I am the Super Star of Mollywood (Malayalam Film Industry). I am a fallen goat. There was a bitch actress who slandered me to my wife saying that I was having an illegitimate affair which is also partly true. I hired a quotation team (thugs) to molest her by blockading her car and hijacking it. They did the same meticulously. Later on the quotation team got arrested by the Police. From Jail they started black mailing me for more money. Then I complained to the police, that I was being blackmailed. The cops grilled me for hours and the statements I made did not corroborate and they arrested me. Now I am in jail with petty criminals. The judiciary does not draw a fine line with rape and molestation. I am also denied bail by the highest court of Kerala. Do I have the right to feel angry or sorry? When I am taken to the court my own fans boo and mock at me in derision. I have been ousted from the film makers association. Come on, the bitch was only molested, not raped. I have every right to take my own sweet revenge. I end by quoting Sartre: ‘Man is condemned to be free’.
It’s prejudice among South East Asians to accept Native Speakers to teach English. They might not even have the requisite qualifications but still they are preferred. Whites’ form a privileged term and colored and blacks are marginalized. While during an interview in Hong Kong I was asked about my teaching experiences. After uttering a sentence, I was dismissed. Before the interview they had promised to reimburse the airfare. But to my consternation they did not! I lost a lot of money and ended up home penny less. I do not have any regrets but Asians fail to recognize Asian talent. I was hoping to my heart that the panel would ask me questions on Literature and English. But my hopes sank. At least those bastards could have paid me back my airfare.
Choosing Abraham as an idiom is related to the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham who made love to his maid Hagar when his wife did not conceive. After his wife conceived he abandoned her and her son Ishmael.
As an idiom it means abandoning a significant other for the sake of family interests.
In my life, if I am going to take up a new career in South East Asia, I won’t be a choosing Abraham.
We come across many choosing Abrahams in our life.
Recently I got the idea to write a novella, a work of fiction based entirely on thought. To write is to become a metaphor. Will I be fanciful, ornamental and magical? I don’t know where to begin…To write is to become God…When you read me, you kill me as the death of the author. There is a monster moving my hand … Every stroke is a metaphysical ellipse. Words become scattered like fangs. Thought becomes submerged in an eclipse. Ideas bang their heads on the wall. I will create an end: ode to a hyperbole in the suspension of belief…a requiem where a voice speaks to a wreath, a synesthetic trope. I am writing now….fanciful, ornamental and picturesque.
He wonders at other writers: how do they write books? One person told him, to be a writer, you must read all the books in the word. How can that be possible? Finally he decided to write the shortest epic in the World. “He is in , and nearing a .” Thus ends the epic, a stoic ornament.
Yes, it’s word that I coined. To tell you the fact I dread cops. The moment I see a cop jeep in front of me, I slow down. I become so anxious. I wonder, have I done murder, have I done rape, have I been burglar? No, none of these things. Yet my heart beats 10000 times louder. Today I saw a cop jeep pass by my house. Immediately, the fear, are these ass***** going to enter my house. I am seized with a trauma. I wonder are they coming to arrest me. I don’t know why I have this fear… I dread their uniform and everything thing about them. Recently I wrote something rude to a woman in Whatsapp and she threatened me that she will complain to the cyber cops. Thank heavens she did not! Recently I got down from a bus and lit a cigarette. There was a car parked a little distance away from me. Now smoking is banned in public places. As I stubbed it out and walked to the car …I was taken aback. It was written “police”! The cops all ladies gave me a sound ticking off. I was lucky that they did not book me. I am not at all comfortable with cops. Yes, I am a copOphobian. It is written in front of all Police Stations of Kerala: “People Friendly Police”. I don’t know whether to smile or laugh. I wonder is the handcuff people friendly!
I would like to analyze the story based on the literary codes developed by Barthes. They are: the hermeneutic code, Proairetic code, the Semantic Code, the symbolic code and the cultural code. For Barthes, the hermeneutic code represents the enigma of the text. The Proairetic code represents the spatial and temporal dimensions. The Semantic code refers to the level of connotation. The symbolic code represents the binary division of language and the cultural code the conventions of the society.
