Don Quixote

The first part of Don Quixote is tedious. It's the same joke, told over and over again, and it's a joke that's not all that funny to begin with. Quixote is delusional, Sancho is weak-willed, and they wander around like the countryside like punching bags so that Cervantes can take cheap shots at innkeepers, rustics, the clergy, and anyone else he's built up resentment against. It's no wonder most people give up after a few hundred pages. You ever wonder why nobody mentions anything but the windmill scene? That's the first adventure, and it's as far as most readers will get.

So why is it so good? Because Part 2 changes all that.

When Part 2 begins, people have already heard of Don Quixote, having read of his exploits in Part 1. Some of them show more have even read a counterfeit sequel, and mention exploits which Don Quixote dismisses as bogus. As a result, most people humor the famous madman, and more than a few play tricks on him for their own entertainment. The vicious beatings are conspicuously absent, though there is still the occasional good-natured slapstick.

In this part, Quixote is the fool and Sancho is savvy. There seems to be a movement away from the rather spiteful treatment of the characters in Part 1, which was exagerrated in the counterfeit sequel that was published to meet popular demand (and which spurred Cervantes to write Part 2 in order to regain control of his characters). But there might be more to it than just distancing himself from the counterfeit novel.

When Cervantes wrote the first part, he was bitter and neglected, having been jailed for fraud, enslaved by pirates, and entirely failing to make an impression with his novels and plays. His attacks on chivalric romances may very well be the sneering of a bitter old man at the misguided choices of his youth. He kicks Quixote and Sancho around because they are motivated by the same blind optimisim that he had as a young man, or that he sees around him as a middle-aged one. One more to the ribs? Why not! Siiiing-ing in the RAAAAAAIIINNN!

When Cervantes wrote the second part, he has found success, and his characters are directly responsible for it. They are popular. He's not going to make anything bad happen to them. So he goes easy on the two, improving their characters (Don Quixote demonstrates his intelligence in occasional learned discourse, and Sancho repeatedly exceeds the expectations of those he encounters), coddling them a bit. Having read Part 1, as have the bulk of the characters in Part 2, the reader goes along with it. Hey, these aren't bad guys -- let's humor them and see what they come up with. Who doesn't need a foolish and, dare I say it, quixotic madman to wander into their life now and again?

It is Part 2 that makes this happen. Without it, we would not have the word quixotic. It completely redeems the first part, even leading one to (erroneously but favorably) consider that the first part is just an overlong setup for the second.

One final thing: this is called the first modern novel for a reason. The framing device used in the first part ("this is the story of the Man from La Mancha, pieced together from various sources, one in Arabic that I had to get a pretty Moroccan boy to translate") is just a taste, just a small jab at the way chivalric romances were written.

Things really start to get meta in Part 2. Not only have the secondary characters read the first part, they demand an accounting of the errors and inconsistencies it contains (and there are more than a few). They critique the style, fuming at the various novels-within-a-novel (such as "The Impertinently Curious Gentleman") that rightfully do not appear in Part 2.

At an inn, Quixote and Sancho overhear a group of guys in the next room reading from their history -- but it's the wrong history! There are escapades being told which they never had a part in. They learn of the "spurious second book" by Avellaneda, and rapidly disavow any knowledge of its events, scorning the characters of Don Quixote'* and Sancho' in that work as one-dimensional caricatures.

Later, they encounter Avellaneda himself, and learn from him that there is another Don Quixote (and another Sancho), an attention-seeker likely inspired by what he read in the first book. This Don Quixote' is not intelligent, his Sancho' not savvy, and he is currently tucked away in a madhouse.

Quixote convinces Avellaneda that he is the original, far superior version of Don Quixote, and has Avellaneda draft and sign a statement to the effect that the other Don Quixote' is an imposter, that all of the adventures of this Don Quixote' are invented, and that he (Don Quixote), the bearer of this statement, is the true, original, and uncontested Don Quixote. Top that [a:Mark Z. Danielewski|13974|Mark Z. Danielewski|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1348252837p2/13974.jpg]!

Part 2 concludes with the death of Don Quixote and the warning to readers that there can and will be no further adventures of Don Quixote and Sancho. Probably the only way of enforcing copyright in the seventeenth century.

* prime show less

Two books, really, one written ten years after the super-popular sensation of the first three Sallies of our intrepid Knight Errant, the collected stories here are something really special.

