Robert Tulip wrote:Just on Monty Python, I am growing more convinced that those Cambridge loons pilfered their best ideas from Cervantes. Towards the end of the book, in the restaurant at the end of the universe, we find the very model and source for the cheese shop.

I believe you're confusing Monty Python with Douglas Adams here. I'm aware that Adams did a few guest writing spots with the Pythons, but he wasn't a member, and I wouldn't lump them all together. I can also clearly see other influences in their works, and wouldn't start accusing them of pilfering too much Cervantes just yet. For example, while you can clearly see elements of Don Quixote in The Holy Grail, you can also see that until the charge by God to search for the grail, the film is very obviously parodying Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, from the beginning credits (with Swedish subtitles to drive the parody even further home), to the monks beating themselves in imitation of a similar scene in The Seventh Seal, to the burning of the witch. These were not Cervantes' images, and given the status of Bergman and The Seventh Seal in the film culture of the 1960s and 70s, that is clearly their primary parody source. Most people who watch it now don't even know this, because Bergman fans in this day and age are few and far between. Cervantes also said nothing about dead parrots or old loan clerks becoming pirates and attacking newer and bigger corporations, so it's safe to say the Pythons had plenty of their own ideas to work with, as well as anything or anyone they obviously parodied.

Robert Tulip wrote:Don Quixote only gets better. I think if you don't enjoy it you should stop reading, as that is a sign that perhaps you are missing something, have other things on your mind, and may be better waiting until later.

I finished the book, and no, it did not get any better. I did not have anything else on my mind, and I didn't miss anything. I simply didn't like it.

I think you're taking this a bit too hard, Robert. That doesn't mean it isn't still an important piece of literature, or that you can't stand by it and like it as much as you want. But I, along with everyone else here, am entitled to my own opinion about the book, and just because yours happens to be in the minority here doesn't give you the right to criticize our reading habits or reading comprehension just because we disagree. You're sounding a bit like Stahrwe, I'm sad to say, and I think maybe you should take a step back and look at this topic a bit more objectively. None of us are attacking Cervantes or Don Quixote, we just don't particularly like the book. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

The passion Robert shows for the book is okay, and I can understand that it's hard when a passion isn't shared. But Eden is right, ultimately we're judging art, not appreciating intellectual history as Robert wants us to. So "liking" (or not) comes into play inevitably, and what we do about this? We can, I suppose, delve more deeply into this liking (or not), and maybe when we do we confront certain expectations we've come to have of the novel, expectations that probably aren't met by Don Quixote, in my opinion. The book has the rawness of a proto-form; it has an energy, certainly, and looks forward to more enticing possibilities.

Just look at the composition history of the book for clues. Cervantes writes his book, lays down his pen for a while, and, lo, some other guy comes out with a knock-off. Cervantes has to give this parvenu what-for, so he pens a second part to give the people more adventures of the type that have, surprisingly to him, proven so popular. He has to make a living, after all. There is little impulse toward the organic form of the novel in this story of supply and demand. That was the state of things, fiction-wise, in 1605.

bleachededen wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Just on Monty Python, I am growing more convinced that those Cambridge loons pilfered their best ideas from Cervantes. Towards the end of the book, in the restaurant at the end of the universe, we find the very model and source for the cheese shop.

I believe you're confusing Monty Python with Douglas Adams here. I'm aware that Adams did a few guest writing spots with the Pythons, but he wasn't a member, and I wouldn't lump them all together.

Hello again Bleachededen, this is after all a rather light-hearted conversation about a book of comedy and farce, that conceals a serious social satire. However, I do try to be precise in my comments. My allusion to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was deliberately intended to mash together the myths. When you get to this restaurant farce that reminded me of the cheese shop, it feels like you are at the end of the universe, since Don Quixote is so long (if not tortuously boring) to read.

I can also clearly see other influences in their works, and wouldn't start accusing them of pilfering too much Cervantes just yet.

As Sancho Panza said, lesser talents borrow, genius steals. The Black Knight, King Arthur and the cheese shop show definite influence (theft) from Cervantes.

Robert Tulip wrote:Don Quixote only gets better. I think if you don't enjoy it you should stop reading, as that is a sign that perhaps you are missing something, have other things on your mind, and may be better waiting until later.

