Jason’s Comments (group member since Dec 12, 2013)

Jason’s comments from the Don Quixote – Miguel de Cervantes group.

4 is nothing to apologize for! I'm glad you liked it, Dustin.

Good!

Good luck, Renato. I hope you're liking Don Quixote.

Oh, okay. I think then my third answer was what you were looking for. And I could be wrong but I do think he is basically saying what he knows OF Aldonza Lorenzo, all while never really having met her. Also, you know how Sancho is. Even if he had heard one story about her, he'd expand it out and make it seem as though they were the bestest of friends, etc.

Can anyone else in this group confirm/deny what I'm saying?

Or unless maybe you are just talking about how accurate his description is of Dulcinea even while not knowing her? He does not really know Dulcinea, but he knows OF her. When he realizes who Dulcinea is (spoken of by her common name Aldonza Lorenzo), he relates to DQ what he knows of her, but he is lying that he knows her well. He's never met her, but only knows OF her. Someone in this group can correct me if I'm wrong.

Does this answer your question or were you more interested in why Sancho does this? (I'm not really sure why he does it other than that the mutual clashing of their two realities has always been at the heart of their relationship.)

You mean the discrepancy of Sancho having never met Aldonza and yet pretending to have done so? Yes. He is lying to Don Quixote. I forget where you are in the book right now so forgive me if this is spoilerizing but at one point he actually goes back to the village (by himself) to see Aldonza on behalf of DQ, never sees her (and instead sees some poor servant girl) and yet reports back to DQ that he has seen and spoken with her.

I agree with everything in #15. I don't think the story would have been better without the duke and duchess; I just think they're evil characters, but in a way that adds to the story's depth, not take away from it.

Cave of Montesinos? Anybody?

I agree about DQ's seminality. But to me, the tales within the tale were purely about entertainment value. I don't think they necessarily conveyed any deeper meaning or anything, though I'm sure there would be people who would disagree with me on that.

Also, the self-referential stuff in DQ is brilliant, isn't it? It calls out the real-life issues Cervantes had with his work being "hijacked" by an anonymous writer who continued the story where Cervantes left off after Part I without his permission, while still keeping the story framed over the character of DQ we've come to know and love. I thought that was done really well. There are a lot of post-modern writers NOW who have tried that sort of thing and failed, in my opinion.

The duke and duchess can go fuck themselves. They have no interest in DQ's or Sancho's well being and are only out to amuse themselves at their expense. I think they are the worst characters (from a moral standpoint) in the novel.

Nice, Dustin. Glad you liked it. What happened to your Internet?

That's how I feel about Proust.

One day...

WICKED huge!

Yeah for me these were my down months. Once the spring gets here the kids start up their weekend activities and all my free reading time gets beat up as if by a jousting lance.

How are people doing with this? I kind of miss Don Quixote. =(

Yeah, anything that mentions Avellaneda is a reference to that fake DQ volume he wrote before Cervantes published his actual one.

Thanks, Carina!

Here is my review!
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

I finished this book last night and I was really sad to let it go. I usually don't have that reaction to finishing a book, so I think that means I loved it.

If I write a review I'll letcha know.