 |
| http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Guan85bqvB8/ TbsOOCkqSuI/AAAAAAAAA08/HCwI_7kn034/ s320/escher_csg026_encounter.jpg |
Modernism is a twentieth-century
literary movement that began in Europe. Influenced by new ideas in psychology,
the modernists explored the split between the artist's social and private
selves, seeing the artist as a lonely figure struggling in an insensitive
world. In Magic Realism, this concept manifests in liminality, multiple perspectives, unreliable narrators and non-linear narrative structures.
Read the poem by de Burgos (via Kindle). Like
"Borges and Myself," it explores the idea that the artist's everyday
self is divided from his or her creative self.
Answer the following questions:
1) How is de Burgo's view of this
division similar to Borges's? How is it different?
2) Which translation do you prefer? How
do the translations differ, and how might they tell slightly different stories?
(Note: The first translation is, indeed, significantly shorter than the
second.)
Your response should be 200-300 words. Post by Wednesday, 4/23@10PM. Respond to two of your classmates' posts by Thursday, 2/24@10PM. Replies to responses are encouraged, but not required.
Something I saw as significantly different between de Burgo’s view of the division between her two selves and Borges’s view was that de Burgo wrote her poem from the perspective of her self as writer. Despite these different stand points however, both authors seem to criticize and decry their alternative selves as being hypocritical and fake. De Burgo as the writer accuses her other self as being a “cold doll of social lies”, one that blindly goes where the puppeteers of society bid her go. Similarly, Borges scoffs at how his sensationalized writer self has become one that is corrupted by fame and the media; catering to the superficial wants of society’s tastes and whims.
ReplyDeleteWhile the second translation seems to paint a much more thorough and detailed depiction of the “writer” self, I find myself preferring the first translation perhaps because of it’s more vague ambiguity. I like the clean cut streamlined structure of the poem that still clearly portrays the ideas and yet leaves a lot of empty space for the reader to play with and interpret freely.
The much more prose style of the second translation lends to a more overbearing and dominant impression of the narrator while the first seems to hold a more scorning aloofness. I feel a lot more active disdain in the second translation and it reads more like a stream of consciousness that is almost on the verge of breaking free of any organizational structure. While I enjoyed the raw emotion of the second, I still preferred the more controlled and cold yet no less disdaining translation in the first version.
Though your argument of preferring the first translation than the second because of its ambiguity is quite appealing, your word choice of using "overbearing" or even "disdain" about the second translation seems a bit too strong. Albeit if that is what you think, it's fine but would you not say without including Agueros' personal impression, both translations are actually quite the same? Just, more or less, casually reading over your piece, it took me by surprise that Agueros' piece really made you feel "a lot more active disdain" or is it you really mean something else?
DeleteBurgo’s view of the division between an artist’s social and private selves is considerably different to Borges’ in the sense that Burgo could clearly distinguish which was which, while Borges became lost amidst the two selves. Burgo continuously contrasted the two selves as enemies of each other and, at the end, added that the private self is free from the artist self. Borges, on the other hand, was “fated to become lost” and ended up having to surrender to “him,” the writer. Despite differences like the speaker of de Burgo’s opinion being the writer self and the speaker of Burges’ view being the private self, they both agreed that there was one side that was better side and one that was worse. Burgo criticized her private self for being selfish and trapped in trying to fulfill given roles. Burges called his writer self a showy and stagy person, which aren’t necessarily good qualities.
ReplyDeleteI preferred the first translation particularly because of the punctuation. I gravitated away from the second translation because I felt the breaks in lines were not in the right places for me. The separation of the stanzas in the first version provided a more clean-cut picture that contrasted the two selves, whereas the second seemed to be clumped together and a little more like pointing a finger to assign blame. The repeated “You...not I-” format of the first translation made it easier to place the different selves side by side.
Berry, I had similar interpretations towards both poems as you did. You mentioned that, "they both agreed that there was one side that was better side and one that was worse." I thought this statement was particularly insightful because although both poets seemed to present either internal or external disagreements, they both depict the "good" and the "evil."
DeleteBerry:
DeleteI agree with the differences you noted between the two, especially how they each regard one side as a better person than the other. I don't really agree on how you though Burgo's contrasted the two selves as enemies. I thought she regarded the two selves as two different parts of her, not fighting against each other. I also like the first translation better, at first I couldn't quite pin-point why, but now I realize it is because of the "clean-cut" picture you talk about her.