It doesn't even matter that I read a translation from the Spanish of 1605. Or that the numerous references to Chivalry are half-super obscure or relegated to fantasy (or possible fantasy, for you historical purists and hopefuls).

Once we start this comic masterpiece, it becomes something a lot more than a chivalric romance tempered by sheer sarcasm, optimism, delusion, realism, or idealism writ large. It cleverly becomes anything you want as a reader. :)

For idealists and the imaginative at heart, Don Quixote is the hero that never gives up on his show more dreams no matter what anyone says. Assumed mad by everyone around him, he still manages to be perfectly rational about EVERYTHING except the idea of Chivalry. It consumes everything he does and while it does get him into a LOT of trouble... like getting beat up by a windmill... it also charms the living hell out of almost everyone he meets. The pursuit of his dream fascinates everyone even as they laugh at him.

For the sarcastic and the sardonic among us, we laugh at Don Quixote for the way he shines a spotlight on our own stupid crap and we are shocked and amazed when we discover that he might be RIGHT in his decisions when compared to what "normal", "regular" society thinks and does. His lunacy is almost a divine lunacy. Satire? Absolutely.

For the realist in us, we despair because NO ONE lives by sane rules. Not our neighbors, society, nor the holy idealists that shoot their arrows into the void of absurdity. Sancho Panza fights and fights, trying to keep his old friend alive despite everything, getting beat over the head repeatedly by the lunacy... until he gives in. Broken. And just goes along with reality, taking whatever scraps he can in hopes that the emperor's new clothes will start to fit him.

Gorgeous stuff. Any of us could take any kind of read we want out of this, and there's a lot more than just these three ways to read it. But above all, it's all funny as hell, timely even now, and smart in a way that only the most brilliant books are smart. And timeless.

Anyone upon reading this can see how it influences a vast stream of books that came after. Or TV shows. I think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Confederacy of Dunces, and even American Psycho.

Of course, I'm sure most people will think of more standard titles, but from TS Eliot to the Dark Tower to Spaghetti Westerns to the Seven Samurai, the influence is still insanely clear. :)

A true classic. show less

As with many staples of classic literature, I wasn't entirely sure what to make of Don Quixote before I read the first page. I braced myself for flowery, poetic, and consistently obtuse prose. I braced myself for needless pontificating.

And sure, there is some of that. However, what I was surprised by was how funny this book is -- even now, more than 400 years since its original publication. It's also remarkably accessible. Some of that, I'm sure, is due to Edith Grossman's translation for this edition, but the story itself doesn't fall down unnecessary rabbit holes, as I often find classic literature does. That's not to say there aren't moments of, dare I say, plodding repetition. Despite my enjoyment of the meta nature of their show more inclusion, I found the discussions about literature to be, well, repetitive.

But as a whole, it's easy to see why Don Quixote is heralded as one of the most impressive books to be published. It's an adventure at its core, with a ton of unique and odd characters (led, of course, by the strangest of them all, that titular knight errant). show less

I hadn't realized that what I had read of Don Quixote in high school was only about half the book. There are so many more stories here! I love how the book is stories within stories all focused around Don Quixote's belief that he's a chivalrous knight. He drags others through his adventures and they decide that his books of fiction, which obviously caused his dementia, are too dangerous. The stories serve to point out that great works of fiction add to our lives by providing escape and entertainment and are not dangerous at all.

Many people have heard of Don Quixote (or Don Quijote in this translation), but to read both volumes of the book takes some reading commitment. It was the next book on my shelf and although not unread; I had read it such a long time ago I had only a vague impression. Reading today a revised translation by Diana De Armas Wilson with its introduction by the original translator Burton Raffel was very much in keeping with Miguel de Cervantes claiming that his Don Quijote was a translation from the Arabic historian Cide Hamete Benengeli, which put me in tune with the meta fictional aspects of this book.

It has been labelled as the first novel ever written, (first volume published in 1605), but I can vouch to the fact that this is not true show more having read novels from the previous century. It's claim to be the first modern novel bears more consideration, as from my reading experience it shines like a beacon of light, a sort of lighthouse beacon which lights the way for character development and interior reflections, authorial interventions, open ended interpretations, and endless discussions on the aims and objectives of the author. The dark side of the lighthouse beacon is its disparagement of the subject matter of the popular fiction of its time, the books of chivalry: knights in armour riding out to do fantastic deeds. These are the very books that caused Don Quijote to go insane. He was of the opinion that all the stories written on chivalry must be historically accurate, because they were printed in books. Why would anyone write about things that were not true, that did not happen. There is a scene very early on in the first volume when Don Quijote has returned exhausted from his first adventure and the priest and the barber go through his library throwing out of the window all the bad books on chivalry that they intend to burn.

