This is the story of Don Quixote: Alonzo Quixada, an avid reader of tales of chivalry, decides one day that it is his destiny to become a knight-errant. He finds himself a knight-like name, some armour, a horse, a name for the horse, and a lady-love, and later a squire (the wonderful Sancho Panza), and sets off to do good deeds. This makes up the entirety of the content of Cervantes' masterpiece.To be honest, until recently I wouldn't have called this a masterpiece - in fact, the only reason I enjoyed this book at all was because I approached it not as a fun novel to read for relaxation, but as an intellectual challenge, a problem to be solved. I wrote summaries, I asked questions. The slightest, most irrelevant inconsistency warranted a note in the margin and a dog-eared page corner. But despite my perseverance, Cervantes' supposed genius largely eluded me. Having heard that it was really a very sad tale, I filled my notebook with naive ruminations about which part of the plot might turn out to be the 'sad bit'. Fascinated by the character of Sancho Panza, I underlined his every quotation, searching desperately for some hint of complexity, of charactorial depth. I found it not - every quotation seemed to prove that Sancho was exactly what he seemed to be: a stupid, greedy simpleton.And yet, there were some things that stood out, questions which I kept coming back to and which seemed to be important. Why are there so many irrelevant stories woven into the plot? Why are the women as they are? Why is it so self-referential, so self-aware, in a way more similar to post-modernism than anything else I've read? And I started, slowly, as I thought about it, to realise that there was much more to this book than I had thought.And then I went to the good old Melbourne University library and pulled out a stack of books of literary criticism, some of which turned out to be good enough to be read in their own right ( not my usual opinion of literary crirticism). And I was swayed! When you read something as beautifully written as this, and true besides, can you not help but be moved, to tears and to hugs and to monuments to Cervantes' eternal genius?"Like a butterfly from a chrysalis, Don Quixote emerges from his mediocre past with bright coloursa nd a strange costume, ready to leave his friends and neighbours behind, ready to fly away. One day he looks around in his own backyared in his village and finds nothing that can compare with his readings. Surely the real world has sunk very low; certainly something must be done to lift it to a higher level. Don Quixote mounts his horse and goes forth. We know, as his readers, that he will fail time and time again in his quest for justice. But should he not have tried? Should no one have tried to bring a little justice, a little beauty, a little love to a sad world?"(Fighting Windmills: Encounters with Don Quixote, Duran and Rogg, 2006, p69)And I realised also that in my obsessive scrutiny of Sancho's character, I had completely neglected to notice the extraordinary way that he, and also Don Quixote, grows and changes throughout the novel (though probably this was also due to the rather stilted, exam-interrupted way in which I read it). I also learned a lot of other interesting and useful things, some of which I will relate:In Cervantes' time (the late 1500's) there existed a genre of fiction known as the chivalric romance, a type of book in which heroes go off to do battle against giants and armies of thousands to win the love of their pure, fair, dull-as-ditchwater lady waiting in a tower at home, waving a white handkerchief out the window and crying dulcet tears of rosewater and lily petals into an ewer of pure crystal. Or whatever. Anyway, this type of book was the trashy romance of the day - it was immensely popular (in fact, Cervantes has two characters discuss the dismal state of literature and theatre for the entirety of two chapters, and in the margin of the copy I borrowed from the library someone has written in beautiful Edwardian script 'Cervantes is truly a writer for all ages!'), and essentially a hangover from the Medieval period. So Cervantes sets out to write a parody of this genre, presumably to reveal to the masses the error of their ways and encourage them to read something decent for once, for god's sake. This is no secret; he announces it proudly and rather big-headedly in the preface to Part I.But the chivalric romance is not the only thing influencing Cervantes. Two other genres of the time also make their appearance: that of the pastoral novel (shepherds, sheep, Arcadia, unspoiled wilderness, sheep, etc.) and that of the picaresque adventure story (danger, excitement, deprivation, courage, etc.). In Don Quixote, Cervantes combines these three different aesthetics and effectively reinvents them, the alterations he makes revealing his dissatisfaction with the way they represent life, and truth. Life is quite clearly none of these three genres, even though it may occasionally possess elements of them (which, I posit, is the answer to my first question: "why so many