Chicks On Lit discussion
This topic is about
Don Quixote
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
Don Quixote-unabridged schedule in message 28
Mod
Or are they just coddling him, treating him like a child? Is this any different than someone who plays along with a little girl, pretending their Disney princess fantasy is real, drinks their invisible tea, eats the plastic cookie, etc? Is it just a childish game? Are the "friends" actually making fun of him, belittling him, by playing along with something he seems to actually believe?
Cervantes is messing with our reality. :DYeah, I'm not sure if I buy into DQ's utopian world existing only not to exist because we don't accept it. This blames us for not believing in the utopian (mad?) world.
What about him not accepting the actual real world and learning to live with its defects and short comings while striving to better it (or his small corner of it) to make it more like his utopian ideal? At least then he's trying to make a reality better (key word being "reality").
Is a utopian world realistic in any reality?
Mad as a Hatter is our DQ.
Mod
.."
I think the problem with a utopian world is that everyone has a different idea of what they personally would consider "utopian". One person's utopia might be another person's dystopia. So in that sense, I doubt that it is realistic in any reality.
Sheila, your comment reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode where a biker fellow died and had to spend eternity in a room with an elderly couple. The elderly man sat and rocked and said not much more than "yes, dear" but the elderly woman talked and talked and talked about everything & anything. Turns out the elderly couple were in heaven; the biker in hell. I think that even if we all had the same vision of Utopia, we couldn't make it happen.
I'm in Chapter XL and there are some very modern, capitalistic ideas being bantered about by Cervantes, as well as some ideologies that are still around today. Here are some quotes that caught my eye during this week's reading:
(in regards to doing good deeds; in particular, in releasing the chained prisoners) "His (a knight errant) only obligation is to help them because they are in need, turning his eyes to their suffering and not their wickedness."
Huh! Imagine a world where all needs are filled without any thought to the reason for the need. Doing a "good" deed leads to "evil" being distributed into the world to harm truly good people. Very twisted thinking.
These two reminded my of International Diplomats who are immune to everything:
"Who was the dolt who did not know that knights errant are exempt from all jurisdictional authority, or was unaware that their law is their sword, their edicts their courage, their statutes their will?" and "What knight errant ever paid a tax, a duty, a queen's levy, a tribute, a tariff, or a toll? What tailor ever received payment from him for the clothes he sewed?"
Sounds to me like a knight errant think he deserves to wander through life on a free ticket, doing as he pleases, when he pleases. Not a very nice picture at all. Nothing chivalrous about this sort of attitude.
Then there's that long, long speech about plays and poets. This entire section reminded me of TV and the shows we are subjected to watching."the principle intention.......in allowing the public performance of plays is to entertain the common folk....and since this can be achieved with any play, good or bad, there is no reason to....oblige those who write....to make plays as they out to be..."
(that sounds rather like dummying down content in order to lull the masses)
and Cervantes continues:
"..there are some (play writers/poets) who know very well the errors they are committing but since plays have become salable merchandise and the companies will not buy them if they are not of a certain type, the poet attempts to accommodate the requests of the companies that pay him for his work."
and then a comment about what others may think if they judge a society by their entertainment:
"...foreigners, who are punctilious in obeying the rules of drama, think of us as ignorant barbarians, seeing the absurdities and idiocies in the plays we produce." and "for drama should be a mirror of human life, an example of customs, and an image of truth, but those that are produced these days are mirrors of nonsense, examples of foolishness and images of lewdness."
Cervantes seems to be saying that a society is responsible for the image they display to the world; that capitalism (probably not a word in his time) isn't the goal we should attain towards.
I had to laugh at DQ's view of himself:"For myself, I can say that since I became a knight errant I have been valiant, well-mannered, liberal, polite, generous, courteous, bold, gentle, patient, long-suffering in labors, imprisonments, and enchantments."
OMG! That's not the DQ we've come to know or to read about in these pages!
