Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:13 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Is Don Quixote Unreadable? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4888
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1069
Thanked: 1021 times in 794 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
Okay, so I'm guilty of trying to get attention. I clearly don't think the book is unreadable. I've read it going on three times. But the attached review by Bob Williams addresses some of the issues with Cervantes' presentation that has made the story of Don Quixote universally popular (mostly through play and movie), while the novel itself, at least beginning with the 20th century, has been less favored. See if you like the article, actually a review of Grossman's translation. To me, it's balanced and refreshingly non-academic. A lot of it is summary, so you can skip parts if you like.

Don Quixote

By Miguel De Cervantes
Translated by Edith Grossman

Ecco, 2003, ISBN 0-06-018870-7; 940 Pages, Hardcover $29.95. [Browse/Purchase]

Review by Bob Williams

While clearly an impregnable masterpiece, Don Quixote suffers from one fairly serious flaw – that of outright unreadability.
–Martin Amis (quoted by Frank Kermode)

When I, Don Quixote (which later formed the basis for the very popular musical) appeared in 1959 on the Du Pont Show of the Month, the creators, searching for guidance, found that they could do what they wanted since none of the literati that they consulted had read the book. Therefore Amis’ stricture may be true. Neither Edith Grossman – translator of among others Gabriel García Márquez and Mario Vargas Llosa – in her translator’s note to the reader, nor Harold Bloom – the rag-and-bone man of today’s writers – in his overblown introduction, touch upon this matter.
The popularity of Don Quixote was greater in the past than it is today. One objection is its length. To us a big book is a big evil, and the reading class of the past had greater leisure than we do. In the eighteenth century authors imitated it, referred to it often, and it was then that one of the more common translations was made. The man who supervised the translation was Pierre Motteux, a Huguenot settled in England. (He died in a curious manner – the victim of an experiment with erotic asphyxiation gone a bit too far.) Although contemporary critics have taken a dislike to his translation – it is too highly colored and verbally approximate, a poor
match with the original – at least one older authority described it as “one of the most masterly and spirited translations in English.”
Grossman’s note to the reader has little of what one usually expects from a translator. She does not explain why she felt a new translation was needed, or how hers differed from any predecessors. Instead, her note is a meditation on the proper approach to translating a classic, remote from us in time and sensibility. Observing that Cervantes’ seventeenth-century prose was “crackling up-to-date Spanish” in its time, Grossman approached Don Quixote as she would any modern novel, translating it into a living, contemporary English.
If immediacy and smoothness of style are criteria, her translation is a success. Comparison of the opening passage in a selection of translations gives some interesting insights. Motteux has this:

“At a certain village of La Mancha, which I shall not name, there lived not long ago one of those old-fashioned gentlemen who are never without a lance upon a rack, an old target, a lean horse, and a greyhound. His diet consisted more of beef than mutton; and with minced meat on most nights, lentils on Fridays, eggs and bacon on Saturdays, and a pigeon extraordinary on Sundays, he consumed three quarters of his revenue; the rest was laid out on a plush coat, velvet breeches, with slippers of the same, for holidays; and a suit of very best homespun cloth, which he bestowed on himself for working days.”

Walter Starkie, whose version represents a severe editing in that it omits all of the many digressions, translates the opening in this way:

“At a village of La Mancha, whose name I do not wish to remember, there lived a little while ago one of those gentlemen who are wont to keep a lance in the rack, an old buckler, a lean horse and a swift greyhound. His stew had more beef than mutton in it and most nights he ate the remains salted and cold. Lentil soup on Fridays, ‘tripe and trouble’ [a note explains that this could also mean rashers and eggs but he interprets it as meaning semi-abstinent fare] on Saturdays and an occasional pigeon as an extra delicacy on Sundays, consumed three-quarters of his income. The remainder was spent on a jerkin of fine puce, velvet breeches, and slippers of the same stuff for holidays, and a suit of good, honest homespun for week-days.”

Grossman translates the same passage thus:

“Somewhere in La Mancha, in a place whose name I do not care to remember, a gentleman lived not long ago, one of those who has a lance and ancient shield on a shelf and keeps a skinny nag and a greyhound for racing. An occasional stew, beef more than lamb, hash most nights, eggs and abstinence on Saturdays, lentils on Fridays, sometimes squab as a treat on Sundays – these consumed three-fourths of his income. The rest went for a light woolen tunic and velvet breeches and hose of the same material for feast days, while weekdays were honored with dun-colored coarse cloth.”

