Jorge Luis Borges’, “The Library of Babel”, took me a couple reads to grasp. In the “indefinite and perhaps infinite” Library, what stood out to me was the importance, and vastness, of language. The Librarians struggle with the “formless and chaotic nature of almost all the books… for every sensible line of straightforward statement, there are leagues of senseless cacophonies, verbal jumbles and incoherences” (Borges, 2). When all possible combinations exist, the incoherent outnumbers the coherent. Borges’ Librarians specifically struggle with deciphering books that may use recognizable words, but form illogical sentences with seemingly no meaning. While some Librarian’s believe the majority of the books to be nonsense, the narrator argues that there is not a “single example of absolute nonsense”, instead, “in some of them, the symbol library allows the correct definition a ubiquitous and last system of hexagonal galleries, but library is bread or pyramid or anything else, and these seven words which define it have another value” (Borges, 8). In an indefinite library, and here on Earth, language and etymologies are constantly evolving, and just because you can read the words, does not equal comprehension: “You who read me, are You sure of understanding my language?” (Borges, 8). While some Librarians write off books they deem as nonsense, Borges recognizes that language is not static, but constantly evolving. 

In the account of Genesis we are able to first observe the story of the Tower of Babel. In this story, the king wanted to keep all people together so he instructed them to build a city with a big tower in it– of course, God was displeased with such actions so he stopped the construction of the building. How? He made everyone speak different languages– hence the root meaning of Babylon/ Ba’bel meaning confusion. Similarly, Borges’ The Library of Babel is concerned with the conventions of language and communication and echoes the Biblical account. Borges mentions, “ books belonged to past or remote languages. It is true that most ancient men, the first librarians, made use of a language quite different from the one we speak today” (Borges 82), this quote refracts from Biblical  conventions but  further simultaneously satirizes religion/ spirituality; “The universe was justified, the universe suddenly expanded to the limitless dimensions of hope. At the time there was much talk of the Vindications: book of apology, and prophecy, which vindicated for all the time the actions of every man in the world”. Babel fractured human speech– language was used to confuse people whereas in Borges account the indecipherable language divides people– language is not perfect but masks clarity creating confusion and divine prophecy is undercut. The destabilization of meaning resonates with philologist Ferdinand de Saussure who is responsible for a massive shift concerning philology– the study of language. He rejects mimetic theory– a theory that demonstrates that language mirrors the world; he asserts that language is primarily determined by its own rules and structures– created by different signs. Babel and Borges demonstrate that language is not transparent– nor words can be interpreted as a solemn truth as they are evolving in meaning; though, they do not mirror the world, they adapt to current sociological trends– demonstrating that language is arbitrary and obfuscates the signified. Saussaure states that the meaning between words come from different signs rather than material objects– echoing Borges endless letter combinations and deconstructing the tower of Babel. Multiple languages expose the fragility of communication– the truth requires nuance as words and meaning are arbitrary. 

After reading Jorge Luis Borges’ “The Library of Babel” from 1941, one aspect in particular stuck with me: the concept that, because of the infinite amount of literature in the Library, there already exists a book about everything. From the autobiographical past of a person, to the exact history of a person’s future, all the way to his own death. In the text it says: “The certitude that everything has been written negates us or turns us into phantoms.” which really made me think.

On the one hand, I ask myself how much originality and individuality can still be present if everything is already written and exists in some literary form. Because of this, every thought immediately loses its individual independence. Every idea of an author becomes at once a double creation or a repetition of an already existing work. As magical as the concept may sound at first, it also means the end of any creative originality. Furthermore, the question arises of how much a person can still truly be considered their own self if somewhere there already exists a potential book that documents his entire life up to the very end. If everything, down to every spoken or written sentence, already exists, then speaking or writing is no longer an act of creation, but only repetition.

With this concept, Borges touches on a very modern and current topic. On the internet, for example, content is produced and reproduced so quickly that it sometimes feels as if there is less and less originality. More and more contributions on the internet feel like an echo of another contribution. One of today’s challenges is no longer to invent something completely new, but to find orientation. In this flood of repetitions, how do we discover what is actually important? What I find exciting is that Borges does not only see something threatening in this. He also shows that the value shifts. Where once invention and creation stood in the foreground, now discovery and recognition take their place. Therefore our task is not to control infinity, but to find our orientation within it.

In the end, this means that the concept that everything has already been written does not simply destroy originality, but also opens up a completely new view of creativity. Borges reminds us that in a world full of content, our search for meaning remains the most important thing.