I don't know much (anything, really) about the times that Cervantes was living in. If he's spoofing his society with this book, then maybe his society isn't much different than ours is today, what with the dummying down of entertainment, the expectation of a free ride through life on other's expenses and the self-vision of one being better/higher in standing than others around them (not everyone; those in power mainly)?
All this talk about Entertainment made me think of Infinite Jest.
Now that we've finished The First Part of the Ingenious Gentleman, what do you think? What was your favorite part?
What was your least favorite part?
Cervantes wrote The Second Part of the Ingenious Gentleman 10 years after completing the first part.
Does Part One seem incomplete? Would you expect a second part, do you think, if only Part One was written?
I am only at chapter 42. I thought the story of the captive was mind-numbingly long and detailed. But, I suspect, based on comments from our other characters, that it is more typical of the literature popular in that time. I wonder if these side stories are a bit like the pointless sex sceens in today's books. They just have to be there to get published because that is what sells books.
Just got back from my trip and am behind on reading, but hope to catch up within the next week or so. In the meantime, I did see this print for sale along the Seine in Paris, so I took a picture for all of you :)http://instagram.com/p/fsXr1BJ6zi/#
Mod
Petra, I should be caught up and finished with this week's reading (and finished with "The First Part of....") tonight.
I haven't had time to move onto Part 2 but this novel has had me thinking as I've been cleaning and cooking.One thing that came to mind was a line from Jesus Christ Superstar (a favorite musical of mine): "And what is Truth? Is mine the same as yours?"
The book (at least Part 1) may be poking at this, in its way.
As a planet of people living life, we have a sense of reality. But as individuals our perceptions make, or at least greatly influence, our truths.
Is truth a matter of the collective reality or one's individual reality? Which is truer?
Don Quixote sees another Truth; another reality. Is his truth less valid the the truth of the world around him?
It's a twisted, convoluted question to ask. Which
I don't think DQ's perceptions of reality are equally valid simply because he declares them to be valid. There has to be some means of verification. If every claim was of equal worth, then, no one can lie nor commit purjury. If I decide that your vehicle is begging to be liberated, allI have to do is grab your keys and pronounce my ownership. Communication would be impossible since there would be no grounds for common understanding. In short, community would give way to chaos. The wine skins can be verified as wine skins by common definition, by empiracle evidence of the various senses, by the unbiased opinion of outside parties. Severed heads of giants can not be verified outside of DQ's head. Simply to name does not make it so.
I'm not sure what I'm getting at either, Irene. I just have a niggling feeling that Cervantes is saying something about truth and beliefs but I'm not sure what or why he'd use a crazy DQ as his spokesperson. Whatever it is that Cervantes is saying, I don't think it's a matter of deciding upon an action (ie: liberating the car). It would, I think, have to do with finding the facts and believing in something, and that something brings you to action (ie: believing in justice and defending the underdog). One action is theft, the other action is a moral stand.
I agree that chaos would ensue if everyone believed in something different and lived by their beliefs. Community has to be the main focus of a group of people living together. So, although the individual has his/her beliefs, he/she can only live by them within the confines of the community.
Maybe Cervantes will tell us in Part II.
I've started Part II and it is different in tone than Part I.
I also realized that Part 1 was just under 30% of the book. Yikes! Part II is about 70%!! I hope there's more to Part II than wandering through the mountains getting beat up.
Collective truths are important for the group's survival because these provide a common ground and basis for community. Individual truth is important for the individual's survival because it provides a person with a schematic for viewing the world that the individual can use as a sort of a "map" to carve out a path in life. The more these two truths overlap, the better the individual fits into the community and group. Don Quixote has very little overlap, which may be why he wanders and most other individuals keep their distance after meeting him.
