There is much more character development in the second book; Sancho changes a lot more than Don Quijote.
The concept of “novel” was just being created (El Quijote is considered the first Spanish non-cavalry novel); the notion that characters had to develop hadn’t come to the table yet. If you ever read a chivalry novel, the characters remain the same even though lots of strange things happen to them. King Arthur is the same guy throughout; Sir Galahad is always pure. It was a genre where things happened to people and people did things, but you were likely to get more character growth in a saga or romance than in a cavalry novel.
You remind me a bit of my SiL’s reaction to some John Houston classic (this isn’t a bad thing, it’s an observation). “But that is so cliché!” Bro: “honey, I love you dearly, but this was the first movie to do it - it became a cliché when everybody copied it.” El Quijote is a classic because it opened a lot of doors, it changed the way things were done. Is it the best book ever written in Spanish? Probably not. But then, From the Earth to the Moon is probably not the best SciFi book ever written either: it’s just one of the first, with all the greatness and pitfalls this entails.
It might be the first major Spanish novel, but that simply doesn’t hold much value as an American reading it now. Teachers and critics talk about it in the same breath with Victorian classics and it simply pales in comparison. It might well be a significant book, but entertaining it ain’t.
Well, it depends ;). In the sense of heavy calvary, he may have a point - the Spaniards did start moving towards lighter calvary, j/ginetes early ( as well as light infantry ) because it better suited the mobile, irregular warfare on the rugged marchlands of southern Spain that developed after the early 1200’s.
But orders of knights ( i.e. Spanish equivalents of the Templars, such as the Orders of Santiago and Calatrava ) continued to have an independent existence until definitively brought under crown authority by Charles V in 1523 and the nobility undoubtedly continued to embrace the cult of the mounted warrior into the 16th century. Just generally light calvary were not terribly effective against the French gendarmie and so regardless of Spanish tradition, heavy calvary had to be raised to oppose them. So at a battle like at Ravenna in 1512, during the Italian Wars, the largely Spanish ( and Spanish commanded ) army of the Holy League had about 1,700 heavy calvary ( of which maybe 700 were supplied by the Papacy ) and about an equal number of light calvary.
A couple of paintings, showing the articulated plate still favored in the 16th century ( these were obviously fancy, showy pieces designed for high nobility, but were often still highly functional military armour ) - Emperor Charles V at the battle of Muhlberg in 1548: http://www.bildindex.de/bilder/fmc654232a.jpg
About 95% of the people who I know who have read the Quixote don’t like it. I really don’t understand. I think it’s a marvelous book, and if I had to stick with just one book for the rest of my life, it would probably be that one. If you go into it expecting a rousing tale of the insane Quixote and his mad quests, then yeah, I can see being disappointed. But if you take it for what it is–the first of its kind, the beginning of the modern novel, as well as a collection of many genres, from the chivalric romances to the Spanish moral plays to pastoral poetry. It’s one of the most meta things I’ve ever read. It delves into identity and agency and authorship. It satirizes politics and religion and social classes. It questions reality and madness. It tackles Plato and Aristotle. It even has pirates!
Really, studying Don Quixote was about the only high point of my graduate career.
Humble Servant, I read that as Sancho humoring Quixote, adding more and more description to see how much Quixote would agree with him. That sort of give and take is how Sancho got sucked into Quixote’s madness.
When I said above that I don’t like the book, I meant the book of the musical (which does suck) - not the book by Cervantes, which doesn’t.
This is another one of those books that suffers by being taught badly to students who didn’t want to read it, aren’t prepared for it, and don’t know what to expect by teachers who are only teaching it because Don Quixote was on the was school district’s required reading list. (Also, there are some questionable translations floating around out there - which doesn’t help).
The first time I read it, I was way too young. And while I got some things - I really didn’t have the background (literary or life experience) to really understand the book. I liked it, but couldn’t appreciate it very much. The second time I read it, I was a much better reader and liked it much more.
In the foreword of the translation I read (quite a while ago, and I don’t remember the translator or author of the foreword), they said that apparently Cervantes intended to make fun of romantic hidalgos like Quijana (?) when he wrote the first book, thinking of Quixote as a totally laughable buffoon.
