Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Don Quixote
>
Week 1 - Prologue through Chapter 17
Patrice wrote: "...I thought "Oh! DQ is looking at shadows on the cave wall!" Then "Oh! DQ has come out of the cave, has turned his head and sees the truth. The rest of the world is looking at shadows"..."What is the truth you think DQ sees?
I love the start of Chapter 5: Realizing, finally, that he could not move, Don Quixote decided to fall back on his usual solution, which was to think of some passage from his books ...Finding answers in books -- isn't this what we're about too?
I was reviewing my comments on earlier chapters, and found that in Chapter 6 I had noted with amusement that the niece wanted to burn the books of poetry also, because if DQ were cured of his knighthood he might start reading the poetry books and then feel like becoming a shepherd and even writing poetry, which is an infectious disease for which there's no cure.And then, a few chapters later, what do we come to but the scholar Grisostomo, who "one day, he surprised everyone by dressing like a shepherd," giving up his scholar's robe. And "I forgot to say that the dead man, Grisostomo, was a great one for writing ballads and songs..."
So do we have here what DQ would have become if the books of poetry had consumed him rather than the books of knighthood?
Was anybody else amused by the thought, in Chapter 9, that the remainder of the book should occupy our reading attention for almost two hours?There are so many sly bits slipped into the book here and there that it's impossible to note them all. In this respect, he reminds me a bit of Jane Austen.
Is Pedro right (Chapter 12) that a beautiful woman is like the plague because her beauty draws the hearts of men who her scorn turns to despair? Or is Marcela right that it's not her fault (but we can assume that she go around de-emphasizing her beauty).
In Chapter 13, we read that the goatherds and shepherds "could tell that Don Quixote's mind was seriously out of balance." But Sancho Panza "thought is master was speaking the truth, .." Is Sancho a gullible fool? Or is he a wise man who has hitched his wagon to a star that only he can appreciate? (Since Cervantes wrote in an age in which religion was at the root of almost all life and thought, one has to wonder whether to some little extent Cervantes sees DQ as a Christ figure and Sancho as a disciple? After all, early on didn't the multitudes think Jesus was a bit crazy?
I can see how DQ could be a figure of Christ. I haven't said much here but I am following the discussion and absolutely loving the book.
Everyman wrote:...So do we have here what DQ would have become if the books of poetry had consumed him rather than the books of knighthood?
We learn so many things from books. I do believe they change our lives. How many people read books of nutrition and decide to change all of their eating habits or they read religious books and become enchanted with other religions, often converting.
I suppose it isn't that far fetched to think that someone might read about shepherds and decide to take up that life or read about poetry and become a poet. I think the purpose one chooses with which to use the learning, is the key. Hopefully, being of sound mind, we use what we learn for positive purposes that cause neither harm to ourselves or others.
Everyman wrote: "Is Pedro right (Chapter 12) that a beautiful woman is like the plague because her beauty draws the hearts of men who her scorn turns to despair? Or is Marcela right that it's not her fault (but we ..."Muslim extremists believe that women are the problem and must be hidden from the world, so it is not an unheard of claim even in modern times. I consider a beautiful woman, lucky!
I think Marcela is totally innocent, especially since she did not encourage any advances, (if we are to believe what she professes).
Sometimes after I read a passage, I find myself waiting for it to be contradicted in a subtle way, a few passages later! First she was accused of being a harlot and than virtuous. I guess there were always at least two sides to every story.
Everyman wrote: "In Chapter 13, we read that the goatherds and shepherds "could tell that Don Quixote's mind was seriously out of balance." But Sancho Panza "thought is master was speaking the truth, .." Is San..."
Was Panza's mind so muddled that he believed the ridiculous or was he completely confused by the mixed messages he was receiving from his own eye compared to the eye of DQ? Personally, I think he was a simpleton.
Regarding Christ, I think he was viewed as a "rabble rouser" because people feared the consequences of his behavior. I don't believe that the disciples who followed him were simpletons. At least I don't ever remember reading that those that followed Christ were not of their right minds.
So perhaps, DQ is viewed as Christlike in that he wanted to do good and help others, but for me the comparison ends there. If Panza was a disciple, I suppose Cervantes may have been presenting his own point of view about those disciples or he may have been spoofing it.
