Just finished Don Quixote and would like to discuss it!

[mama_scraps]

I recently finished Don Quixote (doing my own 'Great Books' study following S. W. Bauer's The Well-Educated Mind). I'm working through my thoughts on the book and would like to discuss it with others who have read Quixote (that's how I discovered this website).

What would you consider the book's most important event (a situation that causes the character(s) to change or behave differently?) I'll admit that I'm struggling with the answer to this question.

I've got a few thoughts about what it might be -

1. The last chapter - Quixote renounces books of chivalry. Obviously going from madness to sanity would be a changing point.

2. The first chapter - Quixote goes mad. Wouldn't have the book without that event, so I'd say it's fairly important.

3. When Sanson defeats Quixote and sends him home. An important event but I don't see a change in the character because of it.

Thoughts?

[Kotetsu1442]

As far as important, character developing events; I agree that Don Quixote's return to sanity following his defeat and reluctant return is obviously one of the most important thematically. I'll counter your question with another question, which is to ask what you feel Cervantes was saying here. Many find it to be unsatisfying, concluding that what is being said is the foolishness in being a dreamer when we so want being a dreamer and idealist to be a noble and grand calling rather than an effort in futility. What do you feel about the end that Don Quixote reached?

Reaching toward other characters, though obviously not as heavily focused on as Don Quixote, I appreciated the change in the barber and the curate between the first and second volumes. In the first they admit to being amused, as others are, with Don Quixote but profess their interest in getting Don Quixote home and seeing if he can't be cured of his madness as he is a danger to others as well as himself. But by the beginning of the second volume they've had a few months and are beginning to become conflicted. On one part, they start by checking on his well being and genuinely do want to see Don Quixote safe, but when they find that he still is as always (perfectly sane in all matters except his fantasies of chivalry) rather than encouraging his continued stay at home with nursing from niece and housekeeper, they introduce him to someone a fan (Sampson) who is going to tell how many have enjoyed hearing tales of his adventures, getting him pumped to "sally forth!" It is as though the curate and barber, now joined by Sampson have continued to acknowledge that his madness could get Don Quixote into trouble but have found such a livening of their own lives living vicariously through Don Quixote's imagination that they can't resist encouraging the lifestyle so that they can live vicariously through his. This change governs their behavior throughout the second volume, rather than acting purely in looking out for Don Quixote, they elect to send him on little adventures to predetermined locations and bringing him home within short amounts of time, hoping to get their fix on the thrills while keeping it under control (which didn't work so well as it turns out). It reminds me of a sub-plot in another story (OK, I'll admit it, it was from Season 1 of Heroes), wherein an artist who was naturally only mildly in his painting became addicted to heroin and began discovering that the heroin would send him into a trance-like state wherein he would begin painting the future, which paintings also proved to be far more popular. The conflict became interesting when he began to try and recover from his addiction, but felt pressure from a well meaning girlfriend (who like these three characters, genuinely wanted to help him recover) who supported his getting off of drugs, but each time that she showed up to pick up paintings to sell for him she would only tell him that the works he had produced while on heroin were interesting or good enough to sell. He later was forcibly removed from the drugs by a secret organization until he had completely recovered from the withdrawal symptoms, only to have a member of that organization change his mind and desperately encourage him to get back on the heroin 'just one more time' to forecast an important future event.

(I apologize for my tendancy to wax a bit verbose, but I thought that narrative was a great comparison for the barber, the curate and Sampson's concern for Quixote's well being in conflict from what they got out of seeing him continue in his ways)

