Originally Posted by
JCamilo
This is not important. Until the XIX century, nobody would consider prose novels (and authors) as representative of the culture. Cervantes is not exactly a novel writer either, it was his failures as playwriter and poet (not always failures) that lead him to, by accident, tackle prose. Iit is kind of an American thing, trying to imply a longer tradition, but without an epic national work, to have novels in the place of epics.
Anyways, the "national novel", "national epics" are also flagships of a culture, they are representative enough but mostly, they are impressive to the others (or suppose to be). It is not about popularity, it is about significance to both inside and outside perception.
Melville exploration of different text forms is similar to what Joyce do, they are not that apart (not to mention, Melville reputation was recovered by european symbolists, which are precussors of Joyce. Of course, the language aspect is unique and rather only possible after Mallarmé.
Poe is, but nobody seem him as such, because he does not "function" for americans at all. He is too anti-evertying to be the representative author. Anyways, I rarely think of Poe as a pioner. Mostly, as an organizer. You had, even considering only american, gothic precussors (such as Washington Irving), but the thing Poe did best, IMO, is to get elements of of popular litereture, who were used without much care and often and give them a more definitive, rounded-up use.
Ecurd:
Ah, of course, Melville could write humorous stories too, in the Swiftlike manner (or even Washington Irving), which is the closer you get him to Cervantes humour. Funny enough, he has a short story that any brazilian would reckon, because it is basically a mockery of portuguese (they are the usual scapegoat in anedoctes here). But that ends the similarities. Ahab is more shakespearean character, his mania is much about him, Quixote goes opening the world, his mania is about reality.
I think those details, what Peter Woods says that is a glance of reality, are inferior to Quixote. Of course, the scene is beautiful. Cervantes stabilishes himself as a critical judge of the literary genre he will destroy and at the sametime stabilishes his links - it is necessary for a Satyre to the previous tradtion (aptly, with Orlando Furioso, another work with strong satyrical purpose). It is sort like Dante placing Virgil as a guide: this is the tradtion I follow and the one I will abandon.
I think at Cervantes time there was less need to consider the moors as anthing but a past thing, so they are target of his jokes, but at that momment, the great point was the unification. Quixote is sort witness of the lack of logical union in Spain, he is also a ghost from the past to a new age that is coming (with a new burocratic organization that excludes the knights). Cervantes asks - specially in the second part - what kind of character (the national character you say, not in the same of character/individual, but traits of a people) is emerging and the result is not good. The past is gone, but the present is chaotir, mad (Quixote is in the end sane, mad is the world, as Ortega Y Gasset would say, Quixote is "supersane" - something like this, the word was not in english of course).
I do not think Cid Hamet was a comment on the book destruction, it seems to me to a satyrical trick, a way to replace the "once upon a time" or to give authenticity, since chivalirity novels are origem in historical chronicles, added with the knowledge Cervantes had as moors as sotytellers, at the same time calling them liars (or fabulits) and moving the narrarive to "a far away country", in the sense, the narrative come from there.
Yeah, I know Cervantes is pretty much spanish (as Melville is american), but there is not one spain. That is central spain (Madri or Castela). Cervantes cannot be representative of all Spain, because he is representative of a part of Spain, the others had different languages and cultures. Borges was pretty much chastised when younger for professing him opinion that would be better if Quevedo or Vega had the honour to be spain's national writer exactly because of that. Not that I defend that the so called "national" work must represent all nation.
Ahab obssession is not with revenge. It is with pursuing a great ideal. His vanished leg was the first relatory saying Moby has WMD, he was already after Moby before losing the leg. He is also able to unite and lead several different individuals in one task. That is quite american. (and the truth is those traits, also revenge, are really not a national trait. but universal. Quixote has no wish for revenge, Hamlet has. USA went after Al-Quaeda after all.). I would say, Quixote wants to find a reference to the fragmented world he was living. The books were his reference, but as soon nobles tried to impose him that world, he was more cautious. Quixote is not very romantic (in the sense, romantic movement renewed celtic old world), but perhaps it is a word imposed upon us (romantic).