Beneath the surface similarities swarm a host of differences. Vest, jerkin, and tunic give different images to the reader. Although vest and jerkin tend to merge, neither is especially like a tunic. Starkie’s puce is original to him and Grossman turns slippers into hose. But Grossman shows herself more in command of marshalling words. Her use of the dash (“– these consumed three-fourths of his income”) brings the reader back home to the intent of this fairly complicated sentence better than either of the other two. Both Starkie and Motteux waffle over the pigeon, but Grossman settles forthrightly for squab, carrying the meaning forward effortlessly with definite advantage. Her version has the further merit of extensive footnotes; although some assume more ignorance on the reader’s part than is altogether likely, most are useful and informative.
This opening passage of Don Quixote is straightforward – allowing for the tendency of many earlier writers to be ornate, this is relatively sober stuff. Not very much of “Cervantes” is in this mode. In keeping with Don Quixote’s fancy, the style can flower abundantly in a way that can be a trial for the reader. Grossman’s “modern” approach goes far in making these episodes accessible, and as the book proceeds, she remains sensitive to Cervantes’ changing moods.

Leaving the translation aside, we return to the question of the work itself. For a book that is so little read, the basic story of Don Quixote is part of the consciousness of many. Of course, the musical counts for much of this, or more particularly, the 1965 film of the musical. For a literary work to be made into a successful movie – however inaccurate – gives it a vitality and memorability that it might otherwise have lacked. It therefore becomes of some interest to ignore this level of Don Quixote’s existence and to examine it solely as a book, a classic, something that’s perhaps less in our hands than on our shelves. We may also ask if greater readership of Don Quixote is likely.
As the book has a curious structure, before we begin, a few notes are in order. Don Quixote is divided into two main parts – “The First Part” and “The Second Part,” generally called Part I and Part II. Part I is subdivided into four sections, Part One to Part Four. Cervantes wrote Part I as a self-contained work – he even killed Don Quixote off at the end. But another and very inferior writer published a continuation. Despite the awkwardness of the situation, Cervantes felt obliged to respond with Part II.
The plot is familiar – up to a point. Don Quixote, addled by books about chivalry, is filled with a desire to emulate the adventures therein. Armed with the lance and shield described in the first paragraph and donning improvised headgear, he slips quietly from home to begin his journey. Although he can see quite plainly, his uncertain mind perceives everything as greater than it is – his nag becomes “Rocinante,” his noble steed; and a local peasant girl is promoted to “Princess Dulcinea,” the mistress of his adventures.
At an inn, Don Quixote receives the order of knighthood from a facetious innkeeper. However, his delusions make him an uneasy person to have around, and the innkeeper induces him to return home, where he may equip himself with clean shirts, money, and a squire.
Following this advice, he rashly challenges a passerby and receives a terrible beating. A farmer finds him and returns him to his home, where his priest, his barber, his niece and his housekeeper determine that to cure him of his delusions, his books must be put to the flames. Although presented in a comic light, this book burning session gives Cervantes an opportunity to comment on the state of Spanish literature. Because the priest is too lazy to separate the innocent from the guilty, certain books are saved for frivolous reasons while good books are swept into the fire.
When Don Quixote is recovered, he again steals away from home. He has enlisted Sancho Panza as his squire by promising him that he shall be given rule over some future conquest. The knight famously attacks windmills, and then rescues a woman who is not in any peril except in his imagination. As a result, he engages in battle with a furious Basque muleteer.
The account breaks off. There is an unexplained gap in the story that Cervantes pretends to be unable to supply. This concludes Part One.
Part Two relates the discovery of an Arabic manuscript that continues the battle between the Basque and the Don. Cervantes’ elaborate pretense about an alleged manuscript plays an elaborate game in which the text is conscious of itself as text. While this might be considered wonderfully postmodern, in truth it was a convention of many writers previous to the twentieth century. (One must wonder if this postmodern insistence can be regarded as truly original; if it is not at best a kind of rediscovery.) Cervantes adds to this the further elaboration that a translator was needed to turn the Arabic into Spanish, and at various points in the narrative the translator adds his own comments. Cervantes thus creates several levels of authorship – Cervantes himself (always known by the reader to be the author of the whole work), the Arabic writer of the manuscript, and the translator of the manuscript. There is something Borgesian in these refinements.