In the 2nd Volume, Cervantes deals begins treating this work in the manner of what has become traditional for novels, organizing it in a thematic way and progressing in storyline and character development accordingly. Herein one of the deeper themes that he devotes time to is deception. Along these lines, though the deceptions on the parts of the barber and curate of playing along with Quixote are already common place due to their establishment in the first Volume, I would say that a significant event near the beginning of the 2nd volume is Sancho's use of deception for his own self interests. It's fairly disappointing seeing simple Sancho give up his normally fairly strong morals, but under pressure from Don Quixote to produce Dulcinea he decides to stop serving as medium between Don Quixote and the rational world (and putting up with the chastising from Quixote that results) and instead comes up with a simple solution, 'I'll just tell him that any old girl is Dulcinea, and the use his own madness to cover up the fact that I can produce a princess by telling him that he is under enchantment and that the ugly peasant that stands before him is really a beautiful princess.' Once this works out well for him, it becomes too tempting for him to use this trick to his advantage, using deception again shortly thereafter to get him out of trouble: 'Oh no master, why would I have put curds in your helmet... that must have been some devil or enchanter trying to get me in trouble.'

Though not a positive change, the pressure Don Quixote puts this simple man under have shifted him to a slightly more devious and subtle nature through the course of these events...

And with that, I'll stop myself. Again I apologize, but I could go on at far greater a length on Don Quixote, so be careful when encouraging me :-). Let me know some of your thoughts on these events, the character development and the larger themes as well.

[mama_scraps]

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me!

As far as important, character developing events; I agree that Don Quixote's return to sanity following his defeat and reluctant return is obviously one of the most important thematically. I'll counter your question with another question, which is to ask what you feel Cervantes was saying here. Many find it to be unsatisfying, concluding that what is being said is the foolishness in being a dreamer when we so want being a dreamer and idealist to be a noble and grand calling rather than an effort in futility. What do you feel about the end that Don Quixote reached?

While on the surface it seems that his aspirations were false and he failed to reach his goal, I don't think that was the point. When he first sets out his plan (quoting Rutherford translation) is "to become a knight errant, and to travel about the world with his armour and his arms and his horse in search of adventures, and to practise all those activities that he knew from his books were practiced by knights errant, redressing all kinds of grievances, and exposing himself to perils and dangers that he would overcome and thus gain eternal fame and renown." (emphasis mine) In the end he did accomplish those goals, especially of eternal fame, in a twofold manner - the book that is written about his exploits and the novel itself. So, on the surface the ending is not what we would want for a 'happy end', but he did accomplish his goals so I find the ending to be very satisfying.

I agree with you about the character changes - his friends, in a way, did have the opportunity to live vicariously through him. Even in the end they were willing to spend a year living as shepherds with him. So perhaps people who can't 'dream' on their own need those idealistic people who can.

In the 2nd Volume, Cervantes deals begins treating this work in the manner of what has become traditional for novels, organizing it in a thematic way and progressing in storyline and character development accordingly. Herein one of the deeper themes that he devotes time to is deception. Along these lines, though the deceptions on the parts of the barber and curate of playing along with Quixote are already common place due to their establishment in the first Volume, I would say that a significant event near the beginning of the 2nd volume is Sancho's use of deception for his own self interests. It's fairly disappointing seeing simple Sancho give up his normally fairly strong morals, but under pressure from Don Quixote to produce Dulcinea he decides to stop serving as medium between Don Quixote and the rational world (and putting up with the chastising from Quixote that results) and instead comes up with a simple solution, 'I'll just tell him that any old girl is Dulcinea, and the use his own madness to cover up the fact that I can produce a princess by telling him that he is under enchantment and that the ugly peasant that stands before him is really a beautiful princess.' Once this works out well for him, it becomes too tempting for him to use this trick to his advantage, using deception again shortly thereafter to get him out of trouble: 'Oh no master, why would I have put curds in your helmet... that must have been some devil or enchanter trying to get me in trouble.'

Though not a positive change, the pressure Don Quixote puts this simple man under have shifted him to a slightly more devious and subtle nature through the course of these events...

So Sancho's deception (convincing Quixote that Dulcinea is under an enchantment) really is a major turning point in the second book. I honestly hadn't thought about it but now I see it! Because of his actions Quixote's focus through the rest of the book is finding a way to break the enchantment on Dulcinea. So Sancho's actions concerning her enchantment could be considered the major event of book two.