irrelevant stories?" Many of these asides are textbook examples of the chivalric romance, pastoral fantasy or the picaresque. I would like to think that the somewhat clumsy way they are interwoven with the main story is an indication of their inability to represent reality - in contrast to the hard-headed grit of Don Q, the difference really shows). None of these genres, alone or even combined, is enough to describe life with any semblance of accuracy. Hence, Cervantes satirises them, and reveals their essential futility by having his main character attempt to live one. And Don Quixote is forced to abandon his illusions one by one by the hard reality that surrounds him, to the point of his renunciation at the very last. This, my friends, is tragedy at its finest.Don Quixote was written in two parts, the first published in 1605 and the second in 1615, just a year before Cervantes' death. The difference between the two is extraordinary. Part I is an amusing farce with some interesting aspects; Part II is a masterpiece that anticipates centuries of literary endeavour. It is deeply psychological, it treats its female characters in an entirely new way, and it is devastatingly self-reflective. And probably many other things that I haven't realised, too.For me while I was reading, the most interesting aspect of the book was its metafictional qualities. It is confusingly self-aware, with the opinions of the narrator (Cervantes, whose books are mentioned in the prose and who also appears as a character at one point), the supposed 'author' (Cid Hamet Benengali), and the unnamed translator (Cid Hamet was a Moor, so of course it was originally written in Arabic) all appearing in the course of the text. Furthermore, the story is temporarily interrupted because a part of the manuscript is apparently lost and only found by sheer luck, and at least one chapter is suspected by the translator to be apocryphal (which means, of course, that Cervantes put it in deliberately). In Part II, it is announced that Part I has already been published, and thus the other characters are aware of Don Quixote and his madness - a narrative decision with very interesting consequences. Moreover, it emerges that a fake Part II has been published in which Don Q and Sancho have been portrayed most unflatteringly (and, it must be said, unfairly). (Amazingly enough, as an unusually helpful footnote of Edith Grossman's informed me, this actually happened, and this aspect of Part II was written in part as a rebuke to the guy who did it. A better example of life imitating - or complementing - art I have never encountered.) All these things and, I'm sure, many more that I've forgotten draw attention in a most conspicuous way to the problematic nature of fiction, and of texts in general.So why does Cervantes do this? Tempting as it is to assume his motives were the same as those of the post-modernists who were to use similar techniques over 350 years later, I'm not sure that this is the correct answer. Is it possible that one man, writing in a way that had never been seen before (with the possible exception of The Tale of Genji, written six centuries earlier and on the other side of the world) (um, by the way, Cervantes is widely credited with the invention of the novel, I should probably have mentioned that earlier), could be making the same points as people who were writing to challenge the traditionalism of a medium that had existed for over three hundred years, a medium invented by Cervantes himself? (the mind boggles.) Maybe. After all, many people (numbering among them Thomas Mann, Vladimir Nabokov, Michel Foucault and Harold Bloom), claim Don Quixote to be a work of genius (or words to that effect; I'm leaning towards that opinion myself); or even the greatest novel ever written (I hesitate to make such a claim, but it may well be true). Nonetheless, I suspect it to be unlikely (that Cervantes' and the pomos had the same motives; can you even follow my argument with all the brackets I'm using?); in any case, it is much more likely that Cervantes had entirely different, but still valid, reasons for doing what he did. I have a few theories:1. Just for fun! Although I personally never found Don Q to be a total laff-fest (the underlying poignancy was too strong to completely dismiss, though my subconscious certainly did its best) it is most certainly written in a light-hearted, even playful way. Maybe this is just his friendly way of messing with his readers' heads. If so, he certainly succeeded - four hundred years later, the critics can't agree.2. To reinforce the main theme of the book, which, in case you haven't picked it up already, is most pithily summed up here. As an example, we are told, practically simultaneously, that all Moors are liars, cheats, idol-worshippers, incapable of understanding rational argument, and prone to criminal levels of exaggeration, and that the Moorish author Cid Hamet Benengali is an honest and truthful chronicler (at one point, he also swears on his faith as a Catholic Christian, whatever that's supposed to mean). "Don't