I get the feeling that the whole book is a spoof, like the Colbert Report. I think Marcela is probably just as FOS as Quixote and I think they are a bunch of cons trying to out con each other. When I read certain passages I really think of my husband and his family, who I have compared to the cast of the book Tortilla Flat. I used to always tell him how FOS he was and it would make him so mad, but the strange thing is, even though I left him on Jan 1 and never plan on returning to him there is still something appealing about him. Just like Don Quixote, he is like a little boy pretending to be all these things that he really wishes he was. For example, he has taken to wearing a gun (a glock) around his waist; this is no joke. He was in Iraq and he got his weapons permit and he thinks it is just so cool. I think it is absolutely rediculous and it kind of scares me, because he is really not altogether what we would consider normal, in society, yet he can get a weapon carrying permit. So that brings me to another question, is Don Quixote crazy or is it just that we live in a crazy world where our minds make our reality?...
Dianna wrote: ...So that brings me to another question, is Don Quixote crazy or is it just that we live in a crazy world where our minds make our reality?... What an interesting question you pose. Sometimes I think that the "majority" may be nuts but precisely because they are the majority and have the opportunity to display their behavior more often, it is the worldview we are exposed to and accept as normal!
When the majority allows no voice to the minority, then we have real problems. Without information, (which may bring us back to the influence on us of books and other forms of media) we have no way to make evaluations about things we only hear about and do not witness. So, who gets to decide what is normal, us or them?
BTW, I had a neighbor who got a concealed weapon's permit, although I wrote to the police department in response to a letter they sent asking about him, and explained that he was unstable, giving explicit examples of his behavior and still they gave him the permit. Sometimes it is who you know, not what you are, that determines the result. There is corruption everywhere and often the animals are in charge of the zoo.
Dianna wrote: "I get the feeling that the whole book is a spoof, like the Colbert Report. I think Marcela is probably just as FOS as Quixote..."I'm sorry, but I'm an old fogie. Am I the only one who doesn't know what FOS stands for?
Everyman wrote: "Dianna wrote: "I get the feeling that the whole book is a spoof, like the Colbert Report. I think Marcela is probably just as FOS as Quixote..."I'm sorry, but I'm an old fogie. Am I the only one..."
NOPE, I JUST LOOKED IT UP, I WILL GIVE YOU THE WEBSITE SO YOU CAN SEE TOO!
http://dot.com.do/BTWgloss.html
If you don't want to check it out, it means full of ....!
Dianna wrote: "I get the feeling that the whole book is a spoof, like the Colbert Report. I think Marcela is probably just as FOS as Quixote and I think they are a bunch of cons trying to out con each other. Wh..."Colbert is a great comparison. Like Stephen Colbert, Cervantes is making his point via extreme exaggeration, which is why it's funny but also pointed at the same time. What the exact point is though, I'm not sure yet. (Like someone watching Colbert for the first time, it's hard to see if he really has an agenda -- maybe he just uses the news for his own comic purposes, to get a laugh.) And maybe Cervantes is just entertaining us with a spoof on chivalry and romanticism. Maybe, but I think there's more under the surface here.
As to whether Quixote is crazy? He's not crazy in the irrational sense -- every time he runs into a situation to perform his knightly service and gets beat down, he comes up with a knightly rationalization for it. He has absolute faith in knight errantry, regardless of the consequences. (If the consequences are not acceptable to him, he rationalizes them away.) Is that crazy, or something else, I wonder...
Great discussion here! Many things to think about.
Why do I keep thinking of _The Taming of the Shrew_?
Laurele wrote: "Why do I keep thinking of _The Taming of the Shrew_?"Boy, that came out of left field! Can you expand?
Thomas wrote: "Dianna wrote: "I get the feeling that the whole book is a spoof, like the Colbert Report. I think Marcela is probably just as FOS as Quixote and I think they are a bunch of cons trying to out con ..."As to whether Quixote is crazy? He's not crazy in the irrational sense -- every time he runs into a situation to perform his knightly service and gets beat down, he comes up with a knightly rationalization for it. He has absolute faith in knight errantry, regardless of the consequences. (If the consequences are not acceptable to him, he rationalizes them away.) Is that crazy, or something else, I wonder...
Great discussion here! Many things to think about.
I agree, Thomas, great discussion.
Here is one explanation from webmd about DQ's behavior...http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/me...
