Reviews for Borges profesor

The average rating for Borges profesor based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-06-23 00:00:00 Stanislav Repin I judge this work not as a scholarly treatise on English literature. Consider how it was put together: One or more students at the University of Buenos Aires taped the entire series of 25 lectures in 1966 and then transcribed the result for use as notes. The tapes themselves are now missing and were probably re-used, according to the editors, for other classes. This was not intended to be a detailed survey of English literature: Jorge Luis Borges devotes seven lectures to Anglo-Saxon literature, and then skips forward to the 18th century and Dr. Samuel Johnson (leaving out Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Donne, Pope, and a few hundred other major figures), followed in quick order by the Romantic and Pre-Raphaelite poets, with a quick detour on Charles Dickens. And the 20th century? Nope. Of what value, then, is Professor Borges: A Course on English Literature? If you want a thorough survey of English literature, this is not the book for you. If, on the other hand, you want to look inside a great poet's mind to see what makes him tick, this is a fascinating volume. Professor Borges is a much more useful book than the author's comparable An Introduction to American Literature, in which he shows no real understanding of an author such as William Faulkner:Faulkner's hallucinatory tendencies are not unworthy of Shakespeare, but one fundamental reproach must be made of him. It may be said that Faulkner believes his labyrinthine world requires a no less labyrinthine technique. Except in Sanctuary (1931) his story, always a frightful one, is never told to us directly; we must decipher it and deduce it through tortuous, inward monologues, just as we do in the difficult final chapter of Joyce's Ulysses.But then many of my friends feel the same way about Faulkner, and I suspect that Borges has difficulties with the combination of Southern dialect and the King James Bible. Please excuse the digression. It is a fact that many of my favorite poets and novelists despise other of my favorite poets and novelists. If they didn't, they wouldn't be who they are: They would be me.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-05-06 00:00:00 Zoila Lopez A really interesting book which goes into the backbone of english literature told from the eyes of a south american legend. Borges goes into the history of english literature teaching you things about the classics like Beowulf and the battle of Maldon and Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, Blake, Carlyle and lots of other classic english writers / english texts. Some of the insights into this book were eye opening. The chapters were different classes that Borges gave on English literature at a university of Buenos Aires in 1966 - the year that Eric Cantona was born. Anyway, here are my best bits: In spanish we have alto, alta, altos for the word high. The adjectives change according to the grammatical gender. In english we only have the word “high”. Now what was it that bought this simplification that made contemporary english a much simpler language, grammatically, though much richer in vocabulary than old english? It is the fact that vikings, danes, and norwegians settled in the north and centre of england. They had to understand each other, so in order to do so and as the vocabulary was already so simple, a kind of lingua franca emerged and english became simpler. I think that the Norman invasion of england was very important for the history of England, and naturally that means for the history of the whole world. I think that if the normans had not invaded england, england today would be another Denmark. It would be a very educated country and politically admirable, but a provincial country and a country that has not exerted its influence upon the world. The normans on the other hand made possible the British Empire, as well as the spread of the english race all over the world. The weaker we are, the less our strength, the bolder we shall be. The role of the poet is not to count the stripes on a tulip or linger over the many shades of green of the foliage. The poet should not deal with the individual but rather with the generic, for the poet is writing for posterity. The poet should seek out the eternal passions of man, as well as the subjects such as the brevity of life, the vicissitudes of destiny, the hopes we have of immorality, sins, virtues, etcetera. The scots tend to be perhaps as a result of their theological discussions much more intellectual, more rational. Englishmen are impulsive, they don't need theories for their behaviour. On the contrary, Scots tend to be thinkers and reasoners. But we mustn't forget that words that are difficult for the English reader are easy for us because they are the intellectual words of Latin origin. On the other hand as i have said more than once, the common words in english, the words of a child or a peasant or a fisherman, they are of Germanic Saxon origin. Certain works abound in “hard words” in words that are difficult for the english (that demand some culture on the part of the reader) but they are easy for us because they are latin words, that is, spanish. Writing bad pages is typical of great poets. When shakespeare wanted to write a bad page he sat down and did it without further ado, he enjoyed it. On the other hand a mediocre poet might not have any very bad poems. He might not have them because he is conscious of his mediocrity, because he is constantly keeping watch on himself. Wordsworth on the other hand is conscious of his strength and that is why there is so much ballast, so many dead zones in his work. And he speaks of coleridge's splendid conversation. He says that his very words were the very music of thought. The angels tell him that by devoting himself to pure virtue he has wasted his time on earth to learn. Finally carlyle settles in london and there he publishes the french Revolution, his most famous work. Carlyle lent the manuscript to a friend - John Stuart Mill. Mill’s cook used the manuscript to light a stove in the kitchen! (WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) The Fabian society took that name because during the punic wars there was a Roman general who had the name Fabius Cunctator “Fabius the Delayer” for he believed that the best way to defeat the enemy was not to engage in battle but rather to tire out the organised armies against whom they were fighting, by leading them from one place to another, tiring them out leading them to places with bad pastures for their horses, which is what the irish did to the essex. So this socialist society is founded in london, because the members of that society did not believe in revolution, they believed that socialism should be imposed bit by bit without forcing events. The word saga is related to the word “sagen” in german - to say. The narrator was forbidden to enter into the mind of the heroes. He could not recount what a hero dreamed, he could not say that a person hated or loved. This would be to intrude upon the mind of the character. Only what the characters did or what they made could be told. Reading should be a form of happiness. I would advise all possible readers of my last will and testament to read a lot, and not to get intimidated by writers reputations, to continue to look for personal happiness, personal enjoyment. It is the only way to read.