The Basque wounds Don Quixote, who loses part of an ear, but in the end the Don defeats him. The effect of this incident is negligible – the suspense regarding the gap in the story hardly justifies its sequel. (In the remote future of the book Cervantes will describe, rather cursorily, the consequences this attack has on two Benedictines.) Don Quixote and Sancho take dinner with some hospitable shepherds, and as one of the shepherds tells a story about a blighted romance, the novel’s first real “digression” takes place. Although most of the book’s digressions are relatively benign, one common accusation leveled at Don Quixote is that their overall sum forms a malignant mass. Insofar as Cervantes’ digressions are unintegrated into the plot proper, this is a just accusation.
From pastoral idyll to another beating at the hands of muleteers is the accomplishment of a few words. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza seek refuge at an inn which Don Quixote has mistaken for a castle. He ventures again in the leaky vessel of his mind and is twice more beaten or struck. Some men at the inn toss Sancho in a blanket before the two can leave.
This constant mismatch between the world and Don Quixote’s apprehension leads to many such burlesque mistreatments. There is also a good degree of repetition – the events that Cervantes has just described are like those that occurred in the first of the Don’s ventures. The difference now is the presence of Sancho Panza, and this is the great and enduring charm of the book. These two innocents are an engaging pair, and the naturalness and ease of their relationship is a contrast to the world of cruelty that torments them.
From the disaster at the inn they come to two flocks of sheep, and Don Quixote mistakes them for opposing armies. After siding with one of these imaginary battalions, he kills seven sheep and is beaten by the shepherds. Sancho puts him back on his horse and, moving on, they encounter a funeral procession. Attacking the procession, Don Quixote strikes a cleric and is excommunicated. During this incident, Sancho has an inspiration. He gives Don Quixote the name of The Knight of the Sorrowful Face, a flat rendering of “The Knight of the Woeful Countenance,” familiar to many from Man of La Mancha. (Like Grossman, Motteux and Starkie also use less vivid names.) After their unfortunate encounter, they spend an uneasy vigil in a wilderness where a loud noise alarms them. On the coming of dawn they perceive that this is nothing more than a mill. It is significant that the Don, who so far has mistaken everything for something else, perceives this just as clearly as Sancho. We will henceforth often see the Don able to escape from his delusions. But he soon confuses a barber with a shaving basin on his head for a knight, and he takes the basin away to wear as a helmet.
The Don and Sancho next encounter a chained group of prisoners. On inquiry the Don decides that they should go free, and he successfully engages their guards. But the prisoners – bent on escape and callous towards their rescuer – are ungrateful, and as they depart, they pelt their liberators with stones. This is the second time (the first was at the last inn that they visited) that Don Quixote has transgressed against the interests of the Holy Brotherhood, a vigilante group attempting to establish some kind of security on the highways.
Prudent for once, Don Quixote does not wait for the Holy Brotherhood, and retreats into the nearby mountains where another digression, more closely integrated into the text, takes place. It is the sad story of Cardenio, betrayed in love and now living in the wilderness, alternating between madness and sanity. (This has an adventitious interest in that it provided Shakespeare with the material for a play, now lost.) Don Quixote decides to perform penance. He calmly and cold-bloodedly discusses with Sancho all the mad things that he will do. The deliberateness of his plans show him teetering between insanity and a kind of compromised sanity, the logic of a diseased mind. There is something piquant in a madman being so lucid about madness. He directs Sancho to carry a message to Dulcinea, and on his way Sancho encounters the priest and the barber. They devise a plot to lure Don Quixote back home but, in the mountains, they meet Cardenio who brings his story up to date. Another appears who has a direct bearing on Cardenio’s situation – a beautiful young woman betrayed by his enemy. She participates in the ruse to return Don Quixote to his home. Their route will take them back to the inn where Sancho was tossed in the blanket.