Psychotic disorders: Psychotic disorders involve distorted awareness and thinking. Two of the most common symptoms of psychotic disorders are hallucinations -- the experience of images or sounds that are not real, such as hearing voices -- and delusions -- false beliefs that the ill person accepts as true, despite evidence to the contrary.
Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Why do I keep thinking of _The Taming of the Shrew_?"Boy, that came out of left field! Can you expand?
"
"It's the sun."
"No, it's the moon."
"I see now; yes, it's the moon."
(not quotes, just the idea)
Patrice wrote: "I just finished Chapter l7. For most of it I was convinced that Dq and Sancho are just playing. It's a game. That's why DQ can snap out of it. It's so close to the ending of Huck Finn. Do you..."
What I am having a tough time relating to is the callousness of everyone. The first reaction toward DQ and Sancho is to take advantage of them or beat them, although, very early on in each case, they discover DQ is mad and Panza is simple.
There is so much violence against them even when it is obvious that they are both in pain from other injuries. Once DQ is subdued you would think they would stop but the violence escalates, with a life of its own. Is the whole world mad? The violence extends beyond reason.
thewanderingjew wrote: Is the whole world mad? The violence extends beyond reason. Excellent point.
Patrice wrote: "Or slapstick."That is exactly what the scene in the inn is. (Chap.16) Pure slapstick, with people bumbling around in the dark, the muledriver's floozy ending up in the arms of Don Quixote, then Sancho, with both of them being pummelled AGAIN by the muledriver and the officer... all we need is a kazoo soundtrack in the background.
And though it's a little soon to draw conclusions, I'm starting to think that Sancho Panza's role is that of straight man. So far this book is pure comedy to me.
Patrice wrote: The violence sometimes feels like cartoon violence. Or slapstick. They just keept popping up for more, no matter what happens to them.You're right!
Patrice wrote: "I wonder if Cervantes, like Shakespeare, is saying "all the world's a stage and we're all players"?Also, I just checked with my psychiatrist son and his diagnosis is schizotypal personality disor..."
This paper gives a brief history of medical diagnoses of Don Quixote, beginning with the four humors science of Cervantes's time:
http://www.fictionethics.org/aps/Pape...
Laurele wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I wonder if Cervantes, like Shakespeare, is saying "all the world's a stage and we're all players"?Also, I just checked with my psychiatrist son and his diagnosis is schizotypal p..."
I find it amazing that in DQ's time, the diagnosis was so close to what diagnoses are today since today they recognize the influence of chemical imbalance on mental health and are able to treat it.
Everyman wrote: "thewanderingjew noted in the Oedipus Rex discussion that we are responsible for our own actions, and that we cannot blame fate or others for what we are or do. But isn't DQ somewhat arguing against this principle? "Hi Eman,
My opinion is that DQ is operating within the framework of Chivalry. He's dropped himself completely in it's principles and is trying to live up to those ideals. He's 'chosen' to do this however....but he's determined to be the best knight he can be.
Patrice wrote: "Does everyone agree that he's mad?"No! And thank you for bringing this up. I kept forcing myself not to disagree until I've caught up with the posts but DQ is far from mad. He's lost in a world of his own but it's perhaps a much better idealized world that others could learn a lot from.
Laljit wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I wonder if Cervantes, like Shakespeare, is saying "all the world's a stage and we're all players"?Also, I just checked with my psychiatris..."
I think we are fortunate to have you with us! Thanks for the explanation.
Cynthia wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Does everyone agree that he's mad?"No! And thank you for bringing this up. I kept forcing myself not to disagree until I've caught up with the posts but DQ is far from mad. ..."
I think that a lot of us want DQ to be something other than insane since he seems motivated by a purely altruistic purpose, yet he causes so much harm when he is misguided and his lack of reason is so evident, that it is hard for me, at this time, to think of him as anything but mad.
If I saw giants in windmills, figuratively, I would be sane, but if I really saw giants, I don't think I would be considered rational. I am sure as I read on my "reason" will solidify!
BTW, as I read, I feel as if Sancho Panza is becoming less of a simpleton. Does anyone else feel this way? Perhaps these experiences are teaching him to reason and it was his lack of education and experience that defined him before.
Laljit wrote:" Look at people like Bill Gates, Ted turner, Warren Buffett, who spent their entire lives amassing fortunes. The bottom line was always the bottom line. And then, at 50 or 60 they want to change the world and so they give their money away. , you really got me thinking!"
