristic of “the irresistible.” It is a crucial characteristic that made this attraction fateful, whether it was achieved through poetry or through prose in which Borges sided with the storytelling. Borges has been keen, in his poetry as in his prose, to anchor the intellectual aspect of literature, even if his prose, not his poetry, dominated the great interest in the studies carried out on him. This intellectual feature in Borges’ writing practice was nothing but one of the building blocks of the unity of poetry and narration, even if they appeared separately. Hence, Borges ‘marriage between poetry and narration allows it to be assimilated outside of comparison or differentiation, and to be assimilated even outside the concept of pairing itself, because the silent guide, in Borges’ writing practice, is the hidden unit that governs the relationship of poetry to narration in his view; The unity that makes literature the singing of an existential tale, a tale formed with the magic of words and energy on which Borges so relied upon. In this sense, the reader can find poetry even in Borges’ fictional texts, as long as dream and fiction penetrate the two biblical forms together in his practice. The firmness of imagination in Borges ‘achievement of writing renders the boundaries between his poetry and his prose fragile, because his conception of literature and writing is governed by a mechanized unity between the two forms, and it is silently governed to seek to restore this unity, even if studies that differentiate Borges’ poetry and his prose are keen to defend the difference between them. Some interpretations based on this distinction have tended to view Borges’ poetic texts as an embodiment of himself, his personal views and his view of the universe, in contrast to his prose texts that include many voices. Despite the prevalence of this trend in interpretation, which may highlight differences between Borges’s poetry and his prose, the intertwining links between the two forms remain stronger when they are interpreted from the position of the concept of writing, from the position of the hidden unity on which literature is based in Borges’s perspective, and from the position of literature constructing thought The building into which Borges sided with and cemented his texts. Literary writing for Borges feeds on the imagination, which this writer has remained faithful to since dreaming became his habit, as he put it, and it produces thought coming from regions that the intellectual discourse itself may not reach. * Excerpts from the introduction to the first part (translation by Khaled Raissouni) from Borges’s poetry, which will be published in three parts on “The Publications of the Sentences”. Note that all Borges’ works will be issued by the House in agreement with the rights holders.
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube Here