Jorge Luis Borges' A Universal History of Iniquity (1935) | Book Review and Analysis

Never read Borges. Ok, l’ll be optimistic and change to : not read Borges yet :)
He sounds full of literary games, so that was probably for the best that I didn’t attempt to read his books as a young reader.
Though, as you point out in your video, there seems to be more to him than the metafiction player I imagine him to be.
At least, he was a respectful tomb raider, giving credit to Schwob & others. Probably Borges’ esteem is the only buttress standing between authors like Schwob and total oblivion.

UH of I was the first Borges I read and it has stuck with me.

Even watching The Gangs of New York reminded me of the section on Monk Eastman, and Eastman isn't in the movie.

What appealed to me about Borges's profiles in villainy was that they weren't "realistic" like Chekhov, but conjured with biography and history.

On Exactitude in Science had the same appeal.

Hi Jorge thanks for these interesting comments, Like many readers of Borges I was slightly disappointed coming to this book after the fantastic elements and philosphical speculations of Ficciones and El Aleph but as I went back to it I came to appreciate the meticulous craftsmanship of his style,and as you point out the continuity between an early tale such asMan on Pink Corner,or as I have seen it sometimes translated as The Man at the Rose-colored Streetcorner which I slightly prefer,and Rosendo's Tale. In fact many of the earlier themes of gauchos and knife fights recur in El informe de Brodie,together with a much simpler style which he attributed to the influence of Kipling's early stories,so there seems to be in this late volume a return to the preoccupations of A Universal History of Iniquity.Thanks again and have a great weekend.

Qué interesante el comentario con el que cierras el vídeo, Jorge, acerca de la inexistente ansiedad de la influencia de Borges, cuando la mayoría de autores están en permanente conflicto con ella. ¡Saludos!