Petra, If Cervantes is trying to explore some profound philosophical issue such as "truth" or what is "real", I am missing it. I know that DQ has been used as the image of the idealist, passionately defending some noble vision. But, I just don't see that so far. Right now, this just seems like some commody routine, fun slap stick, but not much more. DQ is so out of touch with anything that the reader can understand as "real" that he has no credibility for me. He strikes me as the person who can't distinguish fact from fiction played out to the extreme. I run into less dramatic versions of this personality all the time, the person who complains about the spouse because s/he does not meet the romantic ideal of the hero or heroine in their numerous romantic novels, the person who can't be satisfied with their job or home because it does not meet the aspirational picture they find in movies featuring some unrealistic supposedly middle class family, the person who judges their looks by the airbrushed pictures of models. His is the fictional world of the literature of his day and it is a far more fun place to live than in the work-a-day world of normalicy. For me, this seems to be a spoof of the fan of pop culture who wants to impose that fictional world on the real world.
Mod
I will be interested to see how Part two compares. Since it was written 10 years after, I wonder if the author always planned to write it? Was is like an author today who had more adventures planned for characters, and just writes books in a series years apart?
I hope it's not just more travels and getting beaten, Sheila. That would be disappointing. Irene, that's how I see it, too: a lot of slapstick; not much else. What's throwing me a bit is that this is a 1000-page book, so there's got to be more than slapstick involved? Anyway, I'm going to stop overthinking it and just keep reading. Thanks!
Hey everyone!I know that I have been a bit silent, but I am not upto schedule this week and have not finished part one. I am a bit busy with other things, so I don't know how fast I will catch up.
I don't know if I am excited about part two or not. If it's more beatings, I don't know how long I will read one. That is why I enjoyed the sidestories more.
But apparantely Cervantes explains himself and gets all philosophical in part two and also pokes fun at the hype he created, especially at people who tried to intimitate him. So that might be fun or incredibly boring. Let's see. At least the ominous Interpretation might be verified...
Where is everyone in the book right now? Just wondering if we're all around the same spot. I'm about half way through Week 9's reading. Week 9 starts on Oct 29, so I'm a touch ahead but what I'd call on-schedule for such a long book.
**:
Week 9 Oct 29:
“Second Part of the Ingenious Gentleman”, Dedication & Prologue To The Reader & Chapter I (Regarding what transpired when the priest and the barber discussed his illness with Don Quixote) - Chapter VIII (Which recounts what befell Don Quixote as he was going to see his lady Dulcinea of Toboso)
I am on the second part - chapter II. So, I am still behind, though I find the beginning rather promising.
I am at Part 2 chapter 1
Mod
So I am with Irene, at the beginning of the Second Part, chapter 1.
Excellent!! That puts us all in the same place. We're hanging in there well.
I'm still a week behind, but I'll get there. I'm reading And the Mountains Echoed at the same time, but I"m almost done with it.
I've finished Chapter VIII last night. I'm going to put my thoughts in spoiler tags for now. They aren't spoilers but thoughts that I don't want to forget. I'll remove the tags when we start discussions.1. This section starts out very differently in tone than Part 1. It almost seems as if Cervantes has gotten serious about his writing and the story. In Part 1, the story had a slapstick feel to it. Part 2, the story has the feel of a novel with a story to tell.
DQ was written at a time when the novel was beginning to become an art form and the two parts were written 10 years apart. Do you think that Cervantes (or perhaps the literary world) had matured (as a novelist) in those 10 years and gotten a better idea of how to write a novel and tell a story?
I can imagine that there's a transition required from telling a short story around the fireplace and writing a long novel with a continuing storyline.
2. The two parts are written 10 years apart but the storyline of the two parts are closer together in time. I can't get a grip, though, on how close in time the two parts are.
DQ came home, at the end of Part 1, in sad shape and, from the description in Part 2, he was thin, wan and weak. From that, it would take some time before he's strong enough to contemplate leaving again. My guess would be about 6 months to a year?
Also in the time when he and Sancho are at home, books are written of DQ's adventures and his history seems to have become somewhat well-known. Wouldn't this take longer than a year to accomplish? There's the writing of the book(s), distributing them somehow and finding people who can read to read them and tell the stories to others. This part could take a few years to happen.
So, how long in time do you think there is between the end of Part 1 and the beginning of Part 2?