He was rather surprised at the response that book got, with everyone wanting Quixote to be the hero and to have a happy ending. That’s why the character of the second book is a good bit different. Cervantes was trying to give the public what it wanted without totally destroying the story he wrote first.
“Who invented the novel” is one of those questions that just keep on annoying. Defoe? Cervantes? The Romans? I betcha you’ll find someone who’ll say it was the frigging Babylonians.
Now I’m just confused. Here’s the background:in Senior Lit in High School, we were taught different types of books including comedies and tragedies. From what I remember from the comedy lectures, it wasn’t about the book being funny, but about following a hero who went through trial and tribulations and eventually triumphed in the end.
Don Quixote was one of our options for this type of a novel (I think the other two offered were The Hobbit and Watership Down). I was the only one (apparently in several years) who chose to read Don Quixote and for my final essay I argued against Don Quixote being a “comedic hero” because he had no triumph in the end. From what I remember (honestly, it’s a bit fuzzy now), Don Quixote was forced to die in his bed and was immensely sad at the end of the book.
They stopped offering the book in that section after my year (likely because the teacher’s didn’t want to deal with it).
So that’s where my question came from. I don’t know what term is best for what my teacher was trying to categorize the book as, it just didn’t seem that Don Quixote fit that bill at the time. Of course I was a senior in HS, so it could have been that I just didn’t understand the book.
He lost a duel and was told that he was to give up his vocation, go back to his place, and get rid of all the romance and chivalry books he had, and to remain in his house for the rest of his days.
Not a good triumph at the end like a comedic hero, no…
I always thought that Cervantes was trying to wake up Spain-to its declining status. Clearly, the Spanish obsession with nobility and honor didn’t equip them very well in the modern world. Of course, Spain was (in Cervante’s time) just beginning to reap the flood of gold and silver from the New World-that propbably kept the spanish upper class safe in their romantic illusions.
That’s what makes it a comedy in the sense of being life-affirming and having a happy ending. The scrawniest of happy endings, perhaps, but still. Imagine him dying *without *regaining his sanity - that would be tragedy for you.
Not quite. Samson the Bachelor, in the disguise of the Knight of the White Moon challenged Dulcinea’s honor. Quixote had no choice but to agree to fight, though Samson offered the stipulation that he was to lay down his arms and live in his village for a period of one year. When he lost, Quixote submitted to this without fight, and returned to his village. He suggested becoming a shepherd, hinting at a return to a pastoral sort of existence, but ultimately abandoned that plan. He returned to his “real” identity of Alonso Quixano on his own, without further prompting, and then renounced his adventures and died in his own bed.
I think the ending is ambiguous. If you think Quixote was a delusional, crazy old man, then the return of his sanity would be a triumph. He died, as all men must, peacefully, surrounded by family and people who loved him.
Even so, I find the characterization of Quixote as a “comedic” hero pretty problematic. He’s also problematic as a tragic hero. That’s part of the fun of the book.
I think the fact that he regains his sanity is pretty tragic, personally. When Quixote was “insane” he lived in a world that made sense to him. A world with honor and integrity. A world that was fantastic and magical, with literal enchantments, and clear senses of right and wrong. Why is it a triumph to die in a world of injustice? Sanity in the novel doesn’t seem to be that great.
Okay–I was stumbling over the tri-partite concept of “Greek,” “Comedy” and “Novel.” The Greeks didn’t do novels, and many of the comic plays we know about are incomplete–it is much more likely that the Greek lit stuff on a school list are tragic (really, really, tragic) plays.
OTOH, it made me consider momentarily whether the Odyssey could be called a Greek comedy novel. That was an interesting exercise–applying genre labels posthumously, so to speak.
–A good teacher should be delighted if a student challenges accepted labels and backs it up with argument from the text.
–I know Cervantes wrote Don Quixote under money pressures so that it is tough to argue that he had a master theme when he started the first book (other than point and laugh at romantic knighthood), but surely his point is that it is tragic that our world is so shopworn when we can imagine such cool beautiful things like knights and ladies and honor. [Disputes welcome.]