The basic premise of the novel is that a rich landowner Don Quijote has become infatuated and addicted to books of chivalry and takes it upon himself to revive the whole idea of knight errantry. Cervantes says:

"Indeed his mind was so tattered and torn that finally, it produced the strangest notion any madman ever conceived, and then considered it not just appropriate but inevitable. As much for the sake of his own greater honour as for his duty to the nation, he decided to turn himself into a knight errant, travelling all over the world with his horse and his weapons, seeking adventures and doing everything that, according to his books, earlier knights had done, righting every manner of wrong, giving himself the opportunity to experience every sort of danger, so that surmounting them all, he would cover himself with eternal fame and glory"

Don Quijote recruits an employee of his Sancho Panza to be his squire and saddles up his old horse Rocinante, puts on some old armour and together they ride out; Sancho Panza on his beloved donkey, looking for adventures. Not only is Don Quijote insane, but he also suffers from hallucinations, seeing wayside inns as castles, windmills as giants, and herds of sheep as a marauding army. He also dreams of an impossibly beautiful woman who will be the love of his life and to whom he will dedicate his conquests: the matchless Dulcinea del Tobolso. Tobolso is a town near where Don Quijote lives and he might have caught sight of a pretty girl there.

There have been many interpretations of Don Quijote. A ribald, knockabout, slapstick comedy; there are certainly many funny incidents along the way that can make the reader laugh out loud. A loveable idealist who follows his heart and an unflappable optimist. A tragic hero figure in the best traditions of a romantic interpretation. Christians might interpret him as a Christ like figure, or that it is a cabalistic Jewish text. Some may think it is an allegory of Spanish politics or an attack on romantic chivalry that Cervantes claims it to be. It is in my opinion primarily a novel about insanity, self delusion and how other people handle, care for, or make fun of people who are insane. Don Quijote's sanity comes and goes, in book two his periods of lucidity increase until he returns home almost cured of his delusions. During his adventures people are often surprised by his educated response to questions, he gives Sancho Panza excellent advice on how to be a governor of a municipality. Don Quijote's insanity leads inevitably to mood swings, he is easily angered and in fact twice tries to kill Sancho Panza.

Many classic works are infused with thoughts and ideas about writing and literature and Don Quijote is no exception to this. The prologue of the book addressed to the idle reader written by Cervantes talks about the difficulties of writing the prologue, reminding readers that he is only the stepfather to the book not its parent. He then tells of a conversation with a friend who tells him shortcuts to write a successful piece of literature. Throughout the actual novel there are pauses where Cervantes reflects on the art of writing.

The two volumes were printed nine years apart and in the second volume the metafictional aspects take another turn. We are told that Don Quijote has become famous, because people have read about his exploits in the first volume. He starts to be recognised and some people take advantage of his fame. He complains however, that there seems to be two Don Quijote's riding around; one who is a bit of an idiot and one who is accomplishing good deeds, one book is poorly written while the other can stand up as a piece of literature. This together with authorial interventions, perhaps by the parent: Cide Hamete Benengali or perhaps the step father Cervantes himself adds further to the innovations that are introduced by the author.

The two volumes together make a superb reading experience. There are Don Quijote's sometimes rather puzzling exploits, there are stories within stories. There are two tremendous characters in the knight himself and his proverb loving squire Sancho Panza, who develop characteristics from each other. The stories are funny, sometimes violent, sometimes contemporary to that period of Spanish rule: the expulsion of the Moors and the jews feature heavily. Of course the reader rides along with Don Quijote sucking up the atmosphere of Spain in the early 17th century wondering about the next adventure that will befall the insane duo and caring about the health of the duo as well as despairing about the damage they cause. The Norton Critical Edition contains an excellent introduction and a beautiful translation. The criticism section however, leaves something to be desired. I know it is difficult to come to a conclusion about the main theme or thrust of this novel, but most of the extracts focus on individual stories. Some attempt at an overall impression would have been welcome. It is a book that one can return to and enjoy individual stories and exploits, with the whole scope of the book firmly in mind. Wonderful and a five star read. show less

When I revisited Don Quixote, I was floored by how modern it feels. Beneath the armor, the pratfalls, and the absurdity, it’s one of the most human stories ever told ... about a man so desperate to find purpose in life that he invents one. And somehow, we cheer him on for it.