trust everything you read!" is Cervantes' perpetual refrain (Wikipedia deniers, behold your new Messiah). "The truth is less straightforward than you think!"3. He is simply engaging in some healthy parody. Another helpful Edith Grossman footnote (two in the same book! I would never have believed it) informs me that telling the story as if from the point of view of a traslator who happened to find a manuscript was a common trope used in, you guessed it, chivalric romances. So maybe Cervantes was just exaggerating this trait to the point of farce.4. He wanted to create a sense of distance between the characters and author, and by extension, change the way they are perceived by the reader. By presenting the story as a history (even if the reader knows that it isn't really), he in a sense releases the characters from the restrictions of fiction. They are no longer creations of the heat-oppressèd brain, but independent entities who have control over their fate.5. An interesting theory that I read is that Cervantes, like all authors who lacked a wealthy patron, existed on rather precarious finances. Perhaps, Duran and Rogg suggest, he constantly draws attention to the presence, or existence, of an author as an appeal to the reader to give him some money or something. Whether this is conscious or unconscious, Duran and Rogg do not specify.In short (finally! you declare), do I recommend that you read this book? The answer, dear reader, is YES. However, don't expect it to be a walk in the park (to use a Sancho-esque proverb). Maybe I'm just stupid or whatever, but a lot of people on here seem to have given it four or five stars without appearing to have had any trouble at all. I don't get that. For me, it was hard work, and it took two and a half months. BUT: incredibly rewarding.If you do choose to read it, think carefully about the translation. I mainly read an 1868 translation by Charles Jervas, which had wonderful engravings and was basically wonderful, and which I sort of cross-referenced with the Edith Grossman translation. The Grossman translation seems to be widely acknowledged as the best (it was just the one that happened to be in the bookshop, for me - also it had a prettier cover than the Penguin edition), but I don't like it nearly as much. It is, I can tell, highly accurate, but the Jervas translation is so much more fun! It's much more idiomatic, much more lively, and feels much less like reading a translation. I've heard the original 1755 Tobias Smollett translation is good for the same reason, and it's probably much easier to find than the Jervas. There are certainly good arguments for accurate, literal translations, but who gives. Also the Grossman has tonnes of footnotes, most of which are useless and highly irritating (who cares how many US cents a maravedi is equal to? It's screamingly obviously a unit of currency, and that is ALL I WANT OR NEED TO KNOW), but every now and then comes along one that is incredibly useful, like the ones I cited in this review.(Excellent) References (that you might want to consider reading yourself because they are so good)Fighting Windmills: Encounters with Don Quixote. Manuel Duran and Fay R. Rogg, 2006.Beyond Fiction: the Recovery of the Feminine in the Novels of Cervantes. Ruth El SaffarThe Wit and Wisdom of Don Quixote de la Mancha. ed. Sieber, McGraw-Hill, 2005.I apologise profusely for my bizarrely inconsistent recording of bibliographic details.___________________________________Finished (finally). But how on earth to translate such an experience into a rating from one to five? I declare all such endeavours to be utterly futile.
CHAPTER XOXO IN WHICH THE FAMOUS DON QUIXOTE AND HIS SQUIRE SANCHO PANZA TIME-TRAVEL AND DISCOVER THE INTERNETNow as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were on their way to Saragossa, they chanced upon a certain madman raving on the road, the said madman wearing a robe of tattered condition repeatedly bellowed shouts of “To kill an infidel is not murder; it is the path to heaven!” Sancho, hearing the madman was not a little amused. But Don Quixote was quite perplexed. He said to Sancho, “By God, the saints take me if what this prophet is saying is not the gospel.” which Sancho replied, “The Lord works in mysterious ways. This madman is providing mirth to weary travellers and rebuke to infidels.” Don Quixote was struck by the irreverence of Sancho’s words and the sacrilegious usage of his proverb. He gave a smack to Sancho’s cheek and said “Thou drolleries are of ill will, thy proverbs are of Satan, may God forgive this sinful servant!” For Don Quixote had fancied the madman to be a person of the cloth and beheld him a clergy spreading the Lord’s good work. Sancho was taken aback. “A thousand cudgelings I have taken but non hurt as much as that smack on my cheek. Thou knowest thy servant is not the most well-mannered squire in the world, but my drolleries and proverbs are what I consider my bread and butter as the proverb states tis better to eat bread than pretend to eat cake. And to think I have taken this smack all for a