Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Don Quixote
>
Week 1 - Prologue through Chapter 17
date
newest »
newest »
Everyman wrote: "I felt a bit abashed when I read your post, and have been pondering much of the afternoon why I felt so cavalier about what happened to Sancho. If this had happened to someone in a Dickens or Trollope or Austen or Hardy or Gaskell or some other similar book, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as mere fun. Why here?..."I find it difficult to empathize with either DQ or Sancho because they're both, at this point, one-sided, self-centered caricatures. DQ seems to care only about his deluded identity as the Knight. (Sancho knows this better than anyone as he is being tossed in the corral while DQ does nothing and makes magical excuses later.) Meanwhile, Sancho puts up with it because in his simple minded but pragmatic way he believes he will eventually get his "insula."
It seems to me that these are the primary reasons they find themselves in dire (though comic) straits, time and again. The Knight defies common sense out of a sense of chivalric pride, and the Squire goes along with it expecting booty.
They are on a quest to nowhere in particular, led by a malnourished horse. Rocinante is critical to their fate at this point as he takes the easiest path, aims for home, and follows his amorous instincts. Isn't there something a little pathetic about this? But isn't this also how they are comic? They think they are actually going somewhere, they have goals, but at the same time are completely rudderless.
Speaking of rudderless, thanks for letting me ramble. I'm looking forward to the next section!
Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "for some reason the blanket tossing seemed cruel to me. It reminded me of being in a playground as a child, surrounded by bullies. Sancho was so helpless and after all, tossing the ..."I'm behind on my reading, but I remember the first book to be the funniest. The violence in DQ seems like cartoon violence to me so I was not so bothered by it. I'd have a different reaction to the violence if it occurs in in realist fiction, but to me DQ is a farce.
Sandybanks wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "for some reason the blanket tossing seemed cruel to me. It reminded me of being in a playground as a child, surrounded by bullies. Sancho was so helpless and after ..."What I react more to, as I read, is the absolute disregard for human beings under the guise of caring for them! The characters are consumed by their own needs and follow impulses without thinking.
It seems to me to be, as Patrice wrote I think, very close to slapstick comedy which really engages us because we are laughing at ourselves, as well.
Patrice wrote: "Somehow, your description has me chuckling!I see what you're saying. I wonder if I was more familiar with the novels he's parodying I'd get the jokes more easily. "
Unfortunately, we are no longer familiar with the chivalric novels that were popular in Cervantes' time, so there are references that we may miss altogether. The Grossman edition has footnotes that give us some information about the fictional knights that the story refers to, but we still do not know much about the actual contents of those novels.
This is in contrast to, say, Northanger Abbey by Austen, which parodies the Gothic tales that were popular in the early 19th century. We can still read some of the novels that she parodied, such as The Mysteries of Udolpho, so we get a more complete picture of trend that she was satirizing.
That said, is it really necessary for us to actually know the contents of those chivalric novels to get the joke? Is it not enough for us to just consider those novels to be generic chivalric tales along the lines of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table?
Sandybanks wrote: "That said, is it really necessary for us to actually know the contents of those chivalric novels to get the joke? Is it not enough for us to just consider those novels to be generic chivalric tales along the lines of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table?"Hi Sandybanks,
I think it was Eman who pondered whether living by the chilvalric code was possible or maybe even real. Your post continued that train of thought.
I honestly think it was a real/serious way of life, a tradition that seems to have stayed alive even into our times to some extent. In DQ I see he and Pancho trying to live by trying to be of service and honoring 'their' lady even though so far it's been chaste and mostly fantasy for both. The part about Marcela I kept wondering if part of what she was trying to express is she wasn't looking for someone to settle down with and have kids and live day to day but the men had to choose for themselves whether they wanted to admire her from afar. That was their business and choice but she wanted to live her ideal of being free. Wasn't part of chivalry that a younger, untried man would fall in love and idolized an older, wiser woman. And here's where i'll lose everyone.....I think men and women BOTH need a close, caring relationship first and foremost with a woman. Not a sexual relationship although that can be part of it but in order to reach full maturity everyone needs that grounding.
