Millions,
So. I’m gonna read Don Quixote. And since my Spanish has devolved to a point where past tense is exceedingly difficult, I figure it would be wise to invest in a translated copy. Now, since Quixote was written in, what, the 1400s?, I imagine a translation from fairly ancient Spanish to mostly modern English is a rough job. But someone certainly did it well. So who is that someone? Is there someone to Don Quixote as Seamus Heaney is to Beowulf? Or should I go blindfolded down the C aisle with my fingers crossed?
The recent translation by Edith Grossman received good reviews.
A good start, a good start. It sounds like you haven’t read it though, which is not a slight or looking a gift horse in the mouth (well, maybe a little of the later…nice molars), but I am hoping to come across someone who’s waded thru this one. Although, Grossman research begins now.
You know, I still hasven’t read the copy sitting on my shelf, but the Penguin translation of Don Quixote was apparently their first “Classic”, and it’s still in print. Which is, I suppose, a recommendation.
They made the movie into a book?
Nope, haven’t read it yet, just glanced through it and purchased it. (I previously read an older translation, which was a slog. Not sure which translator.)
I am somewhat familiar with Edith Grossman’s work through her translations of modern Latin American authors.
I’ve read some of it. I’m not sure how many chapters I actually read. (Ten or twelve, maybe?) I got disgusted by the authors attitude towards his own character, and gave up. Cervantes’ obvious disdain for Don Quixote didn’t just make it hard to stomach, it kept taking me right out of the story. I think it’s something that can’t be helped by a different translation, so I haven’t tried again.
The parts of it not concerned with that were facinating. Like stepping through a time tunnel and ending up in the Middle Ages.
I got a good bit through the Grossman translation before it was due back at the liberry, and it was pretty entertaining. Lot’s of footnotes, IIRC.
I’ll have to see if it’s back in yet…
I read that the first book, which is about half of what we now lump togther, was intended by Cervantes to be a somewhat cruel making-fun-of-the-mentally-ill story. He thought his readers would pity and ridicule Quixote’s madness, so he wrote it that way.
But when Spain (and the rest of Europe, fairly soon after) read it, they loved the guy and wanted more of his doomed-but-honorable adventures. So the second book is much more respectful of the wise fool that is Don Quixote de la Mancha.
That’s interesting. I may have to give Part 2 a try then. Thanks for posting that.
1600s
No. Cervantes was sick and tired of the “knight” books from the time, “los libros de Caballería”, which were very popular and usually narrated the stories of knights who beheaded monsters and rescued princesses. He held contempt for them as he deemed them superfluous and of little literary worth and was amazed people actually liked them. He wrote Don Quijote as a satire of those as evidenced throughout the entire novel, specially at the beginning when he says the adventure books about knights dried his brain out. It’s akin to someone today writing a novel with the intention to ridicule cheap sci-fi by having his character eventually falling for it and setting out to keep the peace in the universe on his VW bug with Silent Bob on the back seat
Don Quijote is, actually, always presented as much more read than his counterparts and the people he meets in his travels, wiser and more intelligent than most. Indeed, the Don is a very cultivated man, which is apparent to others until they find out about his illness which was caused by books.
Surfing the net I’ve discovered the embarrasing amount of misinformation in the English-speaking world surrounding Don Quijote.
It’s not that the author’s or the characters’ view on Don Quijote changes in any way. I’d venture to say he’s even more ridiculed and humiliated in the second half (by royalty, no less). I like it better and so do others because it centers on Don Quijote and leaves the annoying practice Cervantes had on the first of introducing stories nobody cares about that have nothing to do with Don Quijote and which take up too much space. Also, even though Don Quijote meets a lot more characters and they play their part, the focus of the story never veers away from Don Quijote to them but they actually develop in correlation to our knight.
In summary, yes. It’s much better (as literature and entertainment) than the first half. 