Don Quixote

[Polliwog]

Hello,

I read almost exclusively classic literature. I search the "most loved" lists and the like when searching for my next read. I have seen Don Quixote in the top ten of many of these lists so I decided to give it a whirl.
I'm 85 pages in and I feel like I'm missing something. Maybe it's the translation or that it's a little too ridiculous for my taste. I have a rule for myself that I have to give every book 100 pages before I give up on it. I've never given up on a book but I'm in danger of giving up on this one. Can anyone who's read this tell me if it I will regret not sticking it out?

I have found some of it mildly amusing. I wonder if mildly amusing and pondering it's historical precedents is all I can expect?

Thanks for any feedback!

[JCamilo]

I consider Dom Quixote awesome, the second part even better, but how anyone can tell if you will regret reading a book or not?

[Red Terror]

I attempted to read it once but gave up after 150 pages into it because there were things going on in 2008 (read: financial crisis, recession) that were eliciting my attention away from the book. Literary scholar Harold Bloom swears the book is the "greatest of all novels" (his words) and that here are things about yourself that you will not know until you have read and absorbed the book. I checked out a translation by Edith Grossman from the library the other day, hoping to make a new attempt because I deeply regret not having been able to read it through the first time. The book has to do with quixotism, which is the attempt of idealists to fight injustice without considering the consequences or practicality of their efforts toward that end. My advice: stick to it. You will then be able to say to people, "I read the greatest novel ever."

The first amusing part was when I read that old Don Quixote said something like "I will now go up to the mountains to kill all the robbers, which is it said to be infested." And then later when he meets Cardenio is another amusing scene. By the way, Shakespeare is said to have written a play called Cardenio (lost to posterity) after having read Don Quixote.


Hello,

I read almost exclusively classic literature. I search the "most loved" lists and the like when searching for my next read. I have seen Don Quixote in the top ten of many of these lists so I decided to give it a whirl.
I'm 85 pages in and I feel like I'm missing something. Maybe it's the translation or that it's a little too ridiculous for my taste. I have a rule for myself that I have to give every book 100 pages before I give up on it. I've never given up on a book but I'm in danger of giving up on this one. Can anyone who's read this tell me if it I will regret not sticking it out?

I have found some of it mildly amusing. I wonder if mildly amusing and pondering it's historical precedents is all I can expect?

Thanks for any feedback!

[Danik 2016]

I love D. Quixote. It is said to be the first powerfull novel to interpret the then still Modern Age, with its dreams, its delusions and an ideology, which left the apparent safety of the convent walls for the instabilities of the secular world.
D. Quixote and Sancho as an inseparable pair of characters have again and again been depicted in modern literature. One version of the pairs is Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller.

But I think literature has to be enjoyed first of all. The book has to say something to you. Else it is no good reading on. But sometimes reading what it is all about may help.
Cervantes wrote the book while he was in prison, after fighting for Spain.

[Red Terror]

Just thought I'd submit these Harold Bloom quotes for your inspection to inspire you to continue reading Don Quixote:



One must read, try to possess by memory, and be possessed by the very best that has been imagined, cognitively apprehended and expressed powerfully. Thinking clearly and well is based upon memory. Unless you have read and absorbed the best that can be read and absorbed, you will not think clearly or well, and democracy will not survive.

We have this horrible contemporary phenomenon in the Tea Party – a real menace not only to America but to the world. Because if it goes on like this, they will destroy our economy and they will destroy America. They have no democratic vision, and I don't mean with a capital “D”, I mean with a small “d”. They frighten me. They're like the early followers of Adolf Hitler, and I'm willing to be quoted on that. They are a sickening phenomenon. That is because they have not read deeply and widely enough. But then maybe they’re not to blame, because American education – even in elite universities – has become a scandal in my opinion. It has committed suicide.

http://fivebooks.com/interview/harold-bloom-on-literary-criticism/

We live, too, in the age of the Tea Party, a movement that cherishes stupidity and zealotry and hates thinking, reading, and teaching. If these people had their way, we’d be done with teaching. It shows the weak-mindedness that has descended upon America, the proclivity for nonsense and political hatred, the disrespect for literature, history, and serious thinking. There is only one remedy to the current predicament, and that is to encourage people to think independently. And that, in turn, begins with reading. People need to remember the best that has been said and thought in the past. That is the starting point, and that is the path, out of our current appalling situation.