I finished the book, and no, it did not get any better. I did not have anything else on my mind, and I didn't miss anything. I simply didn't like it. I think you're taking this a bit too hard, Robert. That doesn't mean it isn't still an important piece of literature, or that you can't stand by it and like it as much as you want. But I, along with everyone else here, am entitled to my own opinion about the book, and just because yours happens to be in the minority here doesn't give you the right to criticize our reading habits or reading comprehension just because we disagree. You're sounding a bit like Stahrwe, I'm sad to say, and I think maybe you should take a step back and look at this topic a bit more objectively. None of us are attacking Cervantes or Don Quixote, we just don't particularly like the book. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Objectively? As I mentioned to DWill, Don Quixote was ranked the best novel ever in a recent survey of the world's leading novelists. So, yes, it does slightly perturb me to see terms such as 'unreadable' etc thrown around. I do think, just my personal opinion here, there is something wrong with people not liking Don Quixote, as they are missing something in a great and enduring classic of modern literature. I just can't understand why anyone would not get the satire. When I use terms like 'peerless' I am echoing Cervantes' irony in his continual description of the story as a true history, and his continual description of Dulcinea as peerless. I thought you were wrong in calling the duke and duchess cruel, for example. You are welcome to your opinion, but it is something interesting to work through. Please though, don't start throwing in ad homs about creationist idiocy. In all seriousness, there is a big difference between arguing that Don Quixote is a good book and arguing the universe is six thousand years old.

Robert, I appreciate your passion and your attachment to this novel, but I also think you're mistaking "do not like" with "do not get." I "get" the satire and the criticism Cervantes is making about the issues of his day that he did not like or thought were ridiculous. I "get" it. But that does not mean that I "like" the novel. I appreciate what Cervantes has written and that he was innovative and deserves a spot on the classics and books to read before you die shelf. I do. I learned a lot from Don Quixote, and I am in no way saying that the experience was a total waste. What I am saying is that even though I get what is taking place in the novel, and appreciate its place in history, and have learned from the experience of reading it, I did not like the book, overall, and am glad to be finished with it and will not read it again. That does not mean I don't get it. I just don't like it. Completely different sentiments.

And I apologize for the Stahrwe comment. I just wanted you to consider the voice you are putting forth to us who aren't in DQ's fan club, and that just because we don't like a book doesn't mean there is something wrong with us. That is something someone like Stahrwe would suggest, and I think you are better than that.

Robert Tulip wrote:So, yes, it does slightly perturb me to see terms such as 'unreadable' etc thrown around. I do think, just my personal opinion here, there is something wrong with people not liking Don Quixote, as they are missing something in a great and enduring classic of modern literature.

When I first read this comment, it upset me, but a few minutes later, I got over it. I have been reading this book for months, a classic that has survived for 400 years, and I am not enjoying it, but, I never once thought there was something wrong with me for this, except for the few minutes after reading the above comment. Robert, I have always enjoyed your commentary and insight regarding books, and I thought this commentary and insight would carry me through DQ, however, the book is just flat out boring, TO ME! I would never say to a reader, or group of readers that there is something wrong with them for not enjoying, or not “getting” a book that I myself have enjoyed and found entertaining and interesting. Literature as well as all art is subjective. I personally don’t understand readers that enjoy books of fantasy, but instead of saying there is something wrong with them, I’m trying to read more fantasy books to understand what all the hype is about. Some books I like, some I don’t, there is nothing wrong with me, and there is nothing wrong with the books.

“The Crying of Lot 49”, Thomas Pynchon is one of my favorite books of all time, but most people find it unreadable. I spent a summer reading “Gravity’s Rainbow”, Thomas Pynchon, its long, its arduous, its difficult, but to ME, highly readable and highly enjoyable. I am in the minority regarding Thomas Pynchon, I enjoy his writing, however, there is nothing WRONG with the reader who disagrees with me.

Am I missing something in DQ? Very likely, frankly, I’m finding the foot notes more interesting than the work itself. I must be missing something, the novel has survived for 400 years. However, what I am missing, Robert, may not be as important for me as it is seemingly to be for you. But, this is how art works.

Don Quixote may have gotten the better of you Robert. There is nothing WRONG with me, or any other reader who dislikes it.

Suzanne wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:
“The Crying of Lot 49”, Thomas Pynchon is one of my favorite books of all time, but most people find it unreadable.

Interesting thread. It makes me want to read DQ.

In my opinion, some works require some pre-reading. Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Beowulf, etc. Start by reading a synopsis, even if it's something like Sparksnotes. Get scholarly editions and read the introductions and other texts. There's usually some good stuff online too. Then read the actual text and I think you can glean a lot more from it. You spend less time confused and frustrated when you understand a work's historical and lingual context.

Re: The Crying of Lot 49. I read it and blinked a few times and said, well, what the hell was that all about? I'll reread that one and see if I can derive meaning from it. Beckett, too, mystified me until I actually saw Waiting for Godot on stage. I think I get Beckett now.