madman!” Don Quixote was not but a little furious. “Confound thee you rascally clown! Thou stringeth proverbs as a noose around thy neck. I shall be thy hangman if thou wilt not shut thy mouth. For a squire to speak ill will against the Almighty’s messenger is to speak against the Almighty himself. And the squire’s punishment from heaven shall be multiplied tenfold and given to thy master likewise. Thou should learn to put a lid on thy pot as tis better to be safe than sorry.” Sancho was enraged by this for he fancied to himself that if he had a taste for proverbs, then his master had an appetite for them. Now as the knight-errant and squire were arguing astride Rocinante and Dapple, the two had been arguing for quite some time that they didn’t notice that they had long passed the madman, they were stirred by a red light that blinded them both and were deafened by a loud noise that sounded much like a million cannons firing off at the same time. Sancho was scared out of his wits and immediately fell off of Dapple and hid behind a large boulder praying to the virgin and to all the saints, rosary in hand. Don Quixote however, being the valiant knight-errant, was delighted by such a spectacle and filled his head with thoughts of an adventure of grand proportions. When the smoke cleared, they chanced upon one of the rarest sights of this adventure. The author Cide Hamete likens the sight to that of the Archangel Gibreel’s fiery chariot, proclaiming not for another thousand years shall a spectacle be ever seen again. For what greeted Don Quixote and cowardly Sancho was a metal contraption that had four wheels, much like a cart, but no mule or oxen in front. Inside a hollow space covered in front by glass was a man in a queer-fashioned attire. The queer man came out of the contraption, approached Don Quixote and said “What year is it?” Don Quixote struck by the lack of respect of the queer man replied “Give me your name cart-master, and I shall give you mine.” The queer man replied “The name’s Marty McFly, how are ya doin sir?” “I am the Knight of Lions formerly the Knight of the Rueful Countenance, no other than the renowned Don Quixote of La Mancha, I am riding my horse and should like to inquire as to the nature of that marvelous contraption.” Said Don Quixote delighted that he had been recognized a knight due to the “sir” addressed to him. “Oh, that? That’s a car but it’s also a time-machine, used to get back to the future and whatnot…” But before the queer man could finish his speech, he was cudgeled in the back of his head by Sancho Panza. “Ahhh the devil, go back to the hell were thou hast come from!!” Don Quixote was surprised by everything that happened that he was immobile and stared at the prostate man for quite some time. After he recovered his senses he declared “By God, Sancho! I think you’ve killed him. He was no devil, you dimwit! Granted, he was no Christian either by his attire, so I should think it not a sin to kill him. But I would have fancied learning more about him and his contraption.” “Aye, said Sancho, as the messenger speechified ‘to kill an infidel is not murder, tis the path to heaven.’ I should fancy that heaven has rejoiced for my actions, and it bears me great relief that that if I fail to become a governor or a bishop in this life, I could become a saint in the everlasting realm for killing a devil or infidel or beast-child.” “Thou hast spoken truly, Sancho” said Don Quixote. But he was so charmed by the weird contraption that he unmounted Rocinante and went inside it. Sancho was moved by fear for his master and entered the contraption with him in order to plead that they burn it and ask forgiveness from the virgin for being so un-catholic. Don Quixote however would do no such thing and was delighted by the panels and colorful buttons on the dashboard. Being a knight-errant has its perks and one of them being fearless curiosity; he pressed the buttons and hit the gas. Before Sancho could say ten hail-marys, they were speeding on the road and the contraption making all sorts of sounds. “Look at it go, Sancho! Tis faster than Rocinante and Dapple combined!” said Don Quixote full of mirth. Then everything seemed to fade and they were blinded and deafened and out of sync. In a moment, they recovered from being disoriented and were given such a surprise as to what they saw. In front of them was glorious medieval battle being fought. Don Quixote’s heart was stirred and he came out of the car and joined the fighting whacking and delivering cudgels to all who came upon his path. He was heard uttering cries of “For the lady Dulcinea del Toboso the peerless!” Sancho, though, was paralyzed by the sight and remained praying hail-marys inside the car. Meanwhile, Don Quixote encountered a valiant opponent. A great man with long hair and blue paint on his face, the man was attired in a weird skirt and shouting “For Scotland! For Scotland!” He slashed everyone who opposed him and they fell. Before long, as great men tend to be drawn and aware of greatness, the two opponents squared together. The Scotland