http://harpers.org/blog/2011/08/the-anatomy-of-influence-six-questions-for-harold-bloom/


“It all started with that absolute dreadful creature Ronald Reagan,” he continues. “It was Reagan who came along and persuaded the whole nation that it was all right to be selfish, that it was an American virtue to be selfish. And all of these Tea Party-ites wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for Reagan as their trailblazer. Incredible, the cigar-store Indian George W. Bush…the worst president in American history. The more-than-outrageous, the insufferable Donald Trump in today’s newspaper describes Obama as the worst president in American history. I’ll tell you what’s scary. Just one step beyond, and it will be early Nazi Germany. If the Tea Party, which already has a huge majority in the House, should also capture the Senate, you might start seeing sanctioned violence.” He also decries that group’s “racism, endless racism,” noting members of it have depicted the President of the United States as a chimpanzee.


http://wwd.com/eye/people/the-full-bloom-3592315/

Here is Bloom's quote as it appears on freedomfest.com:

“It is scary to reread the final volume of Gibbon these days because the fate of the Roman Empire seems to continue even now. We have approached bankruptcy, foreign wars we cannot pay for, and defrauded our urban and rural poor. We have no Emerson or Whitman among us.”

The full quotation includes sentiments at odds with libertarian and Tea Party views. Bloom is particularly angered by the exclusion of a mention of George W. Bush and his views on "plutocracy, oligarchy, and mounting theocracy" -- which is what he says libertarians are all about (italics ours to show excised text):

"It is scary to reread the final volume of Gibbon these days because the fate of the Roman Empire seems an outline that the imperial presidency of George W. Bush retraced and that continues even now. We have approached bankruptcy, fought wars we cannot pay for, and defrauded our urban and rural poor. Our troops include felons, and mercenaries of many nations are among our ‘contractors,’ fighting on their own rules or none at all. Dark influences from the American past congregate among us still. If we are a democracy, what are we to make of the palpable elements of plutocracy, oligarchy, and mounting theocracy that rule our state? How do we address the self-inflicted catastrophes that devastate our natural environment? So large is our malaise that no single writer can encompass it. We have no Emerson or Whitman among us.”

Those are not the words of a man who believes free markets, no taxes and deregulation can save us. Bloom says he is "absolutely outraged by what they've done with that quotation. I'm a lifelong liberal. These people in my view are liars, cultural illiterates and in fact fascists. The Tea Party is simply the American fascist party. I can't think of two people I despise more than Rand Paul and Grover Norquist."





Hello,

I read almost exclusively classic literature. I search the "most loved" lists and the like when searching for my next read. I have seen Don Quixote in the top ten of many of these lists so I decided to give it a whirl.
I'm 85 pages in and I feel like I'm missing something. Maybe it's the translation or that it's a little too ridiculous for my taste. I have a rule for myself that I have to give every book 100 pages before I give up on it. I've never given up on a book but I'm in danger of giving up on this one. Can anyone who's read this tell me if it I will regret not sticking it out?

I have found some of it mildly amusing. I wonder if mildly amusing and pondering it's historical precedents is all I can expect?

Thanks for any feedback!

[kev67]

I slogged my through first the first part, which I thought was a couple of jokes flogged to a shapeless, bloody, pulp. I started the second part, but gave up when when I discovered it was a joke on the first part. I will have to get around to reading it at some stage just to say I've read it. I will probably start at the end and work backwards. At least the chapters are short iirc.

[stlukesguild]

I have to agree with JCamilo. I found Don Quixote to be a truly brilliant novel... but obviously, not everyone will agree. I will suggest that if one is not experienced in reading older literature... pre-19th century... it may prove challenging... or leave the reader confused... even unimpressed.

[Red Terror]

Yeah, you have to understand a novel or poem more than just at the literal level to appreciate its worth. Any novice or wanker who reads Don Quixote will find all the scenes pretty silly, but if you are sophisticated enough you will observe that Don Quixote is the idealist in us while Sancho Panza is the reality principle trying to bring Quixote down to earth and try to persuade him to face the realistic facts that they are not monsters but windmills and so on and so forth.