Looking at the story from a Hermeneutic code, Borges writes about an imaginary writer and a book that does not exist. He creates facts out of fantasy and fantasy out of facts and his whole fictional exploration is a futile phantasmagoria.
He begins the story by quoting a catalogue made by Madame Henri Bachelier on the omissions and additions made to the text of Menard which appeal to Calvinists, Masons and the Circumcised. Is he making a dig at conservatism? Is he being skeptical about tradition? One can never fully interpret due to the very obscurity of his comment. There is an ironic humor inherent in this statement.
Borges again becomes fictional and goes on to enumerate that an examination of the files of Menard is necessary for the exegesis of Quixote. The files are literary and mention the following:
(a) A symbolist sonnet which occurred twice in a review. Everyone is familiar with idea of symbolism and symbolist poets. What one can’t discern is to why Borges makes a random connection to symbolism while trying to explicate Menard’s Don Quixote. Is Borges playing some kind of practical joke with the reader?
(b) A monograph containing the possibility of creating a poetic vocabulary of concepts which would not be synonyms or periphrases of those which make up everyday language. Is Borges hinting at adornment of poetic language? Adornment can take place by clothing words with figures of speech or using neologisms.
(c) A monograph on certain connections and affinities with the Philosophies of Descartes, Leibniz and Wilkins. Is Borges making a big bluff or does he want to impress his readers that he is conversant with the philosophies of the above mentioned philosophers. Why does the author want to show off to an audience?
(d) The work sheets of a monograph on George Boole’s symbolic logic. It is very intriguing that Borges makes this strange connection. How can logic be related to fiction.
(e) An examination of the essential metric laws of French Prose. Borges is conversant in Spanish. I am not sure whether he has the adequate knowledge to comment on French Prose. Meter again is connected to poetry. How can it be equated with prose? Is this a structural flaw in the narrative?
(f) A work in which different solutions are given to the problem of Achilles and the Tortoise. It is really absurd, a canard of the mind. May be Borges is inducing the reader to think that Achilles won the race. Borges has not deconstructed the paradox of Zeno. I wonder why Borges does not suggest an alternative.
(g) A determined analysis of the syntactical customs Toulet. Menard says that censure and praise are sentimental operations which have nothing to do with literary criticism. This statement makes Borges a precursor to literary theorists.
Again Borges digresses and goes on to discuss texts which have inspired Menard to create Quixote. One is a philological fragment which mentions Christ on a boulevard, Hamlet on La Cannebiere and Don Quixote on Wall Street. The depiction of Christ is rather incongruous. What is the mystic connection between Christ and a boulevard? The same goes to Hamlet. Are the Moguls of Wall Street Quixotic?
Again Borges the writer mentions that Menard writes to him that the final term in a theological, metaphysical demonstration –the objective world, God, causality the forms of the universe is common in my framed novel. This demonstrates that Borges is a confused writer. If the world is created by God how it can be objective? Is he mixing up a broth of evolutionary theism?
Again he expostulates that to write Quixote, one must know Spanish well, recover a Catholic faith, fight against the Moors and forget the history of Europe between the years 1602 and 1918. Everyone knows that Quixote by Cervantes was a revolt against Catholicism. The fight between Catholics and the moors is related to History. Is Borges being ironic when he reiterates that we should forget History? 1918 is symbolic for the beginning of the First World War. The narrative of Borges is so fragmented and ambles irrelevantly from one topic to another.
Borges contradicts himself by saying that in a passage of Menard never authored by him there is a sentence: ‘the river nymphs and the dolorous and humid echo.’ This provokes the reader to laugh in delicious delight. Borges is embarking on a flight of fancy. This statement brings into the mind of Borges a quotation of Shakespeare ‘Where a malignant and a turbaned Turk’. Is the monument of literature a sheer extravagant waste? Is it built on the foundations of whimsical chicanery?
Menard in his novel Quixote has no gypsies, no conquistadors and no mystics. Is Borges making an allusion of irony? Again Borges says that in chapter nine of Menard’s Quixote there is a quote: ‘…truth whose mother is History, rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, exemplar and adviser to the present and the future’s counselor. Borges is being philosophical about History. But the fundamental questions are: is History a truth? In postmodernism History is a methodological discourse.