3. Whereas Part 1 seemed to be a loose telling of a tale of a group of people being led to a happy ending, interspersed with "adventures" where DQ & Sancho get beat up, Part 2 seems to have a plot and purpose. That plot hints at being a bit darker than what was happening in Part 1:
"Sanson's plan when he urged Don Quixote to leave again was to do what the history will recount later, and he did it all on the advice of the priest and the barber, with whom he had consulted earlier."
This sounds like a conspiracy to foil DQ, which is more darkness, plot & purpose than we saw in Part 1 (I think anyway).
(also, the priest and the barber don't seem to be true friends with DQ's welfare in mind)
4. "The poet can recount or sing about things not as they were, but as they should have been, and the historian must write about them not as they should have been, but as they were, without adding or subtracting anything from the truth."
This was said in a discussion about the history that was written of DQ & Sancho. DQ was arguing that some of the beatings could have been left out as they did nothing to enlighten the readers and belittled the hero.
Does DQ want a poetic, unrealistic telling of his adventures? If he looks at the chivalric books as history, why would he want his history to be poetic, unrealistic?
On the other hand, the quote is realistic in today's world, too. A novel of a historic event can be more interesting to read (more poetic) than a non-fiction book of the event (historical fact). That's not always true but it can be.
5. Could this be DQ's motive for all the madness?: "the desire to achieve fame is extraordinarily active."
In this speech, DQ goes on about the differences in "temporary" fame, earthly fame during a man's lifetime, and "eternal" fame, "future glory, eternal in the ethereal and celestial spheres". According to DQ, knights errant are looking for eternal glory.
I finally caught Up!!!!!!!!!!!!!I read up to chapter X yesterday. I thought this was quite humorous, especially when we are tol what the author was thinking/intending and heard some of the criticisms. So, apparently, the folks of the 1600s were as annoyed by those lengthy stories inside part 1 as we modern readers are. How funny is that?
Mod
Irene, I agree it was very humorous that many of the criticism that we had about part 1 of the book are mentioned in this part 2 where they talk about part 1. Even "readers" complaining about how much DQ and Sancho kept getting beaten up! What a strange story this is!
Petra, I am not really sure how much time has passed between Part 1 and Part 2. It is really hard to figure, and as you say the writing of the book of part 1, and the ensuing fame of DQ and Sancho, would take time.
I read somewhere (perhaps in the book itself) that it was 10 years between the books, so how it happened that the book was published and famous on the one hand and that Don Quixote had just enough rest to regain strenght is just another glitch of logic.I do love how Cervantes answered his readers complaints though and supplied the missing pieces. He must have been a good-humoured guy.
I also like that SP finally wisens up, but decides to stick with DQ anyways. It first shows, when he finds "Dulcinea", but I loved his explanation later on, when he talks to the other "squire".
I am not sure, why he did not just search for the woman, DQ thinks is Dulcinea and see what happens... I would have liked to see her.
I thought that, in the prologue to part 2, it said 10 years since publication of part 1. I don't know if that translates to 10 years in the fictional world or not.
Here's some thoughts (from SparkNotes) about the ideas of Perspective and Narration of the novel. The "third section" is Part 2 of the book. SparkNotes has broken Part 1 into two parts: DQ's first adventure and his second.
From SparkNotes (about "Section 3"; our Part 2):
The characters themselves, aware of the books that have been written about them, try to alter the content of subsequent editions. This complicated and self-referential narrative structure leaves us somewhat disoriented, unable to tell which plotlines are internal to the story and which are factual. This disorientation engrosses us directly in the story and emphasizes the question of sanity that arises throughout the novel. If someone as mad as Don Quixote can write his own story, we wonder what would prevent us from doing the same.
Cervantes gives us many reasons to doubt him in the second section. In the third section, however, when we are aware of another allegedly false version of the novel and a second Don Quixote, we lose all our footing and have no choice but to abandon ourselves to the story and trust Cervantes. However, having already given us reasons to distrust him, Cervantes forces us to question fundamental principles of narration, just as Quixote forces his contemporaries to question their lifestyles and principles. In this way, the form of the novel mirrors its function, creating a universe in which Cervantes entertains and instructs us, manipulating our preconceptions to force us to examine them more closely.
