Don Quixote Discussion

So, since DQ got the shaft in the reading poll, I figure there's no reason it still can't be discussed by those who still may read it (and anyone else who wants to jump in).

So far, I've read about half. I like it. It is quite bizzarre, but in a good way. I am also reading the Edith Grossman translation, which so far is very good and easy to read, and also not overly-filled with footnotes.

What I find most surprising about DQ is that it definitely does not read like something 400 years old, though I think that's more due to the translation than anything. But, diction aside, the story (or, more accurately, stories) move at a very brisk pace. There is rarely an over-use of description, which I am very much glad for. Sometimes older texts take some effort to get through (not saying this is a bad thing); so far, DQ has been quite easy.

As I said, DQ is bizzarre. It is funny, no doubt, and I've even chuckled a few times (which, for me, is akin to laughing uncontrollably at a movie; I just don't laugh that much while reading). Some of Quixote's speeches are just hilarious. But, the humor is quite dark, which I didn't expect. Quixote and Sancho do seem to get beaten quite often, usually to the extant that they are near-death. And the scene where Quixote "saves" the servant being whipped, which only results in the cruel master beating him worse, was a bit sad and disturbing.

Now, I admit I am reading mostly immersively, so I'm not explicitly doing an analytical reading, but I haven't stumbled onto much deeper meaning within the text. I'm sure there is plenty of political and religious commentary going on, but definitely not as much as some "deeper" texts (unless I'm just totally overlooking it).

One question, though. Why is DQ seen as the first great modern novel? It seems an odd book to be declared so (i.e., what reads often like a goofball comedy). Now, this isn't a criticism, just a question made out of ignorance. Throughout the novel, many chivalric novels are referenced. So, beyond being different than anything else that had been written, what made DQ stand out as the first modern novel?

I think "first modern novel" refers to the style of writing. Before DQ long narratives were generally writen as epic poetry.

Since this isn't necessarily confined to the month of February, I might have some thoughts or questions later, and hopefully someone else will still be interested in the discussion.

Why is DQ seen as the first great modern novel? It seems an odd book to be declared so (i.e., what reads often like a goofball comedy). Now, this isn't a criticism, just a question made out of ignorance. Throughout the novel, many chivalric novels are referenced. So, beyond being different than anything else that had been written, what made DQ stand out as the first modern novel?

As iamnobody suggested, Don Quixote is often thought of as one of the first novels for the simple reason that it breaks with the tradition of the epic and the "romance". The "romance" could be written in either poetry or prose (or a combination of the two) but it tends to focus upon the epic adventures of a knight errant (often based upon a great journey) who often has super-human abilities and achieves great deeds far beyond the abilities of the normal mortal man. Here you might think of books such as Ariosto's Orlando Furioso, the Poem of the Cid, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Torquato Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata, Firdowsi's Shanameh, Parsival, The Nibelungenlied, and the various cycles involving Arthur, Orlando/Roland, etc...

Don Quixote is a "novel"... a word derived from the Italian novella (new) and the French "nouvelle romance" (new romance). Don Quixote breaks from the tradition of the romance by presenting us with a "hero" who is far from being heroic. If anything, he is an everyman... and as an obsessive reader, he is perhaps someone we can relate to. Don Quixote has grown up reading the endless heroic romances... to such an extent that he has lost a sense of reality (a theme repeated by Flaubert in Madame Bovary, which many see as establishing the model of the modern novel). Don Quixote is a satire of the classic romance... by a writer that is also clearly enamored of these same romances. Don Quixote is a comic buffoon who illusions we at once laugh at... and envy. He is repeatedly beaten down, mocked, and ridiculed... and yet in the end he comes across as far more profoundly "heroic" than any Lancelot or Orlando. Don Quixote also establishes one of the greatest friendships is the history of literature... a model for Sterne's Tristam Shandy, Twain's Huck Finn, and even Pynchon's Mason & Dixon. Unlike the traditional romance, in which we simply follow the hero/s through a series of adventures, Don Quixote establishes a character that evolves and grows over time. We can especially see this in the relationship between the Don and Sancho. This is something rarely seen before Shakespeare. Indeed, as J.L. Borges and many others have suggested, the Don and Sancho are among those characters who are so developed that they virtually continue to live outside of the original text... something we only see with a few characters such as Yahweh, Moses, Jesus, Odysseus, Satan, King Arthur, Scrooge, etc... Don Quixote also holds a certain status due to its clear impact upon subsequent literature and the development of the novel: Swift, Richardson, Defoe, Fielding, Sterne, Tobias Smollett, etc... are but a few writers in English profoundly influenced by Don Quixote.