[JCamilo]

That is not true. You do not need to understand a coma to appreciate a work. This considering understanding is pretty much a little more than being able to read in that language. Watever Quixote was, Cervantes and his peers had no great understanding of this work than several future writers and critics.

[Jackson Richardson]

I read it some time ago and was underwhelmed. But I suspect it is a bit like reading Robinson Crusoe or Frankenstein. I am so familiar with the myth that when I read the original text it seems a bit austere.

It is perfectly possible to appreciate a parody without knowing the original. I loved The Rape of the Lock without knowing the classic epics and I loved Northanger Abbey long before I'd read The Mysteries of Udolpho.

[Yaakov001]

I have read it in English several times. I have it in the Grossman translation, the Ormsby translation, and the Smollett translation revised by Slade. I am now having a go of it in the original Castilian. This of course, will be more difficult simply because (1), Castilian is a bit harder than the Costa Rican or Mexican Spanish dialects I speak, and (2), Literary Castilian is yet harder, and (3), Literary Castilian from 1605 is yet even more difficult as the language has undergone some change since then, albeit not as much as English has (and English of that period is quite easy for me, since I have my advanced degree in Renaissance British History).

What follows is STRICTLY my opinion. Although I believe it is valid, and I believe I have good reason for holding the views that I do, my opinion is only worth the weight you choose to assign it. so, that having been said... Tally ho, and off we go!

In order to truly understand Don Quixote (and please do note that in its original Castilian, the word is spelt Quijote with a "j" letter and not with an "x" letter, which I THINK is an Anglicisation), one has to be familiar with the history of Spain at this time period.

An acquaintance of mine from Spain put it this way:


Spain has always been mostly rural, even when other countries such as the United Kingdom and France were under the industrial revolution. What little industries were born in Spain, they were located in Catalonia and the Basque Country, both next to France and with important ports. The other regions stayed in a pre-industrial state, with rich families ruling over villages and noble people owning most of the territory. Coupled with deep Catholic beliefs, this situation creates the "España profunda", the "deep Spain": uneducated, often violent people, unable to accept even the smallest change in their lifestyle.

This is why Spaniards could, after the Reconquista, accept the Expulsion of the Moors and Jews with so little protest, and demand so much from the New Christians (Moors or Jews who decided to become Christian rather than leave). And it is strongly suspected that Cervantes may himself have been descended from a Morisco family (one that used to be Muslim and converted; ie, one who would have been considered a New Christian). He served at the Battle of Lepanto against the Muslims and was crippled for life in the permanent damage of his left hand. Nevertheless, he did not get a position in the New World for which he had been striving for years, which, had he been an Old Christian, would likely have been his.

Now, as to the book itself, Why Don Quixote? At the time, Spain was just coming out of a few things. One, books on chivalry were just beginning to drop in popularity among the literate. So razzing them was a sure way to gain an audience. Secondly, however, was the fact that Spain, although appearing outwardly to be a top rate power, was beginning to feel the pain of the cost of Empire. Although she was getting more and more gold and silver from Mexico and Peru, she was also spending huge amounts to maintain control over the Empire with her army and navy spread out across globe, and she was beginning to challenged by other European interests, like England, France, and eventually, the Netherlands, and after the union of Spain and Portugal ended, the latter country as well.

Don Quixote is a commentary on more than just chivalry, but rather, includes Spanish society generally, with all its quirks. As I PERSONALLY see it, and I may be wrong, Sancho's constant reminder that Don Quixote has promised him an insula (island) is a constant reminder to US that Spain itself is in the middle of what would become in the end a losing enterprise, namely, control of large numbers of non-Spanish people that would eventually reject it.

But here is the ultimate question of the novel: WHO IS MAD? Is Don Quixote mad, or is the world mad? I know that sounds almost trite. But it IS, for all its triteness, a legitimate question. Don Quixote, for all his strangeness, reminds me much of the Asperger's Syndrome patient, or Autism patient, both highly functioning. I know this, because I am the former.

The reason I say this is because Asperger's often comes along with other stuff for the ride, in my case, Bipolar Disorder I, which can be associated with psychotic symptoms. I have had it all. And in many cases, to avoid psychotic breaks with reality, I have chosen to consciously break with reality in a controlled way for my own good health, when I have had some down time on my own, and people haven't been around. Far better to do that so I can control it then to have it happen in an uncontrolled fashion and some inopportune moment!

It can be very difficult to read Don Quixote at first. Interestingly enough, the first 100 pages are about the hardest to read of the whole book. It gets much better after that. I would encourage you to continue. But this is not to say that the book is EVER easy. It isn't. It calls upon the reader to accept certain aspects of the human condition that he hasn't been asked to look at before. But if you can do that, then this book will be one you will want to specialise in.

[Polliwog]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I actually persevered and after about page 220 was hooked. Having mostly read classic English and French literature there were many things that astonished me about this work and I sometimes gasped out loud at what would have been considered so very inappropriate and shocking, even to the French. But as I type this I think of the Canterbury Tales. But, I'm sure I'll be reading this again.

[Danik 2016]

I am glad you started to enjoy the book. As Yaakov pointed out the Spanish context is important to understand it.
Among so many other things it relates also to the passage from theocentrism to anthopocentrism. The medieval world of the convents started, man had to find a new identity. Nothing could be taken for granted anymore. And that was maddening.

[Yaakov001]

Polliwog said:


Thank you for taking the time to reply. I actually persevered and after about page 220 was hooked. Having mostly read classic English and French literature there were many things that astonished me about this work and I sometimes gasped out loud at what would have been considered so very inappropriate and shocking, even to the French. But as I type this I think of the Canterbury Tales. But, I'm sure I'll be reading this again.

I am actually quite glad that you DID persevere. That is really great. The Spanish were a very deeply conservative people, but in some ways, they knew how to laugh at themselves for it. I think in many ways, they brought that to America as well.

A perfect example of what I am talking about is how Mexicans often refer to themselves amongst themselves. La Malinche was a Native woman who learned Castilian and lived with Hernando Cortez on his first visit to Mexico, and served as his translator. She was also his Mistress. And she had a child by him, namely, the first Mestizo. The first Mexican.

Her position as translator and Mistress wasn't entirely voluntary. As time went on, this became VERY common. As a result, Mexicans often refer to themselves as "Hijos de la Chingada", literally, Sons of the Raped One. Its a very dark way of laughing at themselves. In a way I think they learned this from the Spanish themselves.

The Spanish were a very Catholic State. As my acquaintance said, España Profunda, Deep Spain, where nothing changes, and nobody wants change. Don Quixote is a product of the Deep Spain, and yet, the world is changing all around him. And it terrifies him beyond belief. Well, what would you do? The poor man snaps. He hits alternate reality, in his case uncontrolled.

Not fun. I can well understand it. It happened to me once! I won't go into details, but hitting alternate reality without making a conscious choice to do so, and thus without being able to control the situation, was horrifying. Much better to take things carefully and slowly.

I don't want you all to think I am some crazy SOB that should be locked up. Although, to be honest, for my own well being and that of others, I have been in the past, albeit not in the last seven years. But I did go through some rough times. But that is precisely WHY I understand Don Quixote the way I do. He and I are very much alike.

Anyway, I am so glad that you read the book, and got hooked on it. That is really neat.

[Procneus]

Thank you, so much, for this. Even though I didn't start the thread, I'm definitely reading it now! The historical background behind these works is fascinating, and I think this post has given me a very productive lens through which to read this book!


I have read it in English several times. I have it in the Grossman translation, the Ormsby translation, and the Smollett translation revised by Slade. I am now having a go of it in the original Castilian. This of course, will be more difficult simply because (1), Castilian is a bit harder than the Costa Rican or Mexican Spanish dialects I speak, and (2), Literary Castilian is yet harder, and (3), Literary Castilian from 1605 is yet even more difficult as the language has undergone some change since then, albeit not as much as English has (and English of that period is quite easy for me, since I have my advanced degree in Renaissance British History).

What follows is STRICTLY my opinion. Although I believe it is valid, and I believe I have good reason for holding the views that I do, my opinion is only worth the weight you choose to assign it. so, that having been said... Tally ho, and off we go!