man gave a slash with his broadsword and Don Quixote parried, he gave a slash of his own and cut a shallow wound on the man’s elbow. The man shouted “What the fuck man, are you trying to kill me?!!” “Isn’t that the whole idea of war, villain!” replied Don Quixote. He gave another blow and hit the man in the head and the man fell. Everybody stopped moving. One of the soldiers bent down, checked then said “Dude, you just killed Mel Gibson.” Don Quixote was elated. He didn’t know who the person was. But if everybody stopped fighting then he must have been a knight of great reputation. He shouted, “Let it be known that this day the great Don Quixote of La Mancha, Knight of Lions formerly Knight of the Rueful Countenance, conquered Sir Mel Gibson of Scotland. I command you all to pay your respects to the Lady Dulcinea del Toboso and recount to her this great story of valor and conquest under the oath of knight-errantry. You are all compelled to do this under the pain of evoking heaven’s wrath. That is all.” But instead of admiration, which he was expecting. The faces of the men were filled with anger and they gave him smacks and cudgels and his state was such a sorry one that he would have gone to his Maker, had not Sancho intervened, hauled him into the car and started the contraption to escape the angry mob. It was just then, when they were speeding away that Sancho noticed the weird boxes with lenses that surrounded the scene and the chairs and tables filled with victuals that were spread out. He cursed himself for missing out on the victuals and uttered a cry of despair for forgetting his trusty Dapple when he read a big sign saying “The Set of Brave Heart 1998” He gave a shake of his head for he didn’t know what it meant and pressed the red button. Then it happened again. Everything seemed to fade and they were blinded and deafened and out of sync, then they crashed. Don Quixote and Sancho found themselves in a weird room. It was quite dark, they considered it might be night-time. When they could see more clearly, they were astounded by the things around them. Sancho exclaimed, “Tis might be hell we have stumbled upon, my master. Ohhh, that my wife and children are left bereaved and wanting. God bless them, God forgive me.” “Shut thy trap, Sancho!”, remarked Don Quixote “tis not hell yet, see the person in the corner scared such that his mother might have considered him a braying pig. There are no cowardly clowns in hell, which is a place filled with demons, left-handed sinners, and moors.” “Thou art quite right my master.” Sancho now being quite reassured, ventured towards the beautiful man fairly scared in the corner. “What are thou called, stranger?” The man replied, “Dude, why did you crash your car into my room? This is fucking weird, my room’s on the second floor.” Don Quixote took over and said, “Speak up my good man, for if thy handsome countenance is any indication of thy person, I should assume thee to be intelligent and fair. Do not fret, for I shall ask Sancho here to make reparations for the unwanted destruction of property we have caused you. What art thou called?” The beautiful man responded, “You can call me JR.. JR Bacdayan” “Well, Sir JR Bacdayan of the handsome countenance, what is that gleaming contraption there on your right side?” Don Quixote was pointing at a laptop and was staring at it quite fondly. It was showing a video of a cat playing the piano. Don Quixote and Sancho were both intrigued and delighted. “My good man, is this the container of your talented cat? I have never seen a species of the feline family with such gifted acumen for music.” JR was laughing now, “Oh, that’s just the internet; it’s filled with information and stuff.” JR felt downright ecstatic, having caught a scent as to the two men’s identities. He thought to himself that he must be in a dream or something better. He asked them, “Want to see something neat?” By which Sancho replied, “I like clean things, my good man. Let us see if thou can clean better than I, for it is said that cleanliness is next to godliness.” Don Quixote gave a nod of agreement and JR was not but a little amused. So JR went to the laptop and clicked another browser tab. It displayed an awesome website and there was an unfinished writing in a language neither Don Quixote nor Sancho Panza could understand. Don Quixote inquired, “My friend, can thou relate to us what this texts mean?” JR grinned and said it was a book review of a novel he just read. He cleared his throat and read aloud, “Don Quixote is essentially a satirical novel about knight-errantry but it also encompasses the medieval life and remains a relevant totem of nobility and gracefulness in our times. It’s a lasting testament left by our forefathers on how to properly conduct ourselves in this mad world we live in.” Both Don Quixote and Sancho exchanged astounded looks. They were confused. But suddenly, a smile crept upon their lips, and slowly, steadily, the three of them started laughing. Their loud laughter was heard throughout the night.
What do You think about Don Quixote (2003)?