First off, the most striking difference that I noticed while reading the poem is that the two selves in Burgos’ case are rather antagonistic. While Borges is not too sure who is the real him, the I in Burgos is very sure that she is separate from and more genuine than her public image. Both Borges and Burgos see their artistic selves as a fraud. However, the I in Borges is set on “surrendering” himself to the other man. He is willing to give himself up in order to fuel Borges’ capacity to create. Alternatively, the I in Burgos wants separate herself as much as possible from Burgos. She recognizes that Burgos is only a façade, likening it to a piece of clothing. To her, Burgos is not even an issue as she knows herself to be real one. She believes herself to be free from Burgos and strives for freedom while he is not able to escape from Borges and is constantly running.
ReplyDeleteI think I prefer the second translation because the speaker further expresses her intentions and attitudes towards her other self. Through the structure of the first translation, there is already a very clear contrast between the you and I as well as the objection that I has to Burgos. The speaker makes the distinction between who is real and who is not. However in the second translation, there is an even stronger objection to Burgos. The speaker sees Burgos as “unjust and inhuman” and as something that should be purged. In Agueros’ translation, I and Burgos are not only differentiated but I is determined to destroy the false image.
Clark, I like how you interpreted Burgos' poems as antagonistic. I agreed with your statement that "While Borges is not too sure who is the real him, the I in Burgos is very sure that she is separate from and more genuine than her public image." Borges is indeed caught in between his two different personas. It was also interesting to see that you preferred the second translation more because it provides more contrasts between you and I. I personally liked the first one because it was short and simple and got to the point so your perspective gave me another way to compare the two translations. I also like how you provided the distinction between the two translators work.
DeleteIIn both stories, the writer is the one that is more expressive and creative. Do you think that if Borges and Me was written from the perspective of Borges, it would too be claiming the "me" as a façade? I think your perspective on the two stories gives a really clear idea between relationship dynamics between the "I"/"You" and the "super ego"/writer self. One is trying to free himself from the writer-self, and the other is where the writer-self is trying to free herself from what people usually see of her. It is also interesting that the two non writer selves are very different. In Borges it is a strong inner self that believes the writer self is the one people see in society while in Burgos, the writer is the inner self. What do you think in each poem, the narrator more likely identified with? Which one do you think is more truly reflective of the "self"?
DeleteIn the stories of Burgo and Borges’s, I felt like Borges is lost within his own internal conflict, whereas Burgo is fighting his two selves. In Borges, it included two selves of the author, one that’s speaks more of himself as a writer and another self that is shown more to others and is less representative of himself. Borges includes the fact that he is “… fated to become lost… [and] will survive in the other man.” It seems like he is lost within himself and he is starting to become someone he’s unfamiliar with, whereas Burgo is very certain who she wants to be and tries to fight the self that conforms to society. In Burgo’s account, she includes feministic opinions and criticizes her other self who is “… resigned, [and] submissive.” She strikingly prideful in the fact that “[she is] Rocinante, bolting free…” and strongly condemns her other self; Burgo on the other hand slowly gives in to being someone who is not representative of himself. The two are also very similar since both stories include internal conflict and the idea of conforming to societal expectations instead of being who they are. Both Burgo and Borges have two separate selves and they both recognized a self that they preferred.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the first translation since, though it is shorter, it provides a much more concise and powerful message. The second transition, though longer with elaborations in the end, repeats the messages portrayed earlier in the poem. In the first poem, its words are a lot more succinct and to the point. In the case of the first translation, I feel like it embodies the idea of “less is more” and delivers a much more powerful impact on the reader.
Jeffrey,
DeleteI had a similar thought process when comparing the two stories, but somehow the quotes you selected made me think of how Burgo's other private, docile self could be parallel to Borges' private self, who began the narration of the "Borges and Myself." Perhaps Burgo's creative self was also consuming her everyday self, though without knowing so. And Borges' writer self felt very much separated and different from his private self. Do you think that it is possible that we are reading the two sides of the same coin?