More than Satyre (Some argue Ariosto has done this too), there is another element, which is using a characters to tie the "novellas". Quixote and Sancho gain a narrative dimension that for example, the 10 younglings of Bocaccio didnt had. Cervantes offer a timing solution for prose, a aesthetic answer for poetry.

I saw a research showing the effects of Quixote translation: the number of libraries (very small then) increased considerable in each country. It suggests Quixote had a direct effect on this, which would imply change on reading habits that we cannt find on Dante or Shakespeare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Why is DQ seen as the first great modern novel? It seems an odd book to be declared so (i.e., what reads often like a goofball comedy). Now, this isn't a criticism, just a question made out of ignorance. Throughout the novel, many chivalric novels are referenced. So, beyond being different than anything else that had been written, what made DQ stand out as the first modern novel?

As iamnobody suggested, Don Quixote is often thought of as one of the first novels for the simple reason that it breaks with the tradition of the epic and the "romance". The "romance" could be written in either poetry or prose (or a combination of the two) but it tends to focus upon the epic adventures of a knight errant (often based upon a great journey) who often has super-human abilities and achieves great deeds far beyond the abilities of the normal mortal man. Here you might think of books such as Ariosto's Orlando Furioso, the Poem of the Cid, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Torquato Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata, Firdowsi's Shanameh, Parsival, The Nibelungenlied, and the various cycles involving Arthur, Orlando/Roland, etc...

Don Quixote is a "novel"... a word derived from the Italian novella (new) and the French "nouvelle romance" (new romance). Don Quixote breaks from the tradition of the romance by presenting us with a "hero" who is far from being heroic. If anything, he is an everyman... and as an obsessive reader, he is perhaps someone we can relate to. Don Quixote has grown up reading the endless heroic romances... to such an extent that he has lost a sense of reality (a theme repeated by Flaubert in Madame Bovary, which many see as establishing the model of the modern novel). Don Quixote is a satire of the classic romance... by a writer that is also clearly enamored of these same romances. Don Quixote is a comic buffoon who illusions we at once laugh at... and envy. He is repeatedly beaten down, mocked, and ridiculed... and yet in the end he comes across as far more profoundly "heroic" than any Lancelot or Orlando. Don Quixote also establishes one of the greatest friendships is the history of literature... a model for Sterne's Tristam Shandy, Twain's Huck Finn, and even Pynchon's Mason & Dixon. Unlike the traditional romance, in which we simply follow the hero/s through a series of adventures, Don Quixote establishes a character that evolves and grows over time. We can especially see this in the relationship between the Don and Sancho. This is something rarely seen before Shakespeare. Indeed, as J.L. Borges and many others have suggested, the Don and Sancho are among those characters who are so developed that they virtually continue to live outside of the original text... something we only see with a few characters such as Yahweh, Moses, Jesus, Odysseus, Satan, King Arthur, Scrooge, etc... Don Quixote also holds a certain status due to its clear impact upon subsequent literature and the development of the novel: Swift, Richardson, Defoe, Fielding, Sterne, Tobias Smollett, etc... are but a few writers in English profoundly influenced by Don Quixote.

---

Thanks for the explanation. When I heard "first modern novel," I always assumed it was labeled this because of form and structure more than the narrative, and now I realize it was the narrative more than the structure that was significant. I knew it was an original story when it was written, just not as original as you describe. Also, I think when I thought of what would be the "first modern novel," I had in mind something more serious. Makes sense, though.

You might recognize how shockingly new the prose style of Don Quixote was in its time. In spite of Dante's use of the "vulgar language" of Italian as opposed to Latin, his language is clearly laden with the highest forms of artifice: terza rima, etc... which clearly establish that what we are reading is indeed a work of art. Cervantes, to the contrary, utilizes layers of artifice to create the illusion that what we are reading is "real". He employs the frame story of Cid Hamete Benegeli whose tale this supposedly is, Cervantes merely translating this from the noble Cid. His colloquial language is unlike anything encountered in the artifice of the romance or epic poetry. There is an illusion that what we are reading is real to an extent never before encountered in literature (with the possible exception of the theater).
The apparent lack of artifice of Cervantes and the subsequent writers of the novel (Fielding, Richardson, Defoe, Smollett, Sterne, etc... is what led writers (and critics) like Samuel Johnson, and Alexander Pope to dismiss the novel as unworthy and low class. This new art form was as lowly of birth as film (in the early 20th century), television... or to look at a contemporary genre... the newly rejuvenated theater in England.