I haven't read far enough along to either agree or disagree with this analysis. All I know right now is that the tone is very different than Part 1. :D
I've just finished Chapter XVII where (view spoiler).I still can't say whether DQ is mad. He appears to be and he acts it but his words are anything but mad. So, I'm on the fence, even now this far into the book.
What he always portrays, though, is courage and valour. He's honest and pure (for lack of another word). He has his convictions and he sticks to them, despite ridicule (which he recognizes) from others.
Wouldn't we all like to be like him in these ways? Wouldn't we all like to have convictions, stick to them, be true & loyal to our friends, face danger & life with courage and an honest heart?
Despite his possible madness and his weirdness in so many ways, he's growing on me.
Yes, he is growing on me too. (view spoiler)His way of expressing himself most intelligently about the craziest things is what keeps him from being just locked up, I think. The people he meets see truth in what he says.
I also like his banter with SP. They have a nice little friendship going on.
I have not gotten far enough to have the same appreciation of DQ. I think he does present a strange dilema for the reader. On one hand, his convictions can appear as virtuous. But, people have done plenty of very horrible things out of conviction. People with horrible delusions have killed their children or spouse because they were convinced they were possessed by demons and it was the only way to free/save them. People gave their lives for Hitler or the Khamar Rouge. What DQ seems to lack is the ability to learn, to grow and change. He has decided on his perception of things and is incapable of further challenge or growth. In the long run, I do not think that is virtuous or healthy.
Nathalia, it's the type of actions in your spoiler that make me question DQ as well. It's not rational or logical, so he must be mad. But then he goes off into logical, well-reasoned explanations of how things are and should/could be and he's utterly sane and stable. He's a conundrum.Irene, what DQ doesn't have from the examples you quote is evil and a feeling of having fight an evil. Parents who kill their possessed-by-demons children are eradicating the evil; getting rid of the demon. Their children's lives are a by-product (sadly and horribly). The Hitlers of the world are evil beings, too. I would disagree that people gave their lives to him; they were caught in circumstances beyond normality or any reasonable exit. Yes, there were some who followed (different from giving their lives) but not many.
DQ is not evil. He is being written up as the opposite: pure. Even when he does crazy things and beats up on people, it's with a good intention (crazy as it is, he sees it as he's saving someone's reputation and honour).
He seems to be living in a simpler time while the world has moved ahead. I suppose an analogy might be if we decided to live without electricity but the world lived with electricity. We'd look fairly mad ourselves....but we wouldn't be mad, would we? We'd just be living a standard that made us happy. The difference, I suppose, is DQ's choice. We could live with oil lamps and fires for heat but DQ goes around tipping windmills and confronting strangers in the name of "adventures".
Perceptions, in general, are hard to change. We can't change them in someone and someone can only change them within themselves if they see a need to. Most decide on their perception of things as being the right one and live with that perception throughout their lifetimes. Cervantes is possibly pointing a finger at this trait in people? Kind of goes to show that people don't change over the ages, eh?
I did not mean to imply that there was something evil about DQ or his actions. I deliberately picked examples from the extreme because they are easy to identify as horrible. But, they are delusions. Just because the person acts for good or his outcomes are good does not make it virtuous or sane. And, I am not sure I see DQ as quite so pure. He hurt people, maybe not fatally, but he harmed people as he attacked them. That poor barber, those pilgrims, the prisoner guards and so on, were all innocently going about life when DQ assulted them. If DQ were alive today and walked up to someone in the mall or on the street and attacked them because he perceived them to be a legendary figure, we would have him on meds as quickly as possible, if he were lucky, and in jail if not. And, if I or someone I loved was the one assaulted, I would not deend the violence as laudible because the person was acting in conformity with his beliefs.I also am not convinced that the world that he is trying to embody ever existed. He is not striking me as the equivalent of the Amish, living without modern conveniences. He is out of touch with what is real or true. I once saw a poster that said: "Neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics live in them. And psychiatrists collect the rent." DQ is living in a fictional world, one created by the legends he has read.
