Don Quixote Reading Group

Have you noticed that the tone in the first chapters of Don Quixote is rather cruel? Don Quixote kills a man, a real man: he breaks his head in three pieces. Some specialists say that this cruelty is due to the first conception of the book by Cervantes, since he wanted to write only another short novel, a novela ejemplar about a ruined gentleman that had become mad because of the already old-fashioned chevalry books. We must admit that the first pages of the novel are quite more daring and impulsive than the later speeches and thinkings. The true violence of this first and only killing will be transformed into painful but less bloody blows, slaps, kicks and throws of some stones, comical and irrelevant, like in an old silent movie.

In what chapter was that Broken mirror? I think I know which scene you are talking about but I am not quite sure.

Glad you're so enthusiastic Nick!

Let's see. It's in Chapter III. Here it is:

Shortly after this, another, not knowing what had happened (for the carrier still lay senseless), came with the same object of giving water to his mules, and was proceeding to remove the armour in order to clear the trough, when Don Quixote, without uttering a word or imploring aid from anyone, once more dropped his buckler and once more lifted his lance, and without actually breaking the second carrier's head into pieces*, made more than three of it, for he laid it open in four.

*That's strange, though. He actually breaks the second carrier's head, he opens it in four. I read Don Quixote in Spanish, and it's clear that the poor carrier's head got broken into pieces. Look:

(...) alzó otra vez la lanza y, sin hacerla pedazos, hizo más de tres la cabeza del segundo arriero, porque se la abrió por cuatro.

"Hacerla pedazos" ("breaking it"), says, and it refers to the lance, not to the carrier's head. It may seem strange that a lance was broken by hitting a human head, but "to break lances" meant "to fight, usually two knights". So, Don Quixote didn't broke his lance because he didn't start any fight, he simply broke the carrier's head into four pieces. I strongly feel that a more accurated translation would be:

(...) once more lifted his lance, and without starting any chivalrous fight, made more than three of the second carrier's head, for he laid it open in four.

In these first chapters, Don Quixote is a killer! :eek: :lol:

In the early chapters when Quixote happens upon the windmills there is a great insight into prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Broken mirror

Let's see. It's in Chapter III. Here it is:

Shortly after this, another, not knowing what had happened (for the carrier still lay senseless), came with the same object of giving water to his mules, and was proceeding to remove the armour in order to clear the trough, when Don Quixote, without uttering a word or imploring aid from anyone, once more dropped his buckler and once more lifted his lance, and without actually breaking the second carrier's head into pieces*, made more than three of it, for he laid it open in four.

*That's strange, though. He actually breaks the second carrier's head, he opens it in four. I read Don Quixote in Spanish, and it's clear that the poor carrier's head got broken into pieces. Look:

(...) alzó otra vez la lanza y, sin hacerla pedazos, hizo más de tres la cabeza del segundo arriero, porque se la abrió por cuatro.

"Hacerla pedazos" ("breaking it"), says, and it refers to the lance, not to the carrier's head. It may seem strange that a lance was broken by hitting a human head, but "to break lances" meant "to fight, usually two knights". So, Don Quixote didn't broke his lance because he didn't start any fight, he simply broke the carrier's head into four pieces. I strongly feel that a more accurated translation would be:

(...) once more lifted his lance, and without starting any chivalrous fight, made more than three of the second carrier's head, for he laid it open in four.

In these first chapters, Don Quixote is a killer! :eek: :lol:

---

This is from the Burton Raffel translation:
"... without quite smashing it into little bits, certainly split the second muledriver's head into more than three pieces, for he laid it open in at least four places."

Much better :thumbs_up

Wow thanks broken mirror, that definitely gives one a bit of insight. Quixote definitely doesn't go around bashing people like he did do in the first part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grace86

Wow thanks broken mirror, that definitely gives one a bit of insight. Quixote definitely doesn't go around bashing people like he did do in the first part.

---

Why do you think Cervantes tones that down after the first few chapters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Why do you think Cervantes tones that down after the first few chapters?

---

I can make a lame attempt at answering that..:D

Supposedly he was going to create a satire bashing on these chivalry novels. So many people, like the priest, keep talking about how they are garbage. If Don Quixote is mad and goes around killing people, I think readers might focus a little more on his killing and less on the fact that that books were detrimental to him.

Grr...it could be looked at in many ways. Because even if he did spend the entire novel killing people, you could still say that because he is doing it from the books' influence, Cervantes is still proving the books bad. And if he is just stupidly crazy, you could still blame it on the books.

But maybe Cervantes began to enjoy his character. His book is a chivalric romance, the very books he was supposedly condemning. Maybe he changes pace or tones it down because he changed his mind? Or to remain ambiguous in his themes of Don Quixote.

Cervantes probably meant for Quixote to be a crazy old man, not a killer. He probably used the death mentioned above to demonstrate the dangers of the books. But I don't think Quixote would be as lovable a character had he gone around killing people in his insanity........it would just creep me out!!

I'm trying to get somewhere, but I am losing it, it's a little too late...tear it apart and maybe I can elaborate later. Not too sure I am answering the WHY.

I think that makes sense Grace. I agree.

Yay, I wasn't so completely asleep then!! :banana:

Does anyone have any thoughts on my post (#59)?

Yes, I agree too. If Quixote had carried on killing he would have never been so endearing.

On your post, grace, you're expounding one of the most interesting matters in the novel. I have no solution. Don Quixote lies sometimes, but definitely he believes in what he is saying in most of the book.

I've been collecting my findings and will post tomorrow.

I will wait to read all of the other postings after I finish the book. I don't want to spoil anything for myself.

I picked this book off my bookshelf where it must have been for more than 30 years! I think it was an assigned text for my Humanities course at the Univ. of Ariz. in 1970. I, too find it humorous although, I don't think I have laughed out loud an I am on about chapter 30. This is the Putnam translation. One member, a student, I think posted a request for help to sort out the narration. Her teacher was unable to convey this, no surprise. What do you all think of the strange appearance of the novel about Don Quijote's adventures in the narration itself? It's a little like holding up two mirrors opposing each other. I believe it is the Duke he encouters after the episode in which he smashes the puppets who states that he is familiar with DQ because he is reading the book! Strange! Isn't it Carrasco (jr.?) who first reveals the existence of the book about DQ? Please comment.

I picked this book off my bookshelf where it must have been for more than 30 years! I think it was an assigned text for my Humanities course at the Univ. of Ariz. in 1970. I, too find it humorous although, I don't think I have laughed out loud an I am on about chapter 30. This is the Putnam translation. One member, a student, I think posted a request for help to sort out the narration. Her teacher was unable to convey this, no surprise. What do you all think of the strange appearance of the novel about Don Quijote's adventures in the narration itself? It's a little like holding up two mirrors opposing each other. I believe it is the Duke he encouters after the episode in which he smashes the puppets who states that he is familiar with DQ because he is reading the book! Strange! Isn't it Carrasco (jr.?) who first reveals the existence of the book about DQ? Please comment.

Hah! I am posting in this thread again (nothing regarding the reading specifically, but just because I can)...I've picked up reading again, I have less than three hundred pages and I am reading about a chapter or two a day. Slow yes, but student life is very demanding.

How is everyone else? Sorry about dropping out for awhile!

I'm back to reading Don Quixote. I'm 11 chapters into the second part. I really enjoyed the Don's first meeting with Dulcinea. That was hilarious and I liked the way she hopped on the donkey to get away from him. :lol: