The Library of Babel


“The Library of Babel” by Jorge Borges was seemingly the least straightforward.  The hexagonal shape of the library was confusing, as what is the significance of a hexagon?  The narrator proposes a contradictory concept that the “library is unlimited but periodic” (118).  Consequently, the Library offers a limited set of books and reading material, however the Library (representative of the world) goes one for eternity.  So, I was confused by what the narrator is proposing: do we live in a limited or limitless world?  I think the purpose of Borges’s short stories are to make the audience question their existence and place in the world.  Borges accounts for the audience members searching for meaning by representing them as “inquisitors” looking for “precious books” which are “forever out of reach” (116).  Is Borges proposing that answers do exist in the form of “precious books”, but are just unattainable to the average person?  I found the ambiguity in meaning challenging to understand.  However, Borges seems to intentionally leave questions unanswered, allowing the reader to make his or her own interpretations.  This technique is also apparent in “The Garden of Forking Paths”, where it is unclear how Borges means for the reader to interpret his reference to Schoppenhauer.  


I enjoyed reading Borges’s short stories because they made me consider existentialism. I like to avoid thinking about the fact that the universe is constantly expanding, or that the world will continue to exist for an infinite period of time.  However, Borges’s stories forced me to envision the world as a hexagonal library is confusing, where one dies upon falling over the railing.  That person will then fall for eternity.  I cannot wrap my head around the perpetual state of plummeting to death, however “The Library of Babel” forced me to think about my own existence and place in society.  


Quotes from online PDF version:
Borges, Jorge Luis. "The Library of Babel." Coltected Fictions. Trans. Andrew Hurley. New York: Penguin, 1998. 

Comments

Popular Posts