Hi Jeffrey,
DeleteI thought it was really interesting how you said that Borges is lost within his own internal conflict. I had similar thoughts, but I did not think about how he could have been “lost” within his own conflicts; I thought he had simply been defeated by the writer self of his. This word choice “lost” made me rethink about the two stories again, whether Burgos and Borges were losing the fight in their identify crisis or if they were struggling to be only one or the other self.
Burgos’ view of the internal battle between the Id (to create) and the super ego seem mostly consistent with that of Borges’. Borges (at least in the first translation) takes on a more dominant position in advocating for a person to let their creative urges and creative self become their self in the public eye. From the background we receive, Burgos seems to have died leaning more towards her creative side than listening to her superego. Otherwise she would have tailored her poetry to what was most acceptable at the time to make money and become popular
ReplyDeleteI like the first translation because Borges’ ideas are more general than his in the second. General in the sense that he seems to be angry with her for the inherit badness in doing things for others rather than herself. The second story focuses on specific aspects of life that Borges believes is holding her back. I think the second story hints more toward her monetary issues and tangible issues.
I like how you brought into the perspective of the writer of the poem. How you explained that if the author wanted to listen to society, "she would have tailored her poetry to what was most acceptable at the time to make money and become popular". I think that it is an interesting thought and though we will never know the perspective of the author or if her history, it pulls in another untouched perspective of how, because the poem exists, it must mean that the super ego is being expressed.
DeleteI think the main difference between Borges and Burgos is how the two deal with the internal struggle they are each facing differently.In Borges in myself, "I" is slowly "surrendering everything to him" (him being Borges). Even though "I" knows that he does not like the person that Borges is, and that Borges isn't his true self. He also acknowledges that little by little the "I" in him is becoming Borges, and eventually there will be only one identity. Unlike in Borges, Burgos doesn't seem to face such an struggle between the two identities she relates with. It's almost as if she acknowledges that they will coexist and one will not dominant over the other. I think both are similar because both know that their inner self is their true self, which is hard to reach, this inner self is the better "half" of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the first translation over the second translation because I feel like the second translation doesn't give you the same amount of space to speculate about what is happening. It sort of gives you the end of the "story" and I think the first translation offers a lot more space to fill in your meaning.
Hi Victoria,
DeleteI do agree with you how both Borges and Burgos dealt with their internal struggles differently. Borges definitely had a more obvious problem in choosing the truest self. Unlike Borges, Burgos definitely handled the situation better and could see things more clearly. However, when it comes to problems like self identify, how do you think writers/artists can differentiate their true inner selves from their working (writers/artists) selves, when sometimes they get lost in their work that the reality and imagination get mixed up?
Victoria,
DeleteI find it interesting how you saw Borges' piece as the result of his surrendering of one of his identities. I think your interpretation of this makes the Borges piece even stronger because it is not only a constant struggle between the two but also shows how one identity definitely shows up to be the stronger one. The fact that one is surrendering gives the author a sense of direction and certainty rather than remaining in the midst of dualism. I also agree with you that between the two translations, the first one is preferable because of its breaks in its stanza makes it easier for the readers to absorb and process the words.
Between de Burgo’s and Borges’ views, one indicates a sociological point of view, while the other reflects on two ways of looking at the cosmological view. Both point of views are abstract through their ability to reflect on the idea of “self.” In de Burgo’s poem, she is clear of where she stands when it comes to her perspective of the world, whereas Borges is conflicted between her artistic and private self. De Burgo’s poems reflect between her perspective of the “good” and the “evil.” It is almost as if she is describing herself as the higher being when it comes to her understanding towards the world. At one point, she mentions, “You, like your world, are selfish; not I- I gable everything to be what I am.” When she says “your world,” I portrayed it as her separating herself from everyone else and almost in an egotistical manner. Borges poem differs from de Burgo’s because it is more about the internal struggle of the artistic self and the private self. In his poem, he says " I tried ridding myself of him..." and we seem to be able to identify his attempt to get rid of his other self. This again shows us the back and forth struggle between Borges' artistic self and Borges' personal self.
ReplyDeleteI personally like the first translation better just because it is short and simple and it gets to the point. Even though it isn’t as long as the second translation, it gives the readers enough insight that we are able to understand her perspective within a few sentences. The second translation is wordier and we see more examples and contrasting ideas juxtaposed within the passage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think its really interesting that you saw one version as the sociological point of view and the other as a cosmological, because I did not think to make that connection. Burgo separated her two selves into different worlds, which also made me interpret it as her private self was of a higher being than her artistic self, who existed in a self absorbed world. However, since, Borges's private self struggles to find a coping mechanism against his artistic self, who slowly takes over his entire mind, do you think that Borges could be coming more from a psychological view point?