In order to truly understand Don Quixote (and please do note that in its original Castilian, the word is spelt Quijote with a "j" letter and not with an "x" letter, which I THINK is an Anglicisation), one has to be familiar with the history of Spain at this time period.

An acquaintance of mine from Spain put it this way:



This is why Spaniards could, after the Reconquista, accept the Expulsion of the Moors and Jews with so little protest, and demand so much from the New Christians (Moors or Jews who decided to become Christian rather than leave). And it is strongly suspected that Cervantes may himself have been descended from a Morisco family (one that used to be Muslim and converted; ie, one who would have been considered a New Christian). He served at the Battle of Lepanto against the Muslims and was crippled for life in the permanent damage of his left hand. Nevertheless, he did not get a position in the New World for which he had been striving for years, which, had he been an Old Christian, would likely have been his.

Now, as to the book itself, Why Don Quixote? At the time, Spain was just coming out of a few things. One, books on chivalry were just beginning to drop in popularity among the literate. So razzing them was a sure way to gain an audience. Secondly, however, was the fact that Spain, although appearing outwardly to be a top rate power, was beginning to feel the pain of the cost of Empire. Although she was getting more and more gold and silver from Mexico and Peru, she was also spending huge amounts to maintain control over the Empire with her army and navy spread out across globe, and she was beginning to challenged by other European interests, like England, France, and eventually, the Netherlands, and after the union of Spain and Portugal ended, the latter country as well.

Don Quixote is a commentary on more than just chivalry, but rather, includes Spanish society generally, with all its quirks. As I PERSONALLY see it, and I may be wrong, Sancho's constant reminder that Don Quixote has promised him an insula (island) is a constant reminder to US that Spain itself is in the middle of what would become in the end a losing enterprise, namely, control of large numbers of non-Spanish people that would eventually reject it.

But here is the ultimate question of the novel: WHO IS MAD? Is Don Quixote mad, or is the world mad? I know that sounds almost trite. But it IS, for all its triteness, a legitimate question. Don Quixote, for all his strangeness, reminds me much of the Asperger's Syndrome patient, or Autism patient, both highly functioning. I know this, because I am the former.

The reason I say this is because Asperger's often comes along with other stuff for the ride, in my case, Bipolar Disorder I, which can be associated with psychotic symptoms. I have had it all. And in many cases, to avoid psychotic breaks with reality, I have chosen to consciously break with reality in a controlled way for my own good health, when I have had some down time on my own, and people haven't been around. Far better to do that so I can control it then to have it happen in an uncontrolled fashion and some inopportune moment!

It can be very difficult to read Don Quixote at first. Interestingly enough, the first 100 pages are about the hardest to read of the whole book. It gets much better after that. I would encourage you to continue. But this is not to say that the book is EVER easy. It isn't. It calls upon the reader to accept certain aspects of the human condition that he hasn't been asked to look at before. But if you can do that, then this book will be one you will want to specialise in.

[Yaakov001]

Procneus said:


Thank you, so much, for this. Even though I didn't start the thread, I'm definitely reading it now! The historical background behind these works is fascinating, and I think this post has given me a very productive lens through which to read this book!

I am very pleased that you found it beneficial. As I continue to read through the Castilian, I shall compare it to the English, and let you know what I find. Also, you might find another book interesting. BEFORE Cervantes came out with Part II of his work, there was a gentleman by the name (or pseudonym, most likely) of Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda who came out with a Part II. This version is often called "El Quijote Falso" in Spanish. No one is certain who this author was. There is no record of his birth, baptism, marriage, death, or anything else. Only the book. But it caused Cervantes such irritation that he came out with his OWN Part II that acknowledged familiarity with the False Quixote, to the point where Don Quixote in Cervantes' work actually does things directly in opposition to what he does in the False Version, and even meets people who supposedly met him in the False Version, and makes them swear that they have never met him before.

Much as we might find the idea of a False Quixote distasteful by our standards (plagiarism, anyone?), at the time, laws on copyright didn't really exist. And Fernánadez de Avellaneda may have done us all a service. Cervantes had delayed his Part II, and it is possible it might never have been written without the impetus provided by the False Version. I shall pop in and let you know where I am at in my reading, and I look forward to hearing your analysis of things as you read the text in English or other language (I assume that is the case, correct me if I am wrong). Thanks!