I don't know why I had ever been intimidated by the thought of reading Don Quixote. Yes, it's long (over 1,000 pages in most editions) and old (originally published in two parts in 1605 and 1615) and a translation, but I didn't find it difficult to read at all. It's fun and imaginative and entertaining – and I loved it. Don Quixote is the story of a gentleman of La Mancha who has spent so many years reading books of chivalry and romance that he has come to believe the tales they tell are true. Inspired by the heroes of his favourite books, he decides to become a knight errant and go out into the world in search of adventures. Renaming himself Don Quixote and his horse Rocinante, he convinces a neighbouring peasant, Sancho Panza, to join him as his squire. With Sancho at his side, Don Quixote sets out to right wrongs, fight duels and rescue damsels in distress, in the hope that his valiant deeds will win him the love of the beautiful (and largely imaginary) Dulcinea del Toboso.As Don Quixote and Sancho travel across Spain they have one adventure after another, each one headed with a long and intriguing chapter title such as "Of the strange adventure which befell the valiant Don Quixote with the bold Knight of the Mirrors" or "Which deals with the adventure of the enchanted head, together with other trivial matters which cannot be left untold". As you read on, however, it soon becomes obvious that these 'adventures' are not quite as amazing as they sound and usually have a logical explanation.Many people, even without reading the book, will have heard of the famous 'tilting at windmills' episode. There are many, many other similar episodes in the novel but this one appears near the beginning which is probably why it's the best known. If you're not familiar with it, on approaching some windmills in a field Don Quixote becomes convinced they are giants and attacks them with his sword:"What giants?" said Sancho Panza."Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long.""Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that, turned by the wind, make the millstone go.""It is easy to see," replied Don Quixote, "that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat."This is a pattern that is repeated over and over again throughout the novel: Don Quixote mistakes inns for castles and flocks of sheep for armies – and even when Sancho points out the truth he still insists that he is right. The castles and the armies must have been enchanted by great wizards, he says, so that they appear to be inns and sheep. As the story progresses, Don Quixote's fame spreads and he is thought of as insane and Sancho as an idiot. The response of some of the people they meet can be very cruel and it's quite sad to see how Don Quixote and Sancho are ridiculed, scorned and made the target of elaborate practical jokes. I wouldn't describe this as a sad book, though; in fact, it's a very funny one. The humour doesn't always work (being four hundred years old and in translation, maybe that's not surprising) but at times it's hilarious!As well as the adventures and the humour, there are lots of songs, poems and ballads interspersed with the prose. There are also lots of stories-within-stories – almost everyone they meet on their journey has a long and tragic story of their own to tell – and many of these have no relevance to the rest of the novel. For example, a lot of time is devoted to the tale of a Christian who was held captive by Moors in Algiers and has escaped back to Spain – nothing to do with Don Quixote, but apparently based on Cervantes' own experiences. This is why the novel is so long and why you need to have some patience with it! Reading this book over a period of several months was the perfect strategy for me as the episodic nature of the story meant that I could leave it for a few weeks and still get straight back into it when I picked it up again. Breaking it up into small sections kept it feeling fresh and interesting so that I never felt bored or overwhelmed.A quick note on the translation now. There have been many English translations of Don Quixote over the years but not really having any idea which to choose, I started reading the 1885 John Ormsby translation (in the public domain so free to download from Project Gutenberg and other websites) and I found it perfectly readable so decided just to stick with it. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that translation to everyone as it does use some archaic terms and feels 'old' but that's what I prefer when I'm reading an old book so it wasn't a problem for me. Whichever may be closest to the literal translation, Ormsby's description of Don Quixote as "Knight of the Rueful Countenance" just sounds better to me than, for example, Edith Grossman's "Knight of the Sorrowful Face". It's a matter of personal taste, though, so it's probably a good idea to look at a few different translations and find one that suits you before you embark on such a long novel!Much as I enjoyed this book it did sometimes feel as if I was never going to finish it, so I was pleased to reach the end. I'm going to miss Don Quixote and Sancho, though, after spending so much time with them this year!