DeleteBurgo’s view of this division is similar to Borges’s in such ways that they both reflect upon the two selves that they portray in their lives. In “Borges and Myself”, Myself (“I”) started to lose track of whom the true self is. As Borges wrote, “I lose to everything and everything is left to oblivion or to the other man”, which illustrates how at last “I” fell in the hands of Borges, who is not the ideal self. One major difference between the two stories is that Borges loses himself in the battle of true identity, whereas Burgos faces her identity crisis and recognizes their differences. In “To Julia De Burgos”, there seemed to be a struggle between Burgos’s writer self and Burgos’s inner true self. However, Burgos knows that her inner true self is better than her writer self, because Burgos’s inner true self said that “for you are the clothing and I am the essence; Between us lies the deepest abyss”. This line really emphasizes the acknowledgement of the differences between the divided selves.
ReplyDeleteI preferred the first translation of “To Julia De Burgos”, because of the structure of the poem. When I read it, it was clearer and more concise as to which two people she is comparing to. Whereas the second translator, Jack Agüeros, crammed everything that Burgo’s wanted to say in one big paragraph and so Burgos’ ideas became too much to handle at once. The second translation did not give the readers time to think about the opposing idea that was just made, whereas the use of space in the first translation gave the readers a chance to reflect and ponder upon each comparison that she made between her two selves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTrini,
DeleteI really liked your comment about Borges losing himself in the battle of true identity. I agree with this fact because I also feel like Borges takes control of the "I" and overpowers the "I". Rather than fighting back, the "I" just accepts this as truth and agrees to be the submissive one. However in de Burgo's case, seh acknowledges that there is tension but chooses to address it rather than accepting it. In the Borges story, there is a clear understanding of the settled truth, while in de Borgo's story, there is no clear understanding, but rather an interpretation based on the reader.
When you mentioned that I (Borges) seemed to be lost in his battle while I (Burgos) is facing her crisis head on it made me wonder if it was possible that the two stories were showing the same battle but at different stages. The narrator of Borges did at one point try to get rid of Borges, but failed to do so. As for Burgos, it is mentioned that she only has the intention of chasing Burgos away. Do you think that perhaps Burgos might fall to the same fate?
DeleteWe will never be able to completely destroy our public selves. After these considerations, it seems to me that both Borges and Burgos are in a battle that they are destined to lose. I would suggest that Burgos is still in denial while Borges has been reduced to a helpless state. Perhaps the healthiest alternative would be simply to accept the two selves as coexisting forces.
Hey Trini,
DeleteI really liked how you made the second part of the response a very personal one. Discussing your personal preference based on the how the text presented itself was a very interesting way to compare the two. I think this provides another level of insight into the discussion of the work as you interject your own interpretations into concrete text. It shows that the text has evolved from words on a page to one that provokes reaction. I think this is an element that is constantly missing from examination of texts. And the way you mention how reflective the first one allows you to be is an unique and commendable way to view the text Besides that, your insight to how the two text should be interpretted in the first part of the response provided great distinction between the two poems and how they differentiated from one another.
Borges and Burgos write about their struggle, on a psychological level, between their ego and super ego (whether the writer is the super ego or the ego is difficult to say for Borges). A lot of the differences between their “writer self” and their “private self” has a lot to deal with their societal expectations. For Borges, this includes the disdain of the writer of being an exaggerator and stagy (traits that society tends not to compliment on). For Burgos, the disdain comes not from the writer but from the “private self”, as someone who is a hypocrite and submissive. The difference between Burgos and Borges therefore comes from who is the one talking and who is the one being criticized. Burgos writes from a very obvious super ego stand point, the voice of “I” is morally charged and has implied expectations of how the “you” ought to act. This perspective attacks society’s expectations and confronts the “private self” (or ego). The contrast and separation between the two selves is very evident as there are clear distinctions of “you” and “I” to clarify perspective. With Borges, it is the private self that criticizes the “writer self”. There is a stronger lean of identity in Borges towards the private self, as the “I” explains that he has tried to “let go” of Borges, than in Burgos’ poem. But the actual separation in identity in Borges is less clear because the differences in the two people are very subtle.