Is there a reason you suggest a close friendship only with a woman? I had the most wonderful Platonic relationships with male friends, as I grew up. They had a profound influence on me and we really cared about each other, took care of each other, as as matter of fact, and it wasn't sexual at all. If truth be told, many times, I actually trusted them more than my girlfriends.
Sandybanks wrote: "That said, is it really necessary for us to actually know the contents of those chivalric novels to get the joke? "I don't think so. I'm not even sure that it is necessary for Don Quixote. While he certainly knows the contents of these books, his application of their principles is subject to his circumstances.
In Chap 8 he says that he does not complain of pain, because it is not the custom of knights errant to do so; a couple chapters later, after the fight with the Basque, he complains of the pain in his ear and tells Sancho of his delicious "balm". Similar examples of knights not having to eat or sleep, etc follow. DQ has an excuse ready each time he is exposed as a mere mortal, which is all part of the comedy I think.
Incidentally, many of the tales that DQ cites are still around -- Amadis of Gaul, Orlando Furioso, Tirant lo Blanc -- if you want to dig deeper. On an odd note, parts of Tirant lo Blanc were used as the basis for a Spanish film in 2006. Chivalry is not dead!
Laljit wrote: "Cynthia - you certainly lost me. Although a digression, I am curious why you believe that everyone needs to "first and foremost" have a relationship with a woman in order to reach full maturity?"Hi Laljit,
I suppose my main point is that one of the main tenets of Chivalry was that it was essential for men to bond deeply with a woman.
c
Not only is Amadis of Gaul still around, you can read it on line a chapter a week. Check it out!And a search for "chivalric romances" on Amazon brings up a plenitude of choices, including the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. And Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Fairy Queen are both on our potential reading list. (Anybody here ready to go tilt at a wind turbine?)
Cynthia wrote: "Laljit wrote: "Cynthia - you certainly lost me. Although a digression, I am curious why you believe that everyone needs to "first and foremost" have a relationship with a woman in order to reach f..."I just realized that my last post actually confirmed what you said, rather than questioned it. The males I had the relationship with, also had the relationship with me. How nice that I was able to help shape them through our bond! I guess my point should have been that I also got a great deal out of the relationship with the male friends with whom I bonded. It was a wonderful two-way street.
Everyman wrote: "Not only is Amadis of Gaul still around, you can read it on line a chapter a week. Check it out!And a search for "chivalric romances" on Amazon brings up a plenitude of choices, including the Ca..."
That's a revelation to me. Thanks for the link, Everyman. I'll check it out later.
Cynthia wrote: "Laljit wrote: "Cynthia - you certainly lost me. Although a digression, I am curious why you believe that everyone needs to "first and foremost" have a relationship with a woman in order to reach f..."What Cynthia said makes me think of the concept of courtly love --- a concept that developed during the age of chivalry and which DQ tries to enact in his 'relationship' with Dulcinea.
From Wikipedia :
"The term amour courtois ("courtly love") was given its original definition by Gaston Paris[5:] in his 1883 article "Études sur les romans de la Table Ronde: Lancelot du Lac, II: Le conte de la charrette", a treatise inspecting Chretien de Troyes's Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart (1177). Paris said amour courtois was an idolization and ennobling discipline. The lover (idolizer) accepts the independence of his mistress and tries to make himself worthy of her by acting bravely and honorably (nobly) and by doing whatever deeds she might desire. Sexual satisfaction, Paris said, may not have been a goal or even end result, but the love was not entirely Platonic either, as it was based on sexual attraction (see section on sexuality below for further views)."
Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_...
I understand that such a relationship was considered to be morally enobling for the young knights/men involved.
I read somewhere that the whole chivalric institution was developed as a way for the ruler and the church to control agression in young men. By binding these young men to the codes of chivalry, their otherwise violent tendencies could be channeled towards activities which are useful to the state or church, such as fighting for the king, crusades, etc. I don't know whether Cervantes is satirizing love in general, but DQ and his relationship to Dulcinea is a part of the joke. That said, Cervantes also tells other stories in which we are meant to root for the lovers.
Laljit wrote: "Okay, courtly love then seems like a sublimation of sexuality; so, was chivalry a means of sublimating violence?"Interesting question. Maybe not so much sublimating as channeling?