—Helen
One star means, here at GR, that the reader did not like the book. No, I do not like this book. IF I cannot bear to listen to it to the very end how can I even say it was OK? I have listened to seven of thirty-six hours of the unabridged audiobook version translated by Tobias Smollett and narrated by the talented Robert Whitfield/Simon Vance. I cannot continue. I have given this enough of my time. My good friends know that I often will struggle through a book that is displeasing me. Why? To give it a fair chance; some books do turn around. My patience is tested to the limit with this book. In addition, let it Be noted that even a superb narrator cannot save a book if you don't like how it is written. Robert Whitfield does a fantastic job. I found the book tedious, extremely wordy and repetitive. It is a composite of many stories relating the escapades of the knight errant, Don Quixote, and his faithful squire, Sancho Panza. Don Quixote is always, in every story depicted, the idealist, a worthy knight bent on fighting for good and honor, fighting for women and men who are unfairly treated. He is fighting against all injustice, in whatever form it may be. That is all fine and dandy; but he is delusional and sees injustice, inequity and dishonor where it does not exist. He is an honorable man fighting against problems that in fact do not exist. In contrast, Sancho Panza offers us the realist's interpretation of events. (That they see the world differently does make their friendship all the more wonderful!) Each story/episode introduces the reader to new characters, new events, but there is a huge similarity in what is to be drawn from the separate stories.I do not enjoy short stories so I am not the ideal reader for this book! If you do enjoy short stories it may be enjoyable to listen to one, laugh at the humor depicted in the events and the naivety of Don Quixote and smile at the wonderful friendship one sees between the knight errant and his squire. Then put the book aside for a later time when you feel like listening to another story. However do keep in mind that the message imparted is to all extent and purposes the same in all the related stories. The stories are cute, the lines are humorous and the book well depicts Spanish society and ways of thinking in the early 17th Century. It was published in two volumes, the first in 1605 and the second in 1615. To quote from Wiki: "Don Quixote is considered the most influential work of literature from the Spanish Golden Age and the entire Spanish literary canon. As a founding work of modern Western literature, and one of the earliest canonical novels, it regularly appears high on lists of the greatest works of fiction ever published."But I personally have had enough. This is in fact the second time I have tried to read the book. My grandmother had a wonderful hardback with great illustrations. It attracted me, I tried to like it, but failed that time too. That was a good fifty years ago. I am NOT judging the book. I am telling you merely how I personally react to this book. Yes, it can be seen as amazing, as a break-through piece of writing, but it is not with this criterion I rate books.
—Chrissie
I guess the goal of reviewing something like Don Quixote is to make you less frightened of it. It's intimidating, right? It's 940 pages long and it's from 500 years ago. But Grossman's translation is modern and easy to read, and the work itself is so much fun that it ends up not being difficult at all.Much of Book I is concerned with the story of Cardenio, which Shakespeare apparently liked so much that he wrote a now-lost play about the guy. I loved that part, but for me, the pace slowed down a bit in the latter third of Book I. There are two more "novellas" inserted that have little or nothing to do with the plot; feel free to skip them. (They're discussed in the comments section below this review, if you're interested.) Book II was published ten years after Book I, in 1615, and with it Cervantes pulls a typically Cervantes-esque trick: he imagines that Don Quixote is now a celebrity due to Book I's success. This changes the perspective considerably; whereas folks used to be mystified by Don Quixote, now they often recognize him, which generally results in them fucking with him. It invigorates the story; since Book II feels so different, I didn't get the feeling I often get with wicked long books where I kinda get bogged down around the 2/3 mark. In fact, I ended up liking Book II even better than Book I.Quixote messes with your head. Cervantes pulls so many tricks out of his bag that you're never sure what's coming next. For a while I suspected that the footnotes had been written by Cervantes as well, and were all made up. I had to Wikipedia Martin de Riquer to make sure he was a real guy. That's how sneaky Cervantes is: he makes you think anything is possible.I thought Don Quixote was tremendous. It's like nothing else in the world. I'm glad I read it. And I'll end with what might be the best quote of all time, and a brilliant thing to say to your wife:"I want you to see me naked and performing one or two dozen mad acts, which will take me less than half an hour, because if you have seen them with your own eyes, you can safely swear to any others you might wish to add."Right? Don Quixote kicks ass.By the way, for another take on the story, here's Kafka:Without making any boast of it Sancho Panza succeeded in the course of years, by devouring a great number of romances of chivalry and adventure in the evening and night hours, in so diverting from him his demon, whom he later called Don Quixote, that his demon thereupon set out in perfect freedom on the maddest exploits, which, however, for the lack of a preordained object, which should have been Sancho Panza himself, harmed nobody. A free man, Sancho Panza philosophically followed Don Quixote on his crusades, perhaps out of a sense of responsibility, and had of them a great and edifying entertainment to the end of his days.(This is the entire text of his parable "The Truth about Sancho Panza"; it and others can be found here.)
—Alex
