puzzling - Rated 
This book is probably one of the most famous books ever written. It is 400 years old and appears to be about an silly old fool who suffers from delusions. Anyone who intends to read it would do well to read as many reviews as possible to try to get some idea as to what to expect from this book. I did all this and after reading six chapters I still came to the conclusion that it was a load of gibberish. At this point I was forced to stop and try to work out what on earth I was attempting to read. The stories are a load of idiotic nonsense. They are full of over-contrived violence which doesn't make any sense in the context of the story. It is only when you realise that Cervantes was in prison at the time of writing the first part of the book that you realise this is anti-government propaganda. Since in those days , free speech was accompanied by the chop; the absurdly contrived stories can be seen as symbolic rather than literal. There are numerous comparisons between Shakespeare and Cervantes but one thing comes across very clearly is that most of this book is perfectly readable and stories and the symbolism of the stories is perfectly understandable. Shakespeare is a load of poetic gibberish. In my opinion this book has survived for 400 years because it functions like a psychiatrist inkblot test; the reader simply fits their own personality to match the symbolism of the stories. For those who are prepared to read between the lines of this book, there is a most unusual opportunity to compare the attitudes of society 400 years ago with the attitudes of today. Cervantes was a soldier who was wounded fighting for his country. He worked as a tax collector and got put in prison for committing some unspecified offence. No allowance is made for the injuries received in the defence of his country; this fits very well with stories in today's newspapers. Clearly nothing much has changed in 400 years.
Another very interesting aspect of the book is that it shows the manner in which people reacted to Don Quixote's madness; in fact people react exactly the same as today. I always had the impression that people 400 years ago were very superstitious and believed in magic spells and monsters. This book shows that people had similar attitudes to this sort of thing as we do today; very different to the impression given by Shakespeare. Books of this period usually only give and insight into the lives of rich people; this book gives a considerable insight into the lives and attitudes of ordinary people.
What sparked my interest to read this book was the number of people who use the term `Quixotic'. I had an impression of what this meant based on what I had been taught at school ; however I was interested to try to discover what it really meant. All the definitions that I have read of Quixotic are different from each other ; why ? The Wikipedia definition is better than most ; but still a bit vague and waffley. After reading the book, my impression is that the book functions on too many levels for the term Quixotic to have any sensible meaning. Even the Wikipedia definition simply describes the superficial literal interpretation of the Quixote character. The Quixote character is symbolic and is intended as a criticism of government , social class / snobbery, morality, social conventions. The accepted definitions of Quixotic are based on a superficial understanding of the Quixote character which make the definitions meaningless.
Widely considered unfilmable. That's because it's rubbish. - Rated 
Reading other reviews it appears that readers tend to like mulling over the novel Don Quixote over a period of time to fully savour the experience. I also took three months to read it, but that was because I struggled to motivate myself to read more than 10-20 pages at a time.
One major problem is the humour, which has not aged well. Most of the 900+ plus pages deal with the same joke, Don Quixote's insane belief that he is a brave knight errant, as described in medieval romances, told time and time again. Jokes are explained to death. Sancho Panza, Don Quixote's squire, whilst he does get some lines of dialogue that are still funny, is not the consistent earthly wit that some critics make him out to be. Often he is simply just plain stupid. Another problem is the structure. In Part One, the story often digresses into other narratives to which the relevance to Don Quixote is minimal at best. The tone of these stories is very different to the main narrative, romantic or tragic rather than `funny'. A third is the lack of realism in the main plot. Often Cervantes will describe a situation by saying that it was resolved, or that Sancho Panza was very amusing, or that Don Quixote demonstrated his insanity without describing how.
That is not to say that it is difficult to read. Edith Grossman's translation is easy to follow and would be a joy to read were it not for the subject matter. The other highlight for me was the section in part two where Sancho Panza was governor of an `insula' for ten days. This, for me, was a truly fine part of the novel, both in terms of interest and Panza's humour, which on this occasion was convincingly demonstrated.
It must also be said that the novel is historically interesting as am early attempt at a novel. As Johnson would have put, it is not that it was done well that is astonishing, but that it was done at all. The point for me, however, is that it was not done well, a point even acknowledged by Cervantes in several points of reference to Part One in Part Two (responding to complaints of digression and lack of continuity - particularly as regards the mysterious disappearance and appearance of Panza's donkey). That fact that it was done at all is of historical interest not of interest to the general reader. It certainly doesn't deserve Harold Bloom's praise of being the "finest modern novel".
a story well told - Rated 
For decades I wondered what all the fuss was about. Don Quixote remained in my mind - a mystical figure from a closed literary genre of long ago. I browsed numerous editions from a multitude of publishers and translators, but could never get past the first chapter or two. Nonetheless something always drew me back to the knght who was misplaced in time, action and outlook.
Then I chanced upon Edith Grossman's translation, and came to realise that it's not the tale but the telling that makes a story.
Don Quixote leaps from the pages of this translation with a force that carries his doubtful but loyal squire Sancho Panza in its wake. This is an hilarious and serious work. It speaks of honour and ridicule and aspiration beyond one's means. And it was written 300 years ago. So what's new?
Read Don Quixote if you want to ponder timeless issues faced by every generation. Should you wish to read it without pain and in English, make sure you choose Edith Grossman's translation. It's a gift from the gods of literature.
A wonderful translation, and a heavy book - Rated 
How can a person provide a review of one of the most important works of literature in the world? In my case, I don't think I can, but I can offer observations on what it felt like to read.
I first read Don Quixote in a previous translation, and finally made it through the first volume in a few months. It was like pulling teeth. I knew that it was a famous story, and techically interesting, but the first three hundred pages seemed like repetitive episodes of the same joke. It appeared little wonder that the most quoted chapter around tilting at windmills was the first one.
This time around, with Edith Grossman's translation, it was a great deal more enjoyable. The text flows beautifully, and where it is impossible to translate nuances or technical terms, she explains all in informative footnotes. For once, I can only agree with the publishers: it is the definitive translation.
This is well worth the effort of braving the initial episodes, and taking the time to read properly. For me, it's only after the famous events such as mistaking sheep for an approaching army and suchlike are out of the way, that the book becomes really interesting. There are fascinating novellas that dwell on relations with the Moors, and the perils of young love in the 16th Century, which are at least as good as the main text.
So, by all means, buy this version. Particularly the paperback. The hardback was too heavy to read in bed.
An excellent novel - Rated
This is the best book I have read in a very long time. Edith Grossman has made the story very readable and deserves to be commended. When I started reading Don Quixote, even though it is over 900 pages in length, I tried rationing myself to ten pages a day, hoping to savour the imagery and stretch out the joy for as long as possible. Suffice to say I couldn't do it. I am now very close to the end of the story, and I am already feeling sorry for having raced through the last few hundred pages. As for the storyline, it concerns the many adventuers of an old man who adopts the life of a knight errant (Don Quixote), and his squire (Sancho Panza). The novel contains many sub-novellas (short stories and digressions), and so it could be thought of not as one book but many. I will not give any more detail, but I will say the mix of the absurd and intelligent, and the masterly writing style of Cervantes (and expert translation by Grossman), makes for one of the best books of all time. This is the only book of fiction that I am not going to sell on; I hope to revisit Don Quixote every year from here on. Also worth mentioning is the wonderful illustration on the front cover by Pablo Picasso.
|