ReplyDeleteI like the second translation better. Granted, the wording becomes a bit more confusing and arguably draws away from the point of the poem more so than extend it, but I think it more accurately reflects on the ambiguity of self-identity. In the first translation there was distinct separation between “you” and “I” and all pronouns tended to be at the beginning of the sentence. Those two traits give sharp contrast between the two identities. The second translation put some of the pronouns at the end of sentences or thoughts, like from “I am curled by the wind” to “the winds curl me”, giving the poem less focus, but creating more vivid descriptions.
For me, I felt as if both of Burgos' translations created vivid descriptions, despite the differences in the placement of the pronouns for each line ("not I" and "not me"). I think the difference between these two translations is not very obvious, but by using "I", Burgos tends to be more in control of what she is doing, rather than having things happening to "me". It is interesting you talk about Burgos' other self as her "private self", and this makes me realize that we often prefer to hide our sides with the more negative traits, such as being submissive, hypocritical, and less confident about being who we are. This also brings the question, which side actually is our true self: the somewhat weaker self we are afraid to show to others and therefore try to suppress? Or the more assertive and determined self that we try to bring out so that we can function in society successfully?
DeleteI think Burgos’ poem about her divided self is different from Borges’ in the way that she straightforwardly and distinctly puts a separation between her two selves. Furthermore, Burgos refers to the self that belongs to other people/society as “you” and her own self that belongs to no one but her own heart as “I”. In “Borges and Myself” the narrator writes about Borges as if he is a friend who does many of the same activities as the narrator or is in some ways an extended version of himself. For Burgos, she seems to have a certain amount of distaste for this “you” Julia de Burgos character. She is concrete in distinguishing the characteristics between “I” and “you” in her poem. In Agueros’ translation, this is particularly shown when Burgos points out that “you in yourself have no say; everyone governs you…” while “…me, in me only my heart governs”.
ReplyDeleteI feel that these two translations differ the most through Agueros’ inclusion of several more lines after the Rocinante horse metaphor, while Schulman’s translation ends right at this part. To me, Burgos expresses herself as “I” as a more physically, mentally, and emotionally powerful self in talking about the governing/running after the seven sins/holding the torch. I think this better represents how Burgos would see herself as completely independent and dissimilar to the “you” whom she address in the culminating last lines of the entire poem. I get the feeling that she feels as if she’s defeated this self that is addressed as “you” and that she, as “I”, has come out on the better side.
For the I in Borges, Borges is referred to in the third person instead of the second. This is likely what gives rise to the effect of referring to a "friend" instead of his other self. It is interesting how Borges is portrayed as more distant from the narrator even though, when compared to Burgos' self, he is the one that is more confused about his identity.
DeleteWhile it does seem like the speaker has conquered Burgos, I think it is important to note that she mentions "[she] will be" running after Burgos. This suggests that she sees that there are tensions between herself and Burgos but the actual the actual fighting hasn't occurred yet (it will "when the multitudes run rioting"). I think furthermore this can hint to bit of hesitancy about her decision as she will only take action when the other "injustices" have been burned and the "seven sins" are chased after.
The two stories differ in their approach to their alternate "self". The most stark contrast between the two is their response to their encroaching other identity. Borges on one hand, seemingly accepts the existence of his alternate self and is further embracing such an entity as his own. Burgo on the other hand, is utterly opposed to his other self and makes very clear distinction between the two. Nonetheless, the two stories are very similar in their concrete facts. Both share the same plot line of two people with split personalities and how they react to the emergence of their own other half. However, what i find most similar between the two is how the separate personality "takes over" the "self". In both cases, the two identities apart from its own is manifested within an expression of idea, whether it be poems or paintings or any of the such. In a sense, it is as if when going through artistic epiphanies, the concious mind is being thrust into a state of oblivion while another inhabitant of the mind who can do it much better than the original begins to take over. This is where the difference comes in as well. Borges reacts to the self writing the poems and such as one worthy of veneration and he gradually accepts his fate than his other self will eventually be able to merge the two into one and make the body his. Burgo however, believes that they are very distinct people and he himself should not be a subject to his obedience and is only right to break away from his other self. Personally, i enjoyed Borges's story much more because i believe it takes on a different perspective to what is now known as a dissociative disorder. Rather than pushing it away and going through denial then hatred, Borges accepts a more highly intelligent being within himself and allows him to make he the best that he can be. In a way, having that other identitiy gives more and allows more to a person, but when one recognizes and acknlowedges its difference, they eventually become one. And it is only in that case does one truly understand the sense of autonomous self.