Cervantes had the nerve to write about the death of idealism … and make it funny. He understood the madness of believing in something too deeply, and the tragedy of those who don’t believe in anything at all. Quixote tilts at windmills not because he’s insane, but because he refuses to accept a world stripped of wonder.

Maybe that’s why this book still hits me so hard. In wine, in art, in life, we’re all chasing that impossible balance between reason and show more passion ... between what is and what could be. At Rasa, we even named a wine after him: Tilting at Windmills ... a Grenache, Cab, and Syrah blend made in the Priorat style ... because Quixote’s spirit belongs in every bottle that dares to dream beyond convention.

Reading it again last year reminded me how much joy and heartbreak Cervantes packs into every scene. You laugh, you sigh, you ache … and you realize that maybe tilting at windmills isn’t madness after all. Maybe it’s the only sane way to live. show less

Some time ago, I sat through a series of art history lectures offered at our church. The minister giving the talks was the perfect person to discuss Renaissance-era paintings, having received a MFA in addition to a divinity degree. He was also someone I knew well enough to ask what I had always feared was a really dumb question: When you go into a museum and see two seemingly comparable paintings displayed side by side, why does one usually get a lot more attention (e.g. written descriptions on the wall, guidebook space) than the other? There can be many reasons, he said, but the simple answer is that the artwork getting all the love is usually the one that came first.

I thought about that observation frequently as I was reading Don show more Quixote, which is widely hailed in critical circles as the first modern novel. (And, at just shy of 1,000 pages, I had plenty of time to think about a lot of things during the several weeks it took me to finish the book.) I have to confess that I was not even sure what being labeled the first modern novel even meant. However, the more time I spent immersed in the volume, the more sense that designation made. For as much as I enjoyed the inventiveness of the story, I think I enjoyed considering the historical importance of the work and the influence it has had on literature over the subsequent centuries even more.

As I learned, the present-day version of Don Quixote actually consists of two separate novels that Cervantes wrote about ten years apart. Both parts of the book tell the same well-known tale. An aging Spanish gentleman becomes so obsessed with reading novels on chivalry that he goes “mad” and fancies himself a knight errant, whose duty it is to right wrongs wherever he finds them in the world. Pledging his chaste love and obedience to the lady Dulcinea—who, in reality, is a relatively ordinary peasant woman he barely knows—he sets out across the country on several sallies, eventually accompanied by Sancho Panza, a poor local farmer who serves as his squire.

The myriad adventures the two men have tend to take on a similar form: in his delusional state, Don Quixote confuses an ordinary situation as a threat or a challenge that needs to be addressed (e.g., windmills confused for giant villains to be vanquished), which the simple but sensible Sancho tries to talk him out of. When the encounter goes badly for the heroes, Quixote is quick to blame the work of evil enchanters who are out to get him, rather than accept failure or the possibility that he simply misread the circumstances. This basic plot device is repeated over and over again—accompanied by a considerable amount of philosophical discourse between the knight and the squire—much of which is amusing and, occasionally, memorable.

For me, the second half of the novel was considerably more interesting and rewarding than the first. It is also the part of the book where the “modern” label becomes more apparent. Indeed, the author himself (often in the guise of his Arabic alter-ego Cide Hamete Benengeli) becomes a third central character in the story in a very clever way. While on their adventures in this section, Quixote and Panza often meet people who already know them from having read the first half of the book and are only too happy to encourage their delusional behavior. Also, the author has the Don’s character berate another real-life writer who had produced an unauthorized plagiarism of the Quixote saga in the years between the two volumes that Cervantes himself wrote. That is not only modern, it is downright post-modern!

In summary, Don Quixote is an altogether remarkable and entertaining book that was also, at times, absolutely exhausting to read. I do not imagine that I will ever find the time or the energy to read it again, but I am so happy to have made it all the way through this once. There are some who rank it among the best novels ever written and I cannot argue too strenuously with that position. show less