The journey is less than exciting, and represents one of the longueurs that can appear in any work of great length, although Cervantes confounds it by the interpolation of a novella, “The Man Who Was Recklessly Curious.” Grossman observes in a footnote that, in the second part of Don Quixote, Cervantes replied to contemporary criticism of this habit. The language of this novella is dry and rhetorical and no reply can justify it – it may be of small wonder that Cervantes failed as a playwright if this language is typical of what he put into the mouths of his characters. I fully confess that after enduring agonies of boredom I skipped this section. I was also tempted to skip the later digression of the “Captive’s Story,” but while it adds nothing to the plot, it is a piece of history, written as history should be written but seldom is. In ways that are too complex to describe, it depends on Cervantes’ own experience as a captive slave, and has the authority of true experience fully absorbed and ably expressed.
The events at the inn occupy what might be described as taking place in real time. We tend to lose sight of Don Quixote. The battle of the wine skins is almost negligible in comparison with the concerns of the other characters. As if to compensate, Cervantes has the Don discourse very wisely – if somewhat dryly – at dinner, but Cervantes gives most of his attention to the resolution of Cardenio’s story and to that of the captive. And from new arrivals other complications arise, none of them especially related to the central figures of the Don and Sancho. At last members of the Holy Brotherhood appear, threatening to arrest Don Quixote for liberating the convicts. This takes place in a series of uproars, disorders, and fights that are richly comic, but out of which emerge certain inconsistencies – not the first time that this has happened – indicating that while Cervantes was a gifted writer, he was not at all a careful one.
The departure from the inn corresponds to a sudden change in plot. Many of the characters heretofore essential suddenly go their separate ways, and the priest and the barber disguise themselves and transport the Don in a cage improvised from a cart. On the way home they encounter another cleric, and he and the priest have a conversation about the literature of chivalry and contemporary plays. The conversation extends to include Don Quixote, and the discussion – as in an earlier conversation between a priest and a canon – covers ground that has already been covered many times already.
We are almost at the midpoint of the book, and we must begin to suspect that Cervantes exceeds his concept, that there is in Don Quixote more material than matter. Curiously, Cervantes criticizes contemporary playwrights as undisciplined, but Cervantes himself is guilty of the same fault. It becomes clear that, if exoneration is possible from the charge against Don Quixote as an “unreadable” book, it must be sought on other grounds than the obvious one of economy of expression and thought.
The end of Part I is a hurried business where Cervantes takes us from the Don’s homecoming to his death – from which Cervantes rescues him for Part II. Part I closes with epitaphs from various “academics.”
“The Second Part of the Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha” opens with conversation and continues with conversations. In one of these, ignoring the deaths and epitaphs just mentioned, a student named Sansón Carrasco tells Don Quixote of the book (Part I) published about his adventures. The Don and Sancho resolve to set out for a third time.
The Don and Sancho encounter a troupe of players. After being insulted by one of the players, the Don wants to attack them, but Sancho persuades him against it. That night they encounter another knight. Naturally, he and Don Quixote quarrel, and by a fluke the Don defeats him. But the knight is actually Sansón Carrasco, bent on fulfilling the plot of the priest and the barber to bring Don Quixote back to his home. He takes his defeat personally and resolves to be revenged on the Don.
The tone of Part II differs from Part I. It is more reflective, and much of the text belongs very much to Don Quixote, who discourses wisely (and at length) on the wider implications of events. These reflections are much in the vein of Montaigne, Cervantes’ contemporary. These mini-essays show shrewd good sense and intelligence. They provide a source of wonder to those who perceive the Don as mad, as such rational discourse contrasts strongly with his frequent outbreaks of folly.
In Part I Don Quixote had freed some convicts on the way to the galleys. Their chief reappears – rather irrelevantly – as a puppet master. But the greater part of this section concerns an entertainment given the Don by a duke and his wife. It is an entertainment edged with cruelty, as they indulge Don Quixote in his delusions and oblige Sancho Panza to submit to an absurd punishment. The book in fact deals heavily in cruelty. Against such a background the same vein of violence and cruelty in Cervantes’ admirers – like Tobias Smollett – do not seem especially extreme.
The denouement is inevitable. The Don has exhausted the possibilities of his delusions. When he returns home, he is a man defeated by reality and he dies disclaiming his identity as a knight.