All of what you say can be argued as true, Irene. I'm still waiting to see where Cervantes takes us with DQ. There's a lot of book left. Your analogy about medication is a good one.
I'm one who thinks we medicate people too quickly and too much without looking to see what the real reason is for the craziness. Yes, there is true craziness around us and some people need to be medicated and hospitalized. This is true and not to be argued. These people need help and should get it. But many are medicated and hospitalized when they have a mental condition that requires time, care and kindness; not medication to mask the situation. What they need is someone to listen to them and help them through whatever turmoil they are going through. Our world doesn't give them this time or this help very often. It's easier to medicate.
So, which camp does DQ fall into? I'm really not sure where Cervantes is taking this. I'm not even sure what he's trying to get at.
I agree with you that we medicate too quickly in many cases. My background is spiritual theology. We say that there can be a very fine line between sanctity and insanity. LOL. Depending on where that line is believed to be, will determine how a person evaluates DQ.
How are we doing with this book? November 5th starts Week 10 (chapters 9-19). I keep getting the weeks mixed up because we start a new week on Tuesday. Any thoughts on Week 9's reading (chapter 1-8 of Part 2)?
If we've all read up to chapter 19, any thoughts on this section? I'll wait to see where we all are before commenting on this section.
Feel free to discuss chapters 1-8 openly. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I have finished chapter 19.
Mod
Maybe we can discuss up to Chapter 19 then? (view spoiler)In general, what are your thoughts on this novel so far?
Mod
I find myself at one moment enjoying the book, and at another moment wanting to skim through another scene of DQ & Sancho's repeated drama.
Me, too, Sheila. I'm only reading the sections as per the schedule (a bit ahead so that I can keep up) just so that I don't give away spoilers for the discussions. I'm bad at remembering what happened when. However, with this book, I'm wondering whether that's necessary. It's the same old/same old over and over again. While I'm reading it, I'm enjoying it. But I feel no real desire to pick it up again a week later. But when I do, I enjoy it. (another round of same old/same old :D )
At this point (about 40% through), I don't know how or why this book is a classic.
I agree. I think this may be a case of less is more. I think this would have been a far more enjoyable read had we stopped after 300 pages. As for why it is a classic, I think it is because it gave birth to the modern novel. I don't know enough about literary history, but my understanding is that we do not have entertaining fiction like this prior to its publication. The play and the poem, the musical ballad and the essay, the moralizing legend and the oral tale were all well developed prior to this, but not what we would understand as a novel. But, I wonder, if it were not inovative, if it would be as appreciated today as it is.
I agree. I think this may be a case of less is more. I think this would have been a far more enjoyable read had we stopped after 300 pages. As for why it is a classic, I think it is because it gave birth to the modern novel. I don't know enough about literary history, but my understanding is that we do not have entertaining fiction like this prior to its publication. The play and the poem, the musical ballad and the essay, the moralizing legend and the oral tale were all well developed prior to this, but not what we would understand as a novel. But, I wonder, if it were not inovative, if it would be as appreciated today as it is.
Chicks On Lit
Books mentioned in this topic
And the Mountains Echoed (other topics)Don Quixote (other topics)
Good point. He's slipped into world of his utopia, which his friends & companions don't share (anymore than we do).
I found the scene with the judge to be really touching (where his friends side with him about the bowl and harness being a helmet and saddle). Yes, they were having a joke on the barber but they were able to convince the judge that the objects were truly a helmet and saddle. They made DQ's reality into the real reality. It may have been a joke but it was also a show of solidarity and friendship. Whether done for altruistic reasons or not, I found that show of friendship touching. Maybe I'm becoming a bit quixotic in my reading??? :D
The judge says "I suppose there's some mysterious reason why you claim something so contrary to what truth and experience show us......."
Is it because in a twisted way DQ's companions see into his madness for this one moment only? Can our desire to ridicule or play a joke on others make us so adamant on a point that we alter reality (if only for a short time)?