ReplyDeleteEthan,
DeleteI was intrigued by your opinion of which was the more entertaining story to read. When I read the stories, I found de Borgo's story to be more entertaining because I liked the balance and the willingness for one personality to fight back against the other personality. However, after reading your post, I understand why Borge's story is also very entertaining. I never thought of his story as one of accepting a more high intelligent being within himself. That perspective has really changed how I view Borge's story and my opinion on it.
Ethan,
DeleteIt is quite interesting how you mention that Borges seems to accept his "super ego" which "allows more to [Borges]." You then mention that when the person recognizes this super ego, both become one , truly giving an understanding of self. I don't really agree with this statement or perhaps you could further explain this comment. The way I'm imagining this is that the super ego is the polar opposite of the "person" (ex. Social vs introvert). I think if someone understands their super ego it won't necessarily benefit them because others expect him or her to act a certain way but its ultimately up to the person himself or herself to act in the manner they want.
Ethan,
DeleteI really like how you specifically pointed out how there's the "other self" and a "true self" and how the "other self" eventually takes over the other. I like this because rather than saying that Borges denied of the true self while he accepted the other, you interpreted to be that Borges accepted both but felt more strongly towards one. The fact that the two can seemingly merge into one is as if how one person is not just one facade but a mixture of many.
The divisional views of Burgo’s and Borges’ are similar in that both show a disconnect between the outward portrayal and true self of a person. Both characters show a conflict with their super ego however, it is interesting to note the ways in which both characters interact with their super ego. Borges appears to take a more aggressive stance in that he advocates for people to overcome their super egos and make their true selves known. On the other hand, Burgos seems to be quite reticent in dealing with her super ego. It appears as if Burgos has given up hope and is not just accepting of the new position she has taken.
ReplyDeleteI favor Borges’ translation more so than the other stories because it shows a greater focus on internal conflict and internal cause for the issues that she now faces. In the other story, however, there seems to be more external issues that are to blame for the super ego. I find personal issues a more interesting story to follow as it represents the ideal life we wish to live, in which we can only blame ourselves for our issues.
Micheal:
DeleteReading your post brought me back to the idea from several classes ago regarding perception. I find it interesting how you said "true selves known" regarding borges and "over coming" their super ego. This made me think a lot further about how much we really know about ourselves. For example in both Burgos and Borges writing, there is one part of themselves which they hate, and another which they think is their "true self". What does "true self" really mean here? From any outsider the super ego is the true self, and even in Borges cases, his super ego is going to become his only self, whether it's "true" or not. Your post really got me thinking!
Michael,
DeleteI agree with your idea that Burgos seems to have given up hope and, at the same time, effectively gives into his other personality even as he continues to criticize it. I don't quite agree with your idea that "there seems to be more external issues that are to blame for the super ego" because isn't anything we are a product of something that we have perceived and filtered through our own ideas? I think it's fascinating to think of how concretely we can see Miller in action here. The same people are seeing the same things and yet because of their different roles and mindsets, they are expressed as such different individuals.
These two pieces, Burgo’s and Borges’s view are similar in that there is an divided self, where the reader can assume it is a different part of the narrator and seems to act on its own accord despite the discontent from the narrator. In this, they constantly use the same words, ‘you’ and ‘I’ to describe the differences between them. However, these two pieces differ in that I the Burgos piece, the narrator mainly praised her/him, from an egoistic perspective, to prove that s/he is better than ‘you’. In contrast, in Borges’s writing, he belittles himself and believes ‘you’ is better than the narrator as he was always a shadow of Borges.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these two translations, I would have to say I equally favor both of the translation, as in each translation, it provides not only two variety of perspective, but also what the author had intended for the reader to believe. By going back to Miller’s idea, people indeed do interpret a text by themselves. Nevertheless, by going into the context it both provided a set of unique word choices. For example, from Schulman’s translation, “You are the bloodless doll of social lies And I the virile spark of human truth.” Compared to Agueros’ “you are the cold doll of social lies, and me, the virile starburst of the human truth.” Both translations provided almost the same meaning, but comparing both the “virile spark” and a “virile starburst” can make you fill in the imagination of who exactly “you” are, as well as the other parts of the text that slightly changes depending just a few words.