Hi L,
I see your point but DQ seems more like a failure than Bill or Ted. I kept thinking about Dante's words about, 'finding myself in the middle of a dark woods in somewhere in the middle of my life, being wholely lost'. Ok that's a *really rough quotation but this is what I was reminded of as I read DQ.
Patrice wrote: "Wow, great comments!A thought just came to me that made me laugh. DQ did not exist. We're sane people sitting around diagnosing someone who never existed.
"
Also, we probably attribute ideas to the authors that they never had! Who can contradict us?
Patrice wrote: "Wow, great comments!Cynthia, that was my idea about Bill Gates. I see what you're saying about Dante. DQ was the knight of the sad countenance. He must have had a touch of depression too?
I ..."
Are you guys saying that they found their true purpose in life, later rather than early on, once they amassed their fortuness and enjoyed the rewards? I wouldn't mind that opportunity either! LOL
Actually, they left themselves and their families well provided for choosing to donate their fortunes, not to the country that made it possible, but to the UN and Africa. Why do you suppose so many extremely wealthy people choose to give their money to places other than the USA without which they probably would not have had the opportunity to be so magnanimous.
thewanderingjew wrote: "BTW, as I read, I feel as if Sancho Panza is becoming less of a simpleton. Does anyone else feel this way? Perhaps these experiences are teaching him to reason and it was his lack of education and experience that defined him before"I agree, I think when properly motivated Sanco Panza isn't quite as dumb as we'd first think.
Thomas wrote: "That is exactly what the scene in the inn is. (Chap.16) Pure slapstick, with people bumbling around in the dark, the muledriver's floozy ending up in the arms of Don Quixote, then Sancho, with both of them being pummelled AGAIN by the muledriver and the officer... all we need is a kazoo soundtrack in the background.LOL!!
Reminds me a bit of Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.
Cynthia wrote: "DQ is far from mad. He's lost in a world of his own but it's perhaps a much better idealized world that others could learn a lot from.. ..."That's an interesting train of thought. Isn't he reprising a structure which itself fell into disuse (if indeed it ever existed outside of books)? I get the impression that chivalry wasn't all that chivalrous in real life. But even if it was, it wasn't a sustainable lifestyle. Is DQ showing us this, that the lifestyle just doesn't work any more? Or is he showing us that it should still work, and it's our loss that it doesn't?
thewanderingjew wrote: "BTW, as I read, I feel as if Sancho Panza is becoming less of a simpleton. Does anyone else feel this way? Perhaps these experiences are teaching him to reason and it was his lack of education and experience that defined him before."
We're still early in the book, and SP has only been stage for a portion of it. That's a good thought to keep in mind as we move forward. Does SP develop as a person, and if so how and why? Ditto DQ. And how does their relationship develop?
Great questions to work with over the next nine weeks.
This is not addressed to anyone in particular. I recognize that it is of great value to relate what we read to modern life -- after all, that's part of the reason we read these books. But at the same time, let's try not to bring potentially partisan politics into the mix, please. We want everybody to feel welcome and comfortable here, and sometimes contemporary politics interferes with that.
Thanks.
I was thinking that the Bible (Jesus) says/said that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must become as a little child. Could it be that Cervantes is trying to help us get in touch with our inner child?
Was it just me or did others crack up over Chapter 17?? Poor Pancho. Other parts were funny in the book as well but this chapter had me lol.
Cynthia wrote: "Was it just me or did others crack up over Chapter 17?? Poor Pancho. Other parts were funny in the book as well but this chapter had me lol."It wasn't just you. It was a riot.
For awhile I was disturbed by the level of violence and injury, but I've started to see it on the same sort of level as the Wile E. Coyote cartoons or the Three Stooges movies, injury so absurd that it's obviously imaginary and not real.
Patrice,That's a good point about how differently people take certain parts of DQ. To me Chapt 17 felt like, 'what heck else could happen'?
Thye've only been on the road for 3 days, Rocinate becomes strangely amorous and leads them to a dust up, they get into a fight with the muleteers, they have a fight when they try and sleep, they both take the potion and get sick, Pancho gets an extra licking and this ALL happens overnight! You'd have to be as delusional as DQ to get through it all.
I haven't been able to join in your reading of DQ and now I'm getting so far behind. I am enjoying reading the posts when I can get to the computer. Will join in with the next book.