How important a consideration it may or may not be, clearly Cervantes never attempted to reconcile the contradictions that one finds in Don Quixote. The lack of consistent intentions – a characteristic found in much of Shakespeare – is troublesome in a long prose work. On the stage, effect succeeds effect, and the audience has no time to impose critical strictures; but a book is necessarily an invitation for reflection, and a lack of unified effect can be serious. Much of Don Quixote is lost in the shadow of Cervantes’ confused intentions. What stands out vibrantly are the gestures of magnificent foolishness, the warm regard that the Don has for Sancho, and the strong – if unstressed – conviction that nothing in the real world of so-called sanity has the grandeur of Don Quixote’s delusions. Although these estimable virtues are both abundant and laudable, it is doubtful if they can entirely offset the defects of the book, or provide as fully rewarding a reading experience as reading, for example, Homer or Shakespeare. But the reader must read Don Quixote once, and Edith Grossman’s translation provides an outstanding version.

–Bob Williams
1 February 2004


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:02 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thinks Night Out is Reading on Porch

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3996
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1098
Thanked: 1110 times in 839 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
For a book written nearly four hundred years ago, you would expect, wrongly, that Don Quixote would be hard to read. Shakespeare is impossible to understand at first reading without explanation. John Milton (1660) is very archaic. The great advantage of having Grossman's new translation into contemporary English is that it is very easy to read. Barriers of style and archaic language are removed by this translation, so readers can focus on the plot, the characters and the deeper meaning.

I suspect the 'unreadable' tags come from people struggling with old/bad translations, and from failure to engage with Cervantes' ideas.

Williams is very unfair in his attack on the story of Lothario as boring. It shows Williams just doesn't understand what Cervantes is on about. As I mentioned in another thread, that story has the sort of 'Oh no it can't be happening' train wreck quality which is rather compelling. It is an astounding dramatic device, examining what if some one asked their best friend to seduce their wife. It fits well into Don Quixote as a practical example of taking a mad psychological premise and working it through to the logical conclusion.



The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
DWill
Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:18 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4888
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1069
Thanked: 1021 times in 794 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
Robert Tulip wrote:
For a book written nearly four hundred years ago, you would expect, wrongly, that Don Quixote would be hard to read. Shakespeare is impossible to understand at first reading without explanation. John Milton (1660) is very archaic. The great advantage of having Grossman's new translation into contemporary English is that it is very easy to read. Barriers of style and archaic language are removed by this translation, so readers can focus on the plot, the characters and the deeper meaning.

I suspect the 'unreadable' tags come from people struggling with old/bad translations, and from failure to engage with Cervantes' ideas.

Williams is very unfair in his attack on the story of Lothario as boring. It shows Williams just doesn't understand what Cervantes is on about. As I mentioned in another thread, that story has the sort of 'Oh no it can't be happening' train wreck quality which is rather compelling. It is an astounding dramatic device, examining what if some one asked their best friend to seduce their wife. It fits well into Don Quixote as a practical example of taking a mad psychological premise and working it through to the logical conclusion.

It could be that you're just less easily bored, Robert. I mean that as a compliment, obviously. Williams does credit Grossman with easing the reader's way through this massive book, but the barriers to readibility he discusses don't have to do with translations. There is nothing difficult about the samples of other translations that Williams gives. There is nothing difficult about the 1952 J. M. Cohen translation that I've always read. As far as Milton or Shakespeare presenting greater linguistic difficulty than DQ, this is hard to judge unless we are able to read Cervantes' original Spanish. Williams renders an aesthetic judgment on DQ, a criticism of it in the true sense of assessing its qualities, both positive and negative. It's a judgment with which I'm generally in agreement. I can't see how he is in any sense being "unfair" to the book.

You say that failure to appreciate Cervantes' ideas accounts, also, for some readers' less than complete satisfaction with the book. But how can a reader's view of the novel as not being about ideas be called wrong, a failure? After all, it would have been only recently that a view such as yours gained any currency. When it was a popular book, DQ was popular for its charcters and plot, not for its ideas. Now, readers' tastes (and the habit of reading itself) have changed, so that those formerly popular elements no longer attract as much.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:33 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Earthlings...take me to your readers!!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2442
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 479
Thanked: 384 times in 309 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 2

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
DWill wrote:
As far as Milton or Shakespeare presenting greater linguistic difficulty than DQ, this is hard to judge unless we are able to read Cervantes' original Spanish.