And then there is the very notion of a wholly original fiction. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales retells tales known from Boccaccio, French, classical Roman and Greek, Biblical, and even Indian sources. What is original is the frame story... and the characters. The same is largely true of Boccaccio, Ariosto, and even Dante. Dante certainly invents a marvelous frame story and the complex characters of Virgil and Dante himself... who are so fleshed out that most readers forget they are actually literary characters... but the collection of narratives are drawn from pre-existing sources: Biblical, classical, or even historical. Even Shakespeare, with a few exceptions, builds his plays upon pre-existing narratives. Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar are all structured on known narratives. What Cervantes offers is an entirely new narrative. This certainly sucked readers in like nothing before (as JCamillo suggests). Readers were following along voraciously to such a point that other writers, in these days before intellectual property rights, began to write their own sequels... which Cervantes parodies in the second book. One must imagine that the novel and the theater were as seductive... and as "real" in the minds of many in the audience as film may be for the audience today. The invented fiction that passes itself off as real which we accept without a second thought when reading novels today was something shockingly original for Cervantes' time.

J.L. Borges, ever the astute critic, famously recognizes the illusion of Cervantes (and note Cervantes himself plays with the idea of this very illusion in confronting the Don's inability to discern reality from illusion as a reader, and in the famous scene of the puppet theater (which may also be a wry comment by Cervantes upon the theater vs his new novel). Borges speaks of the shock in Cervantes that occurs as a result of the contrast of the real (Don Quixote) and the artificial (the Don's beloved epics and his illusions/delusions). Borges recognizes that by our time the contrast has been all but erased as Don Quixote and Sancho are just as much fantastic characters of the romantic past as are El Cid, Amadis of Gaul, of King Arthur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

You might recognize how shockingly new the prose style of Don Quixote was in its time.

---

I definitely did, but I wasn't sure if that was due to the translation.

Hello to everyone!!! I'm a student of spanish language and my professor of spanish literature gave us an assignment. We have to find some persons with whom we will dicuss Don Quixote on a foreign language. I will be very thankful if you can find some free time to write couple of sentences about what do you think that is the main idea of this novel, if it is a strong desire to be someone else , or something different.
Thanks!!!

Yay! I finely started reading this book! Though I have not got that far yet. I have to say though I am enjoying it thus far, and I do find it quite entertaining, I love the humor in the story. The verboseness of it, and the fact that my copy of the book has really tiny writing to fit as much on a page as possible, it makes the chapters feel a lot longer than they are.

But it does read pretty easily for the most part, though it is kind of obnoxious that my edition uses end notes for things that don't really require explanation. So than it makes you think they mean something other than what you think it means, because why else would there be a note for it, but when you look it up, its like, yeah I already knew that, why are you wasting my time with this?

But now that I got that out my system, to turn to the actual story itself, I was initially struck by the fact that this 50 year old man, is essentially playing dress up or games of imagination like a little kid. I loved the scene at the in through, in which he imagines that it must be some great castle and his dialogue with the wenches, convincing himself that they are great ladies.

I am very confused by the character of Sancho, he does not suffer from the same delusions, or overactive imagination which DQ does, and he knows that DQ does not quite live within the actual reality of the world, but imagines what he wants to see, and goes around attacking innocent people thinking they are enemies, and thinks Inns are castles. Yet he still follows him around and still believes in DQ's knight errantcy? After all that he is witnessed and seeing how often DQ has been wrong and how disillusioned he is, how can Sancho still believe that in the end he really is going to get a kingdom of his own or any great wealthy and glory?

After how many times he gets beaten to near death following a man who thinks windmills are giants, and flocks of sheep are armies, he still believes in him? It seems that between the two of them Sancho may be madder than DQ is.

Actually, Quixote is arguably not mad. Super-sane maybe.

There is reason behind Sancho? He is a rascal. He has no future, nothing, yet Alonso Quijano is a man who reads. Became famous. And his friend.

Just like a fool is entitled the right to show that kings are wrong, what do someone with Quixote? His pragmatic balance is, like Quixote the reverse of the hero, the reversal of the fool. And he is quixote friend.

He keeps quixote alive, he is the security that allows Quijano to go. When he lost Sancho, he lost quixote... well, end the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Actually, Quixote is arguably not mad. Super-sane maybe.