Kevin,
DeleteIt's interesting how you interpreted Borges as belittling himself. When I read it, I saw it more as him becoming lost and overcome by this powerful (although not necessarily greater) entity. I didn't see the descriptions of his other half as being complimentary but rather quite critical of its superficial nature. I could also see good things in both translation and thought that together, they offered more than any of them individually.
The division involving Borge’s has more of an unequal balance of power. I feel like “I” is the underdog in this split-personality situation. Logically, the “I” would be the dominant one because he is the one speaking in first person. However, Borges seems to have a strong influence over “I” because the dull life of “I” is only rarely animated by the exciting life of Borges. Between Julia and the “I,” I feel like their relationship is more hateful and there is no clear underdog. Another difference between the two stories is that de Borgo’s view is more direct and straightforward. The “I” constantly uses “you” to address Julia rather than her name. However, in Borge’s short story, there is dissatisfaction towards Borges but not as direct or straightforward as de Borgo’s. The speaker in Borge’s short story is more passive while the speaker in de Borgo’s is aggressive. However, in both short stories, there is obvious tension between the two personalities although the tensions are expressed in very different ways.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the first translation because the translation is more to the point and easier to understand. I think the second translation was too complicated and got the same message across as the first translation, but with a wordier explanation. Also, I feel like the second translation is addressed towards an audience of an older generation. When I read the first translation, I understood the story a lot more easily than I did the second translation.
I agree that Borge's "I" is like the underdog/sidekick/less noticeable friend in his relationship with his other self. I also got the impression that the relationship between Julia and her other self was more tense and at complete opposites. In Burgos' poem, I feel as if Julia wanted to distinctly pull apart her dissimilarities with the person addressed as "you". Borge on the other hand seemed to describe his two selves not so much as divided, but with one exemplifying the other in a slightly more exaggerated way.
DeleteGrace,
DeleteThat's a cool observation; I didn't notice the "you" addressing. This difference definitely shows the difference in the degree of tension between the characters and their super egos. The use of "you" more so personifies the ego for the characters. I think this isn't a good method to manage one's super ego because it makes it harder to ignore one's super ego. In the end it really doesn't matter how one's ego is portrayed as if it is ignored, it wouldn't have an influence on the way one acts. Ultimately people shouldn't care how others view them and jsut act true to themselves.
The same concept of the divided self is seen in both Borges’s and Burgo’s piece in that the narrator is clearly struggling between the divided self. The sense of the divided self is seen in the use of pronouns such as “I” and “you” to distinguish the sense of detachment from oneself to another. In many ways the same concept and method is used in both pieces, however, there is a striking difference in that the author’s intention is slightly different beyond the distinction of two identities. Burgo focuses more on the self that is mostly superficial and accepted by society while her perspective takes part on the creative self, the truer self. For Borges, he doesn’t seem to have a more distinctive identity that he feels more strongly attached to. This might be explained by the fact that Burgo faces more social stigma as a woman and a poet. Because of these social stigmas placed on her, she is more restricted and in a way she identifies with the creative self, the self she can most express in. The two translations for Burgos convey the same idea, it is just the method of delivery and usage of words is different. The first translation is broken into stanzas which is more simple and direct in addressing the differences of the two identities while the other translation is similar to a stream of consciousness type of poetry; it’s a little but more disorganized but still convey the same concept of the divided-self.
ReplyDeleteHi Penny,
ReplyDeleteI think the way you distinguished how the self is divided in both works is very interesting. The way you mentioned the syntax of the sentence offers a different prospective on how split personalities are in reference to two different entities. In addition, when you analyzed the two works based on the cultural background of its respecitve society and the gender identity of the author, i think it provides greater insight why they wrote it in the way they did and how it will influence the way we interpret the text. I think you provide a unique perspective through the syntax and formatting of the poem rather than your interpretation of it. Nonetheless, the points that you havediscussed are essential in recognizing the identity of each divided self