I think this is very true. I am often a bit dubious of translations. Spanish is a romantic language, and it is very possible that there are many passages that just cannot be translated into English. I do find that Edith Grossman’s translation is extremely easy to read, but I can’t help wondering if I’m missing something.

This is my first experience with DQ and I have mixed feelings about it. I truly thought that it would be a more difficult read, but I find that it reads like a situation comedy. Actually, if you think about it, there are many characters on TV that may have originated from the “Don” and Sancho. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, come to mind, as does “The Honey Mooners” and even “The Lucy Show”. Each of these shows has a “dreamer” character, and their sidekick who stands by their side no matter what.



Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:18 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Finds books under furniture

Silver Contributor

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1680
Thanks: 178
Thanked: 147 times in 132 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
I like your analogies, Suzanne, and I think you may be on to something. I also agree with you about translation. Every time I read poetry that has been translated into English because I'm just not awesome enough to be able to read German, French, or Spanish, I wonder what I'm missing poetically because of things like alliteration, rhyme, and meter, all of which are completely changed when translated into English. Grossman helps us with this with her footnotes, explaining that the use of certain words, in Spanish, are plays on something, or that one word has two meanings and Sancho, quite often, confuses one for the other. Without the footnotes we would be completely unaware of this playful language, and although I usually hate footnotes, I am thankful that Grossman included them because it allows us to see more of Cervantes' wordplay that I can't help but think we're still missing a lot of.

I often think of this, too, when reading one of my favorite authors, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, because as beautiful as his lines are in English, I can only imagine how much more beautiful they must be in Spanish, if only I could understand it. I really do wish I could speak every language in the world, so I could read poetry and literature exactly as the author intended, but this will probably never happen, so I will have to leave my reading fate in the hands of talented translators (which I believe Grossman to be, as well as the translator of the Marquez books I have read, Gregory Rabassa).



Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:17 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Location: Wheaton, Illinois, USA
Thanks: 26
Thanked: 34 times in 31 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
bleachededen wrote:
I like your analogies, Suzanne, and I think you may be on to something. I also agree with you about translation. Every time I read poetry that has been translated into English because I'm just not awesome enough to be able to read German, French, or Spanish, I wonder what I'm missing poetically because of things like alliteration, rhyme, and meter, all of which are completely changed when translated into English.


You both make excellent points. I read Critique of Pure Reason by three different English translators and I just couldn't make any sense of it at all. Then I bit the bullet, and with the help of a really big German-English dictionary I read it in the original. It was still plenty difficult but at least I got some things none of the translations gave me. Gunther Grass is another example, more poetic and linguistic than Kant but I still haven't found a translation that does Grass justice. I could go on but I won't. :D I have the edition of Quixote you are reading but haven't started it yet. Still working on Sacks. I hope this translation lives up to the hipe.


_________________
--Gary

"Freedom is feeling easy in your harness" --Robert Frost


Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:51 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Finds books under furniture

Silver Contributor

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1680
Thanks: 178
Thanked: 147 times in 132 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
GaryG48 wrote:
:D I have the edition of Quixote you are reading but haven't started it yet. Still working on Sacks. I hope this translation lives up to the hipe.


You have more stomach for non-fiction than I do, Gary. I'm reading both Sacks and Don Quixote concurrently, spending most of my time on Don Quixote because in all honesty, I hate non-fiction. At this point, I'm reading Don Quixote for the discussion but also for pleasure, and reading Sacks one chapter at a time, based on how far the discussion goes. This is probably easy for me to do because I am a ridiculously fast reader, and second because I have an enormous amount of spare time. If I had a job or school or something else that took up most of my daily life, I wouldn't be able to read and play on BookTalk as much as I do. On one hand, it's a gift, because I can read so much and be on BookTalk all the time, but on the other, I have no real life, so it's sort of a drag. It's a good thing I'm pretty solitary, though, because this way I can handle my situation without too much complaint. ;)

I don't think you'll be disappointed with this translation, but I do applaud you for reading in German with just a German dictionary! That's tough, man, and I can't even read Kant in English, let alone German! Well done!



Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thinks Night Out is Reading on Porch

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3996
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1098
Thanked: 1110 times in 839 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
DWill wrote:
As far as Milton or Shakespeare presenting greater linguistic difficulty than DQ, this is hard to judge unless we are able to read Cervantes' original Spanish.
The point is that for a modern reader, Shakespeare is very tough because English has changed so much, so reading an old translation of Cervantes would face that same barrier. I don't get the 'unreadability' claim, as it is mostly like a sit-com, as Suzanne said. You can take it as a breezy story, but the underlying power is in the cultural satire.
Quote:
how can a reader's view of the novel as not being about ideas be called wrong, a failure? After all, it would have been only recently that a view such as yours gained any currency. When it was a popular book, DQ was popular for its characters and plot, not for its ideas. Now, readers' tastes (and the habit of reading itself) have changed, so that those formerly popular elements no longer attract as much.
This made me think of the doyen of unreadability, TS Eliot, with poems such as The Wasteland that are incomprehensible without commentary. By contrast, one review of Grossman's translation said she even overdid it with her minimal footnotes since the book is so easy to read.

If I think Don Quixote is about ideas, specifically a satire on cultural values, then I will naturally disagree with the assertion that it is not about ideas. Perhaps it would be like some one reading the Bible and opining that it is not about salvation. A great book such as Don Quixote has to operate at multiple levels, from the surface story of slapstick adventure to deeper levels of cultural critique. What is your basis for claiming that earlier readings were unconcerned about ideas?



Last edited by Robert Tulip on Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:41 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Location: Wheaton, Illinois, USA
Thanks: 26
Thanked: 34 times in 31 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
bleachededen wrote:
You have more stomach for non-fiction than I do, Gary. I'm reading both Sacks and Don Quixote concurrently, spending most of my time on Don Quixote because in all honesty, I hate non-fiction.


I joined BookTalk because it included discussion of non-fiction works.
I have become disillusioned with current fiction. I find it either pure pandering (Waiting for Sheetrock) or so dense it is not worth the effort (The Crying of Lot 49). I am looking forward to Quixote though; especially if this is a good translation because I have very little Spanish. Which brings me to a point of clarification:

bleachededen wrote:
I don't think you'll be disappointed with this translation, but I do applaud you for reading in German with just a German dictionary! That's tough, man, and I can't even read Kant in English, let alone German! Well done!


I didn't mean to imply that I read Kant with only a German dictionary. I read most German fairly well but Kant was still a major struggle even in German, in English, it is impossible!


_________________
--Gary

"Freedom is feeling easy in your harness" --Robert Frost


The following user would like to thank GaryG48 for this post:
Robert Tulip
Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:44 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thinks Night Out is Reading on Porch

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3996
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1098
Thanked: 1110 times in 839 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
GaryG48 wrote:
bleachededen wrote:
You have more stomach for non-fiction than I do, Gary. I'm reading both Sacks and Don Quixote concurrently, spending most of my time on Don Quixote because in all honesty, I hate non-fiction.


I joined BookTalk because it included discussion of non-fiction works.
I have become disillusioned with current fiction. I find it either pure pandering (Waiting for Sheetrock) or so dense it is not worth the effort (The Crying of Lot 49). I am looking forward to Quixote though; especially if this is a good translation because I have very little Spanish. Which brings me to a point of clarification:

bleachededen wrote:
I don't think you'll be disappointed with this translation, but I do applaud you for reading in German with just a German dictionary! That's tough, man, and I can't even read Kant in English, let alone German! Well done!


I didn't mean to imply that I read Kant with only a German dictionary. I read most German fairly well but Kant was still a major struggle even in German, in English, it is impossible!

Hi Gary, very impressive! I struggled through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in English translation. My German is rather schlecht, so when I tried to read Heidegger and Kant in the original, with concepts that are hard to grasp in any language, I got nowhere. One that I did love in German was Goethe's Faust. I found the English translation dull and lifeless by comparison.



Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:50 am
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Finds books under furniture

Silver Contributor

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1680
Thanks: 178
Thanked: 147 times in 132 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
I've only read Goethe's poetry, although one of these days I would like to read The Sorrows of Young Werther. I've read that after this was written, there was an increase in the teen/young people's suicide rate, and of course there is a beautiful opera based on it, but I always hesitate because of the translation issue. When I buy poetry by foreign authors, I always buy the bilingual edition, so my Goethe has English and German, Beckett has English and French, and Lorca has English and Spanish, etc. Even though I don't speak any of these languages, I can read them with correct pronunciation, and can pick out certain words, and I try to look for things that might tell me about alliteration, rhyme, meter, etc. The Lorca is always fun to read in Spanish, because his lines are so simple (but beautiful), that often once I've read the English, I can pick out most of the meaning in Spanish (I've learned a bit of French throughout my life, and since all romance languages are fairly similar, Spanish isn't too hard to pick up when the English is right beside it). I haven't read Goethe for a while, but I do remember reading the German as well as the English, becoming excited when I could pick out words I recognized from such things as Schubert's lieder and Mozart's opera arias, words like mädchen, which I know means girl or maiden (you can see the German in the word "maiden" itself -- I also have a deep love for linguistics and etymology and the history of language in general), and nacht, of course, is night, ich is I, liebe is love, etc. I do like being able to pick these things out, and have been thinking lately of trying to learn to be able to speak French fluently, and to possibly find employment in a linguistic area...but I digress.

Although I wouldn't be able to read Don Quixote in Spanish, I'd like to be able to take a look at it, to get a sense of some of the things Grossman points out in her footnotes, such as the translator's name being close to the word eggplant, or Sancho's misuse of words in Spanish that don't translate into English. Oh, how I wish to be bi, tri, or even quatro-lingual!

Le sigh.



Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:31 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4888
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1069
Thanked: 1021 times in 794 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
Robert Tulip wrote:
. I don't get the 'unreadability' claim, as it is mostly like a sit-com, as Suzanne said. You can take it as a breezy story, but the underlying power is in the cultural satire.

The unreadibility "claim" (actually an aesthetic judgment with which anyone can disagree) was based on the ratio of fresh, vital content to the novel's length. The inserted tales tend not to move the plot along, and the plot of the Don and Sancho can be repetitious and a bit tedious. I would just say the novel is readable in large part, so, as I said, I was just making mischief with this unreadibility post.
Quote:
This made me think of the doyen of unreadability, TS Eliot, with poems such as The Wasteland that are incomprehensible without commentary. By contrast, one review of Grossman's translation said she even overdid it with her minimal footnotes since the book is so easy to read.

Yet here I would go the opposite way and say "The Wasteland" is not unreadable without commentary. We can get the drift without torturing ourselves with Eliot's quoting, and there is great original poetry in it.

Quote:
What is your basis for claiming that earlier readings were unconcerned about ideas?
My basis is just a guess that, throughout the ages, people valued DQ for its humour and entertaining adventures. Why did the fictional book DQ (the one that was reported to have been published by the Moorish writer) appeal to the (fictional) audience? For its ideas? No, it was truly a popular book.


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Last edited by DWill on Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:13 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Eligible to vote in book polls!


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 29
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
I began reading Don a few years ago and bailed somewhere around the 150page mark...it was unreadable to me - not because of structure or language or any of that, but because all of the tales have been retold so many times that I felt I had already read the book...



Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Cunning Linguist


Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 82
Location: New York
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 8 times in 6 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
Certainly for modern readers the book is too long and has too many digressiions.

Also, the first half, for me, gets somewhat tedious, in spite of the humour. It is the second half - the philosphoical half - that makes the book great. Here we experience two characters that are affected by the outside world and each other, and then evolve and change.

When I reread Don Quixote I read the first hundred pages or so, then skip to the second half.

Randy


_________________
The Way of the River: My Journey of Fishing, Forgiveness and Spiritual Recovery


The following user would like to thank Randy Kadish for this post:
jan
Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:26 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Pop up Book Fanatic


Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Don Quixote Unreadable?
I liked Randy's reminder about the philosophical part of the book. I read the older translation 30 years ago and it is the overarching philosophies and principles presented in DQ that I remember all these years later. I am still at the beginning of this newer one and hope to knock off a bit today.

I certainly do not feel either translation is unreadable. I does not read like a Michael Crichton, but certainly holds my attention. I would be curious to compare the 2 translations. I may dig my old one out and compare a few passages. Has anyone done this?
jan



Sat May 08, 2010 2:54 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books






BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Science Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2011. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank