I want to analyze the story based on the literary code developed by Barth. They are: interpreted code, Proairetic code, semantic code, symbolic code, and cultural code. For Barthes, the hermeneutic code represents the mystery of the text. The Proairetic code represents the spatial and temporal dimensions. The semantic code reflects the level of connotation. The symbolic code represents the binary division of the language, and the cultural code represents the convention of society.
Looking at the story from the hermeneutic code, Borges wrote an imaginary writer and a non-existent book. He created facts from the facts with fantasy and fantasy, and his entire fictional exploration was a futile illusion.
He began the story by citing a catalogue of missing and supplements to the Menard text by Mrs. Henri Bachelier, calling for Calvinists, masons and circumcisers. Is he mining conservatism? Is he skeptical about tradition? Because his comments are very vague, people can never fully understand. This sentence is inherently ironic.
Borges once again became fiction and continued to enumerate the examination of the Medod documents necessary for Jillette's explanation. The document is literary and mentions the following:
[a] A symbolic sonnet that happened twice during the review. Everyone is familiar with the notion of symbolism and symbolist poets. What people can't tell is why Borges has a random connection with symbolism while trying to clarify Maynard's Don Quixote. Does Borges play some kind of prank with the reader?
[b] A monograph containing the possibility of creating a conceptual poetic vocabulary that is not a synonym or a peripheral word that constitutes the concept of everyday language. Does Borges suggest the worship of poetry? Decoration can be done with a clothing word with a speech or using neurology.
[c] Monographs on certain connections and intimacy of Descartes, Leibniz and Wilkinsian philosophy. Borges is a big bluff, or does he want the reader to pay attention to whether he is familiar with the philosophy of the above philosophers. Why do authors want to show the audience?
[d] A worksheet on the monograph of the symbolic logic of George Bour. It is very interesting for Borges to establish this strange connection. How logic relates to fiction.
[e] Review the basic indicator law of French prose. Borges is fluent in Spanish. I am not sure if he has the proper knowledge to comment on French prose. M is once again associated with poetry. How can it be equivalent to prose? Is this a structural flaw in narrative?
[f] Work on different solutions for Achilles and Turtle issues. This is ridiculous, a kind of weakness of the soul. It may be that Borges is tempting readers to think that Achilles won the game. Borges did not deconstruct Zeno's paradox. I want to know why Borges did not propose an alternative.
[g] A definitive analysis of syntactic conventions. Maynard said that censorship and praise are emotional operations that are not related to literary criticism. This statement made Borges a pioneer in literary theorists.
Borges once again digressed and continued to discuss the text that inspired Maynard to create Gillade. One is a philosophical fragment, mentioning Christ on a boulevard, Hanilet in La Cannebiere and Don Quixote on Wall Street. The depiction of Christ is quite uncoordinated. What is the mysterious connection between Christ and the boulevard? The same is true of Hamlet. Isn't the big man on Wall Street a bit unrealistic?
Borges once again mentioned that Maynard wrote that in theological, metaphysical demonstrations, the ultimate term - the objective world, God, causality, and the form of the universe are common in my frame novels. This shows that Borges is a confused writer. If the world was created by God, how is it objective? Did he confuse the broth of evolutionaryism?
He once again pointed out that to write Gugit, people must be familiar with Spanish, restore Catholic faith, fight the Moors, and forget the history of Europe between 1602 and 1918. Everyone knows that Judd of Cervantes is against Catholicism. The struggle between Catholics and the Waste Land is related to history. Is it ironic when Boggs reiterates that we should forget history? 1918 was the symbol of the beginning of the First World War. Borges's narrative is so scattered and illegal from one subject to another.
Borges objected to himself that in an article that Maynard had never written, there was a sentence: "The river fairy and the juicy and moist echo." #39; This caused the reader to laugh. Borges began to be fascinated. This sentence reminds Borges of a word from Shakespeare: "Where is a vicious and a headscarf Turkic". Is the monument of literature a pure extravagance waste? Is it based on the whimsical chicanery?
Maynard has no Gypsies in his novel Don Quixote, no conquerors and mystics. Does Borges suggest irony? Borges once again said that there is a sentence in the ninth chapter of Canad's Don Quixote: ' ... the mother of truth is history, the opponent of time, the storage of behavior, the past Witnesses, examples and consultants for current and future lawyers. Borges has a philosophy of history. But the basic question is: Is history the truth? In postmodernism, history is a methodology discipline.
Orignal From: Pierre Maynard's analysis: Don Quixote's author of Borges
No comments:
Post a Comment