[liam fennell]

I'm a little late here, sorry for bumping this, I just found this forum. The Quixote has always been the greatest of all books for this reader. I first read it aged 17 and never had the slightest trouble with it. I read it then, and still do, in the Putnam translation; the others I've tried all seemed far inferior for whatever reason. It is a modernized version but not too much so. The Knight of the Mournful Countenance registers as the best for me of all the variations on his title, especially.

I remember, vividly, one of the most exciting moments of my life, when I got hooked on the Quixote once and for all. It was the part early on where the Don battles the Biscayan and there is a narrative break right in the middle of the climatic action! The next chapter starts and Cid Hamete apologizes because this is all the manuscript he has, he doesn't know what happens next... but wait! He finds the rest of it randomly in a bazaar, how fortunate, has it translated and then we get to continue the adventure. Perfect.

Whenever I am depressed, I can pull out the Quixote and open it at random and instantly a bad day becomes a good day. Even the "preparatory poems" at the very beginning are enough to make me just about die laughing at this point! Ditto the table of contents with the stupendous chapter titles.

It should be said the first book is uneven and gets bogged down by people telling unrelated stories, one of which is ridiculously long, novella length; any new readers should bear with this. I've had friends give up at this point. Persevere! I think the second book is as perfect as anything ever was.

A very few things I love and will never cease marveling at:

- It is a book about books and the effectiveness, and effects, of books!

- The aforementioned narrative break and the perplexing (at least to me!) but undeniably central though subtle omnipresence of the author/reader surrogate Cide Hamete Benengeli.

- The book judging scene in the Don's library where his friends weigh and debate the relative merits of his collection before burning (most of) it!

- How the characters in the second book are often aware of the first book.

- The Don's reaction to the existence of the aforementioned impossible paradox; if I remember correctly, he wonders aloud whether it is right or wrong to try and correct/deny the embarrassing parts of this first incredibly, disturbingly, accurate historical record of his and Sancho's adventures and ultimately, I think wisely, decides to let the truth speak for itself, painful though it is!

- How the bachelor Sanson Carasco, soon to become the Knight of the Mirrors, rightly criticizes the first book's needless digressions whilst sort of also defending the author's prerogative in including them as they are pretty good stories, despite being completely unrelated.

- How in the rest of part II just about everybody the Don and Sancho encounter, including Sanson and all those educated people who've read part I, get sucked into the Don's madness because they think they're above it. All those incredibly cruel people playing pranks on our heroes end up seeming much crazier than the Don and Sancho, no?

- When he unseats the Knight of the Mirrors and then shortly after braves the adventure of the Lions; both parts are just ridiculously exciting and memorable. This is when the roles start changing, as I see it; here the Don really becomes the legendary knight Don Quixote and not just a crazy person doing funny things and it is immensely, indescribably satisfying.

- The part late in book II where Sancho gets his governorship and actually makes wise decisions! His judgement on the paradoxical "this statement is false" question posed to him viz. the bridge in particular!

And so on, until infinity. This book has basically become part of my DNA and improved my life in countless ways. It completely re-wired my brain and I feel bad for anyone who doesn't know its pleasures and profundities!

[DATo]

One of my favorite books of all time. The humor is a fresh today as it was in the 1600s.

[stlukesguild]

I agree with JCamilo to the extent that Don Quixote doesn't demand an extensive knowledge of Renaissance history, culture, and politics like Dante's Comedia. My initial experience of the novel mirrors something stated by another member:

I read it some time ago and was underwhelmed. But I suspect it is a bit like reading Robinson Crusoe or Frankenstein. I am so familiar with the myth that when I read the original text it seems a bit austere.

Some literary works have a reputation that often is somewhat misleading. The first time I read Don Quixote my feeling was something akin to my response the first time I read Kafka, J.L. Borges, Lawrence Sterne, The Wasteland, and a good number of other works. I came to those literary works with a lot of preconcieved notions. Certainly, everyone has some concept of the term "Kafkaesque"... even those never having read Kafka. But Kafka was quite different from what I expected from what my preconceptions, and as a result I was initially quite underwhelmed... even disappointed. But I was also intrigued enough by something that was there to read these works again... and again... and again... until they have all become favorites of mine.