---

At present I am not convinced of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I am very confused by the character of Sancho, he does not suffer from the same delusions, or overactive imagination which DQ does, and he knows that DQ does not quite live within the actual reality of the world, but imagines what he wants to see, and goes around attacking innocent people thinking they are enemies, and thinks Inns are castles. Yet he still follows him around and still believes in DQ's knight errantcy? After all that he is witnessed and seeing how often DQ has been wrong and how disillusioned he is, how can Sancho still believe that in the end he really is going to get a kingdom of his own or any great wealthy and glory?

After how many times he gets beaten to near death following a man who thinks windmills are giants, and flocks of sheep are armies, he still believes in him? It seems that between the two of them Sancho may be madder than DQ is.

---

Sancho is a complicated character in my mind. Other than his willingness to believe he will somehow gain great wealth and land from DQ (and just going along with DG at all), he displays great wisdom and pragmatism throughout much of the story. I can't recall any particulars, but more than a few times how makes speeches with deep insight. To me (and as odd as a comparison this may be), he's like the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz. He continually claims his ignorance and laments it, but in truth is the smartest of the group. Maybe there is an allegorical aspect to Sancho I don't know? Or maybe Cervantes just intended for the reader to make inferences of his own. Or maybe I'm not picking up on something that should be fairly obvious--it wouldn't be the first time.

He is just a reverse of what a knight helper (short of knight wannabe) should be. He is ville, he is not noble at all, he is cynical, not adventurous, a complete rascal. His function is not exactly the reader reckonigtion (as Cervantes readers are not lower class as quixote) but the comedy. Cervantes has ties with threatre, he wanted to be Lope de Vega (not like he really wanted, but it is the position he wanted to have in spanish baroque comedy), he knew the effect of a buffon in scene (just like Shakespeare did). Sancho is Quixote living Yorick.

He is cynical and a bit of a rascal, but I would have to disagree with "vile" (I assume that's the word you meant) and I would definitely disagree that he isn't adventurous. He follows DQ on these bizzarre quests, after all. And as to him being vile, I'm not sure how. He does have selfish motivations, yes, and the one deceit, but he does try and help DQ for the most part, even comes to his defense on occasions (physically). I guess one could argue that these are for selfish motivations only, but I don't think that's all that plays into it.

Vile meaning more Sancho rudeness, lack of sophistication, some ammorality of character...
He goes with Quixote, ends beaten, but he is often refusing to step in and go beyond. Of course, he know it is fantasies, but it is his pragmatic and mundane form of thinking. Sancho is a commun person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

He is cynical and a bit of a rascal, but I would have to disagree with "vile" (I assume that's the word you meant) and I would definitely disagree that he isn't adventurous. He follows DQ on these bizzarre quests, after all. And as to him being vile, I'm not sure how. He does have selfish motivations, yes, and the one deceit, but he does try and help DQ for the most part, even comes to his defense on occasions (physically). I guess one could argue that these are for selfish motivations only, but I don't think that's all that plays into it.

---

I agree that Sancho does seem to be a very complex character the more I think about it. I think the scarecrow analogy is quite an apt one. For on the surface Sancho may seem to be simplistic in some ways, and he is but a "simple" shepherd, at the same time there are such contradictions within his character that it is hard to make sense of it all at times.

While it is true on the one hand he is motivated by selfish greed, and he does at times come off as being something of a scoundrel, for I cannot help but to cringe a little at the times in which he does see fit to rob the poor victims of DQ's delusions, and take from them what he claims as his right as a squire, yet at the same time all the while knowing that the people are but innocent bystanders in all of this.

He also displays what seems to be a depth of feeling for DQ and stands by him no matter the trouble that DQ does bring him into, and while perhaps he is in part motivated by some hope of coming into greater fortune by following him and being rewarded in some way in the end, I do not think that this is the extent of his loyalty. As in the adventure of the fulling mill. When it was initially thought that they were about to embark on some terribly dangerous adventure, Sancho wept for the thought of loosing his master, and even after DQ assured him that if he should be killed Sancho would be provided for in his will, Sancho was still in sorrow at the thought of anything befalling DQ and think there is some sincere emotion on Sancho's part on behalf of DQ.

I would say that Sancho is something of a reluctant adventurer while he continues to follow and stand by DQ in spite of the misfortunes they meet, he does oft try and talk reason into DQ and prevent him from rushing off into some new adventure, and he himself does not necessarily have any strong desire to go rushing off into battle, and there have been a few times in which he has contemplated abandoning DQ and returning home again.