Everyman wrote: "Laljit wrote: "Okay, courtly love then seems like a sublimation of sexuality; so, was chivalry a means of sublimating violence?"Interesting question. Maybe not so much sublimating as channeling?..."
Yes. Imagine that instead of hooligans and gangbangers, you get young able-bodied men who adheres to the code of chivalry (which includes loyalty to the king/church/authority). How useful that was for a feudal society.
Message 10: Barber-surgeons pulled teeth, as well as bled people, shaved men (which was much harder to do than it is today, with no shaving cream and a straight-edge razor that may or may not have been clean - people were not fussed in those days about cleaning surgical instruments), and perhaps did other minor surgeries, as well as amputations. The red-and-white striped barber pole symbolizes red blood running down a white arm as a person is being bled. Barber-surgeons were lower down the scale than doctors, because if you needed a surgeon in the days of no anaesthetic nor antiseptic, you were in trouble. Those men had less training than doctors did. This is what I've gathered from coming across barber-surgeons in books over the years.
In terms of what DQ is parodying, I see it as the old order. P.G. Wodehouse, for example, is funny because he makes fun of the "old" way of being British. If someone takes a pratfall or is otherwise humiliated, it's funny because the character is seen as representing a way of being, not as a real person who has a life outside of the role he plays in the story. I think there's so much violence in the comedy of DQ because the times were that violent. The farmer beating the servant boy could well have happened just like that - the intended humour is in what Don Q does with it. The pathos of this book, for me, is that we do see some of the life of the two main characters outside their role in the story: Don Q looks after his niece, and eats lentils on Fridays. SP has a wife and children. The part of the story where Don Q goes to his library, to find that the entrance has disappeared, I found very touching. Maybe because I could, and did, put myself in his position just then.
Peregrine wrote: "Message 10: Barber-surgeons pulled teeth, as well as bled people, shaved men (which was much harder to do than it is today, with no shaving cream and a straight-edge razor that may or may not have ..."That was very interesting. I had no idea about the symbolism of the barber pole.
Wow - so many good posts to read. I have to admit that I only skimmed through these as I wanted to add a few comments; I'd love to have time to read everything, though - there seem to be some really good insights that I hadn't caught at all!First, my take on the list of books that were burned/saved in the beginning was just funny to me. Wasn't it Cervantes' intro where he said he was worried nobody would take him seriously, then a friend said "Just toss in some titles and they'll think you are learned." It just seemed comical to me that he do that so early - to sort of prove his right, and do so very early on.
Next - I'm not sure if I think DQ is mad (Patrice, I think that was your question). If he is, then this book is just sad because he's mentally unstable and spends a great deal of time getting beat up. If he isn't, he still spends a lot of time getting beat up, but he's brought a squire along with him, and doesn't pay for anything.
So far, the only things keeping me with the book is that I can't stop reading a book once I've started it, and I find Sancho quite commical.
There was a line (I apologize, I don't recall it exactly, but I believe it was in Ch17) where DQ tells Sancho something confidential, then has Sancho promise not to repeat it until DQ dies, and Sancho says he wishes he could say it tomorrow then. Knowing that this came shortly after yet another beating, I thought it was funny.
I felt a bit abashed when I read your post, and have been pondering much of the afternoon why I felt so cavalier about what happened to Sancho. If this had happened to someone in a Dickens or Trollope or Austen or Hardy or Gaskell or some other similar book, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as mere fun. Why here?
I think the reason is that at this point in the book I don't see DQ (in a major way) and Sancho (in a less major way) as real people. It's hard to think that a real person would seriously shine up ancient armor, mount a bony nag, and charge with a lance at a windmill under the belief that they were attacking wicked giants. It seems mere caricature to me.
In the same way, I think, that I don't take it seriously when Gulliver gets tied down by the Lilliputians. (It's been awhile; is it in fact the Lilliputians who tie him down? Anyhow, you get the idea.)
It will be interesting to watch myself from the outside as the book progresses to see whether I keep seeing DQ and SP in this detached, non-personhood way, or whether I start to connect with them as people, as I do with most characters in the novels I'm more used to reading.
But thanks for a comment that made me really think about how I'm viewing the characters and action at this stage of the book.