There is a big gap between two possible readings of this debate, one, finding it is a shame some readers do not understand a great classic, and two, the assumption that this involves a personal criticism. Geo is right that the context is essential. What I love about Don Quixote, in part, is the endorsement for entrepreneurial visions, the idea that people should follow their dreams come what may. The Wright Bros were seen as quixotic for their assertion that heavier than air flight is possible, but they were absolutely correct, and started the world aviation industry. Most fantastic capitalist inventions have a slightly crazy genius who got the vision moving, with faith like a mustard seed.

On the other hand, the housekeeper who burns Don Quixote's books is typical of the narrow, stupid, conservative conformity that lives in fear of innovation and ideas.

We get this crazy back and forth, with Don Quixote himself symbolising both the past and the future, mythology and vision, tradition and innovation, fantasy and genius. This is just my take, building on my own interest in innovation in philosophy and water supply. I see the deathly Catch 22 cynicism everywhere, that if new ideas made sense they would be old already. Don Quixote is a breath of freedom and creativity against this stultifying claustrophobia. Part of the game of this discussion is that Don Quixote inspires a certain quality of craziness, a suspension of disbelief where the impossible becomes possible. There is a cautionary tale in the observation that his absolute faith is actually wrong, that hotels are not castles and windmills are not giants. But good on him for having a go. Without entrepreneurs like Don Quixote we would still be in the stone age. Cervantes represents the spirit of capitalism, the visionary marriage of innovation and evidence. If you don't like that spirit, you won't like Don Quixote.

I was fortunate to take a Milton class a few years back. Bloom, the literary critic, says  that there is a very select few people who can read Milton. And I'm sure the same applies to Cervantes and many other classic writers. It can be difficult to read some of these classics. Much of the reward comes from understanding it's historical context. Anyway, having "known" Robert for some time, I would take his word for it. Also DQ is a timeless classic. A work doesn't survive that long for nothing.

That's all I can say for now. Typing on a cell phone leaves a lot to be desired.

Bravo to everyone of you, I love this sight.

Robert Tulip wrote:There is a big gap between two possible readings of this debate, one, finding it is a shame some readers do not understand a great classic, and two, the assumption that this involves a personal criticism.

But just to be clear (as our President says) saying there is something wrong with me if I don't agree with your appraisal of a book, is a personal criticism. This is where I think Bleachededen was coming from with the Stahrwe remark, by the way.

Geo is right that the context is essential. What I love about Don Quixote, in part, is the endorsement for entrepreneurial visions, the idea that people should follow their dreams come what may. The Wright Bros were seen as quixotic for their assertion that heavier than air flight is possible, but they were absolutely correct, and started the world aviation industry. Most fantastic capitalist inventions have a slightly crazy genius who got the vision moving, with faith like a mustard seed.

What interests me the most about DQ is its capability to be a vessel for different perspectives, even contradictory ones. It could be be the inchoate nature of the book that makes it able to hold so many meanings for people. The meaning above represents the "Man of La Mancha" strain that grew from the book. It didn't matter that Cervantes himself shuts down Don Quixote in the end, just about repudiates everything he was supposed to have stood for. The genie was already out of the bottle as far as the character type that people found they loved. Yet the book also makes people swear that it satirizes Don and his "ideals," and of course this is the opposite of the first view. And no, the book does not operate on each of these two "levels" simultaneously; that would truly be to make nonsense of it.

On the other hand, the housekeeper who burns Don Quixote's books is typical of the narrow, stupid, conservative conformity that lives in fear of innovation and ideas.

No, I would defend the housekeeper, and there is no animus shown toward her by the author. It's she who tells Don that he's a silly fool for having this idea of turning shepherd.

We get this crazy back and forth, with Don Quixote himself symbolising both the past and the future, mythology and vision, tradition and innovation, fantasy and genius. This is just my take, building on my own interest in innovation in philosophy and water supply. I see the deathly Catch 22 cynicism everywhere, that if new ideas made sense they would be old already. Don Quixote is a breath of freedom and creativity against this stultifying claustrophobia. Part of the game of this discussion is that Don Quixote inspires a certain quality of craziness, a suspension of disbelief where the impossible becomes possible. There is a cautionary tale in the observation that his absolute faith is actually wrong, that hotels are not castles and windmills are not giants. But good on him for having a go. Without entrepreneurs like Don Quixote we would still be in the stone age. Cervantes represents the spirit of capitalism, the visionary marriage of innovation and evidence. If you don't like that spirit, you won't like Don Quixote.

Well, what he innovates escapes me, but I don't mean to push back too much at this. I don't agree that you can place an arbitrary conditon on a reader's response to a character, as you try to do in your last sentence. I like Don Quixote (if not everything about Don Quixote), but I don't share your view of him.

Shouldn't we dispense with this talk about "classics." Use of the word tends to beggar the question we're trying to answer about the work ("of course this book is great--it's a classic!")