I see what you mean about one of the major themes of book two being deception. Many scenes of deception - niece and housekeeper convincing him his library has disappeared, his friends deception in trying to get him home again, the duke and duchess and all their mischief, Sanson's acting as a knight, etc. You could almost say it began with the very first chapter - does Quixote deceive himself in the belief that he must become a knight errant? I guess that is one of the big questions - was Quixote really mad or just deceiving himself?

Back to the question about the major event of the book, perhaps there are actually two major events - one for each book. Since Cervantes published them separately, it might be a good idea to look at them that way. If so, what would be the major event of book 1? Could be the onset of his madness in chapter 1 or when Quixote is going to be arrested but his carted home instead. What would you consider the major event of book 1?

Also, more about the themes of the book. Perhaps one of the themes could be books themselves and how they influence us. Quixote is a special case, the books cause his madness. But could any books have done the same, not just stories of knights? Perhaps if he had many books about shepherds he would have become a shepherd instead?

In a way we are all a bit like Quixote. The things we read become a part of us, the stories that affect us can shape our view of the world.

[Kotetsu1442]

The things we read become a part of us, the stories that affect us can shape our view of the world.

Aye, and what we read empowers us to change our lives and the lives of those around us, which brings me to my answer to your question:

What would you consider the major event of book 1?

It's certainly difficult trying to study events in this book in relation to a larger story, since this volume really wasn't written with the thematic organization that we have come to expect in novels (heck, at the time that Volume 1 was being written, Cervantes was more or less inventing the concept of the novel). But I would settle on the barber and the curate deciding, with Dorothea, to play along with Quixote's fantasies to trick him into being brought home.

Before this point, most people either didn't notice his madness (when he was talking on perfectly normal subjects) or did and chose to distance themselves from it. The exception was Sancho, who believed Quixote in many things but when he saw some behavior as crazy he tried (in vain) to correct it. But after this point in the story things change. These characters, and subsequently many more characters in Volume 2 begin to play along with his fantasies, and though they do it in a self-serving manner, to accomplish their goals or for amusement (or in Sancho's case to get out of trouble) they still are letting their words and actions be guided by Quixote's fantasies rather than reality. Does it really matter if he is mad and his fantasies untrue if his is a strong enough will and his actions a driving force to cause those around him to conform to them anyways? I think that in this respect Cervantes shows us how the things we read and learn from can be very powerful to shape our lives and those around us.

Still, I think this book also serves as a warning in that respect, for though he did become famous and renowned as you say, he did so for being know (within the story) as a fool; amusing, but just as likely to cause great harm as good. In the end he considered himself a failure, because he accomplished little good by following actions that sounded lofty but weren't actually relevant to accomplishing his ideals. I think the warning isn't to avoid fiction and dreaming in general, but following many conversations (particularly the canon and the curate's conversation as they rode together at the end of volume 1) that people should read and authors/playwrights write about whatever they will, but make sure that the behavior and interactions contain useful instructions on how one should behave rather than things that sound lofty and impressive but are really silly and pointless (I.E., being brave is an admirable quality, but teaching someone that bravery can well demonstrated by challenging lions for no reason is ridiculous). In this respect, Cervantes' warning is about tales of chivalry that were common in his day, which were filled with many pointless but lofty things in this manner; but it can be applied to our literature today. We too, don't necessarily have to avoid fiction, but need to make sure that what we read (watch on TV, see plays about/ ect.) still contains something of a quality that we can apply to our lives in a meaningful way.

I agree with your thoughts on Cervantes' use of books symbolically in Don Quixote. Not just in the ones that Don Quixote read to lead him to where he was, but in their commonness throughout the adventures everywhere (in the hands of even shepherds in the wilderness) shows the power and role of books in the lives of everyone, something that was a new and wondrous thing at the dawn of the 17th century. Before the printing press, forms of literature certainly existed, but they were not things that were able to be read by the masses because they could not be mass produced. Books of the Bible were laboriously copied over and over but were still only available to priests and scholars, their messages would still need to be preached for to reach the masses; plays epic Greek ballads could be copied by hand to spread them out, but it was the acting them out that got them to the masses. It was this difficulty in reproduction that made one value the content that they contained. Once the printing press began to make easy reproduction of works, those that were produced for entertainment no longer needed to also have quality in their message, one could produce cheap drivel in mass, something Cervantes was warning us not to let fill the literature we read because it would in turn fill our heads with drivel.

The question of his madness is also a fascinating one, though one that I think is impossible to answer concretely, as it kinda greys itself and varies. The way that it applies itself only to this one area and that everyone noted how sound and intelligent he was in all other manners certainly leans one to interpret that he wasn't truly mad but chose to pretend and act that way in preference to reality, as does his ability to quickly shake it all off and declare himself sane. On the other hand though, if he knew his fantasies were not real and just preferred to act as though he were then his most dangerous actions (again, such as the challenging of the lions) were in themselves acts of insanity. So in one sense or another, he was definitely mad, but the peculiar nature of it certainly leads one to question... exactly how is he insane, and how insane is he?

[mama_scraps]

But I would settle on the barber and the curate deciding, with Dorothea, to play along with Quixote's fantasies to trick him into being brought home.

Before this point, most people either didn't notice his madness (when he was talking on perfectly normal subjects) or did and chose to distance themselves from it. The exception was Sancho, who believed Quixote in many things but when he saw some behavior as crazy he tried (in vain) to correct it. But after this point in the story things change. These characters, and subsequently many more characters in Volume 2 begin to play along with his fantasies, and though they do it in a self-serving manner, to accomplish their goals or for amusement (or in Sancho's case to get out of trouble) they still are letting their words and actions be guided by Quixote's fantasies rather than reality.

You're right, that would be a major turning point in book 1. I was looking for an event that changed Quixote's character but perhaps it's the other characters who make a significant change in book 1 and this change continues into the next book.

I agree with your thoughts on Cervantes' use of books symbolically in Don Quixote. Not just in the ones that Don Quixote read to lead him to where he was, but in their commonness throughout the adventures everywhere (in the hands of even shepherds in the wilderness) shows the power and role of books in the lives of everyone, something that was a new and wondrous thing at the dawn of the 17th century. Before the printing press, forms of literature certainly existed, but they were not things that were able to be read by the masses because they could not be mass produced. Books of the Bible were laboriously copied over and over but were still only available to priests and scholars, their messages would still need to be preached for to reach the masses; plays epic Greek ballads could be copied by hand to spread them out, but it was the acting them out that got them to the masses. It was this difficulty in reproduction that made one value the content that they contained. Once the printing press began to make easy reproduction of works, those that were produced for entertainment no longer needed to also have quality in their message, one could produce cheap drivel in mass, something Cervantes was warning us not to let fill the literature we read because it would in turn fill our heads with drivel.

So the overall argument of Don Quixote is to avoid twaddle. And it took Cervantes more than 900 pages to say it!

It's certainly difficult trying to study events in this book in relation to a larger story, since this volume really wasn't written with the thematic organization that we have come to expect in novels (heck, at the time that Volume 1 was being written, Cervantes was more or less inventing the concept of the novel).

This leads to another question - why is Don Quixote considered the first novel?

The first book of Don Quixote is more like 'stories within a story' than a book about Quixote. He's more like a vehicle to introduce these other stories. But book 2 stays closer to the tale of Quixote and Sancho. Perhaps if Cervantes had just written the first book and not added the second it wouldn't be considered the first novel. Maybe it's because of the gradual change from 'the story within a story' to the focus on Quixote and Sancho that makes it so.

Thoughts?

[shantonu]

Anyone troubled by how bad the last 4 or so chapters are? Of course, I really loved the book as whole. And it's place as a masterpiece of world literature is justly deserved and fixed.

However, I was bit put off by the last few pages.

In particular, I didn't like the whole, "Well all I trying to do was discredit chivalry books." Are we to take that seriously? Technically, Cervantes's narrator says this but . . . .

Also, was it really necessary to get that final jab at the pseudo-Cervantes?

I felt it was unworthy of Cervantes to do these things. Anybody else feel the same?