One of the funniest parts was when Pancho says he would have sworn to Rocinate's chastity and was shocked when he strays from his chosen non-amorous path. And then when DQ refers to the naughty woman, M, as 'almost a christian' whilst she's sitting astride him or just has been on his bed. The marshall who one minute is searching for DQ's murderer and then the next smacking him and leaving him for dead.......ya have to admit it was a busy night for our boys.I also can't get out of my head the visual of the radically skinny Rocinate being led by the paunchy Pancho.
RE: strong right armI have been reading this phrase assuming it was a common description in the chivalric novels Cervantes is parodying, like writing an epic that constantly mentions "the wine dark sea". The footnotes in my translation (Grossman) have pointed out the similarity in the structure and phrases of DQ to the "classic" novels it is aping, so it seems like a decent guess. Does anyone know if this is right?
RE: inside the asylum as the place for a sane manI don't know who may have said this originally, but it immediately made me think of Douglas Adams' So Long And Thanks For All The Fish. In it, Wonko the Sane has decided that the entire world is nuts. He builds himself a house on the beach that is inside out -- the outside walls are covered with things normally found inside a house. Over the door is a sign inviting you to go "outside". It is in fact decorated as the outside of a house, even though it's the inside walls of the structure. Wonko calls this Outside of the Asylum, having declared the rest of the world the Asylum, home of the insane.
(Sorry for the late response here. I'm still reading this section and was trying to avoid spoilers, but I finally decided I'd rather be in on the fun than miss the discussion because I'm behind.)
Did anyone else think it odd that the innkeeper in Chap. 3 actually gave DQ practical advice? DQ returns home to get money, food, clothes, medicine, and a squire because the innkeeper recommends it. DQ starved the first day of his journey because he didn't bring any food along.Then, at the end of Chap. 10, DQ explains to SP that, although the books never mention a knight eating (except at banquets in his honor), "it is understood that they could not live without eating or doing all the other necessities of nature because, in fact, they were men like ourselves". He goes on to say simple food is fine. While the whole of this speech coincides with DQ's earlier behavior ("it is a question of honor for knights errant not to eat for a month"), he seems to have received a dose of common sense from the innkeeper (of all people) and realized that he need not follow the books quite so literally as he initially did.
Or am I way off base here?
Patrice wrote: Did you see our discussion of "strong right arm"?I did. That's why I posted on it. Like I said, better late than never.
Douglas Adams is no where near canon reading, but if you're really interested, start with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You'll know if you're interested in any of the rest of it if you like that one. (It is comic/satiric sci-fi, and completely silly to boot.)
Kit wrote: "Did anyone else think it odd that the innkeeper in Chap. 3 actually gave DQ practical advice? DQ returns home to get money, food, clothes, medicine, and a squire because the innkeeper recommends it..."He was probably a member in good standing of the Innkeepers' Guild, making sure his brethren got their due.
Yet today, there is an ongoing battle over would-be gi..."
I am not sure it is a matter of selfishness. It depends on your position. As they say, one man's poison is another man's meat.
Freeing the prisoners in Guantanamo sounded like a good idea until the places they were going to send them to announced that they didn't want those "windmills" in their neighborhood.
Who is being selfish, the person who plans to invest his money in a business producing the windmills so he can become rich and then use as much energy as he wishes as long as he pays the penalties for the over usage, the person or company that owns too many cars, boats and private planes, the person who owns several homes much larger than they need, the person who is so rich who uses more energy than most small towns but expects others to conserve since he can afford to buy the carbon credits and pay the extra fees and or taxes that will be incurred, the person who buys a car that guzzles gas because it is comfortable or holds his family safely, the person who leaves his computer plugged in all day, the person who doesn't turn off the water when he brushes his teeth?
Will conservation and all it entails, with the building of new industries change the way the Chinese and the Indians consume energy? Will the windmills provide enough alternative energy to justify the effort and the expense or will it be another "bridge to nowhere"? Will the symbolic giants, the politicians and the rich make rules for us little guys which they do not have to follow? Will they be the windmills or will we? It is a tough question with more than two sides.
Maybe DQ wasn't so crazy after all. Maybe he had the right idea when he went off to fight his "would-be windmill giants". The big guys sometimes dictate to the little guys and get away with it but it is hard to know who the big guy is, just as DQ didn't recognize the windmills for what they were. There is so much symbolism in DQ that is current today.