6 reactions
Similarities between Bolano's 2666 and Borge's "An examination of the work of Herbert Quain"
I've Just been reading Ficciones and was reminded of Bolano's 2666. Was curious if anyone else noticed this.
In “An examination of the work of Herbert Quain” Borges describes a detective novel where in the final paragraph the line "“Everyone thought that the encounter of the two chess players was accidental” makes the reader realise that the detective hasn’t solved the murder correctly. Upon re-reading the final chapters the reader realises that the murderer was someone else that the detective missed.
This is a disquieting twist on the typical detective novel. Instead of the book finishing with the case being solved and justice being served, the reader is left with the realisation that the killer will go unpunished. What’s worse, the detective and main protagonist of the story is busy congratulating himself on a case well solved, completely unaware that the murderer is still at large.
In many ways 2666 resembles a detective novel. There are murders, detectives, and clues that seem to hint that a solution will eventually be revealed. Like in Borges’ proposed novel, the killer or killers are never bought to justice, but unlike in Borges’ novel the reader can’t work out who they are either.
There are also moments in the novel where Bolano gives the reader information unavailable to his characters that are oddly reminiscent of Borges’ imagined detective novel.
In one passage, Bolano describes an encounter between three friends:
*"Norton made frequent and rather tasteless references to her ex-husband as a lurking threat, ascribed to him the vices and defects of a monster, a horribly violent monster but one who never materialized, a monster all evocation and no action, although with her words Norton managed to give substance to a being whom neither Espinoza nor Pelletier had ever seen, as if her ex existed only in their dreams, until Pelletier, sharper than Espinoza, understood that Norton’s unthinking diatribe, that endless list of grievances, was more than anything a punishment inflicted on herself, perhaps for the shame of having fallen in love with such a cretin and married him. Pelletier, of course, was wrong."*
This paragraph is like a mini version of the detective novel Borges describes. We have a mystery (Why is Norton acting this way?), a solution offered by a seemingly “sharp” protagonist (She is punishing herself), then the final line that pulls the rug out from under us (Pelletier’s solution is wrong). Again though, the difference with Borges’ detective novel is that when we re-read the paragraph no other solution presents itself. why *had* Norton kept talking about her boyfriend. And if Pelletier who is so sharp is unable to solve this mystery, what hope as the reader do we have?
Sometimes life can feel like a detective novel. Things happen, clues accumulate, and we feel that if we could just examine things a little more closely we might be able to make sense of everything. Both Borges and Bolano seem to be suggesting that feeling is an illusion. The deepest mysteries of life will never be solved, or at least not in as satisfying a way as is found in the final pages of most detective books.
#entertainment
I've Just been reading Ficciones and was reminded of Bolano's 2666. Was curious if anyone else noticed this.
In “An examination of the work of Herbert Quain” Borges describes a detective novel where in the final paragraph the line "“Everyone thought that the encounter of the two chess players was accidental” makes the reader realise that the detective hasn’t solved the murder correctly. Upon re-reading the final chapters the reader realises that the murderer was someone else that the detective missed.
This is a disquieting twist on the typical detective novel. Instead of the book finishing with the case being solved and justice being served, the reader is left with the realisation that the killer will go unpunished. What’s worse, the detective and main protagonist of the story is busy congratulating himself on a case well solved, completely unaware that the murderer is still at large.
In many ways 2666 resembles a detective novel. There are murders, detectives, and clues that seem to hint that a solution will eventually be revealed. Like in Borges’ proposed novel, the killer or killers are never bought to justice, but unlike in Borges’ novel the reader can’t work out who they are either.
There are also moments in the novel where Bolano gives the reader information unavailable to his characters that are oddly reminiscent of Borges’ imagined detective novel.
In one passage, Bolano describes an encounter between three friends:
*"Norton made frequent and rather tasteless references to her ex-husband as a lurking threat, ascribed to him the vices and defects of a monster, a horribly violent monster but one who never materialized, a monster all evocation and no action, although with her words Norton managed to give substance to a being whom neither Espinoza nor Pelletier had ever seen, as if her ex existed only in their dreams, until Pelletier, sharper than Espinoza, understood that Norton’s unthinking diatribe, that endless list of grievances, was more than anything a punishment inflicted on herself, perhaps for the shame of having fallen in love with such a cretin and married him. Pelletier, of course, was wrong."*
This paragraph is like a mini version of the detective novel Borges describes. We have a mystery (Why is Norton acting this way?), a solution offered by a seemingly “sharp” protagonist (She is punishing herself), then the final line that pulls the rug out from under us (Pelletier’s solution is wrong). Again though, the difference with Borges’ detective novel is that when we re-read the paragraph no other solution presents itself. why *had* Norton kept talking about her boyfriend. And if Pelletier who is so sharp is unable to solve this mystery, what hope as the reader do we have?
Sometimes life can feel like a detective novel. Things happen, clues accumulate, and we feel that if we could just examine things a little more closely we might be able to make sense of everything. Both Borges and Bolano seem to be suggesting that feeling is an illusion. The deepest mysteries of life will never be solved, or at least not in as satisfying a way as is found in the final pages of most detective books.
#entertainment
| 12,000 mlx | |
| 17 | |
| 6 |