Classics and the Western Canon discussion

I had intended to wait to start this topic until later in the discussion, since it may be difficult to avoid spoilers early in the discussion (please try to avoid specific mention of plot elements, but also please be aware that there may be some general spoilers in this discussion) but I ran across a comment I couldn't wait to share. So here's a thread to talk about interesting points that the critics and commentators raise. Early on, perhaps general thoughts on how one might consider approaching the reading might be most apt.

The interesting point I couldn't wait to share (patience not being one of my virtues) is what Clifton Fadiman, in his Lifetime Reading Plan, says about reading DQ:

"Don Quixote is perhaps the only book on our long list that may profitably be read in an abridged (but, please, not a bowdlerized or children's) version. However, if you use, as I suggest, a complete translation, do some skipping. Whenever (or almost whenever) you come to a goatherd or a shepherdess, some drivel lies ahead. Skip all the interpolated pastoral yarns that pleased Cervantes' audience but bore us stiff. Skip every bit of verse you meet: Cervantes is one of the world's worst poets... Post finally, do not be put off by an occasional tedious passage or chapter in Part 1. Persist to Part 32. It is by far the greater. Even the finest writers sometimes have to educate themselves through the medium of their own creation, and apparently that is what happened to th is poor, maimed ex-soldier Cervantes: from writing about Don Quixote and Sancho Panza he learned how great they really were...."

Good advice? Or humbug? Or something inbetween?

Clifton doesn't seem to realize that Cervantes is parodying the pastoral yarns and poems. I think what he does with them so far (through chapter 17) is hilarious.

Or is Fadiman parodying Cervantes? That must be it.

That last sentence of Fadiman's is beautiful, though:

"Even the finest writers sometimes have to educate themselves through the medium of their own creation, and apparently that is what happened to this poor, maimed ex-soldier Cervantes: from writing about Don Quixote and Sancho Panza he learned how great they really were...."

I am one of those who usually reads every word because I am afraid to miss something. I suppose if I had "permission" to eliminate certain pages from this enormous tome, I might literally jump for joy.
I don't think I ever realized before, how many different approaches there could be in the translation of a word or phrase.
It makes me wonder, since there are so many translations with varied nuances, might I not miss something pertinent if I were to randomly skip portions of the book?

I'm so glad you raised this question, Everyman!
As a recent college graduate, I remember a lot of discussions in my literature courses. In American Lit, we tackled "Moby Dick," and spent A LOT of time discussing the meaning and necessity of the whale chapters (the ones that talk, at length, about whale blubber, how many types of whales there are, etc.). Many of my classmates were bored to tears with those chapters and didn't understand why they were included as they didn't actually further the action along, but my professor was adamant that Melville included them for a reason. The novel is about so much more than just Captain Ahab's insanity.
I haven't hit the pastoral scenes yet, but I imagine that they serve a definite purpose and that it would be a shame to miss out on them, even if just for entertainment.

I don't know if I got across what I meant to, but I'm all for reading every word :)

Once I start a book I have to read the whole thing. That is why it took me 4 years to read Faust. I think DQ might be a book that needs to be read multiple times. I just watched the movie The Merchant of Venice yesterday and with all the twists and turns that Shakespeare put in his work, I can't help but want to compare the two authors.

thewanderingjew wrote: "It makes me wonder, since there are so many translations with varied nuances, might I not miss something pertinent if I were to randomly skip portions of the book?"

I had the same thought. I think DQ and in fact most books need to be read unabridged the first time through (although I will admit to skimming the sonnets) then on rereads the reader can choose for themselves what to skip and what not to. I'm almost finished with the first book and can honestly say I've enjoyed all of it.

Everyman wrote: "I had intended to wait to start this topic until later in the discussion, since it may be difficult to avoid spoilers early in the discussion (please try to avoid specific mention of plot elements,..."

Based on my experience reading DQ, I would say that some reading strategy is needed to cope with its sheer length and the sprawling nature of the narrative.

The pastoral yarns could be quite long, and while some parts are amusing (they are parodies, after all), sometimes I couldn't wait to get back to the real action. There are quite a number of these stories, of different degrees of interest to me, and I did skip a few of them to get back to the main narrative. I did the same with the more lengthy sonnets. Then I came back to them later to understand the context. I'm not sure whether it's the correct way to read DQ, but it worked for me.

Patrice wrote: "...there were many times when I thought, "Oh, no, not another story!" I kept thinking of Aristotle. In the Poetics he says that tragedy is a surperior art form to epic because it accomplishes the same thing in a shorter time. DQ is the exact opposite of what Aristotle would love. It rambles, it takes place over a long time, and it goes on and on and on. Was Aristotle right or wrong?..."

Let's keep this comment in mind as we get near the end of the book we can have a vigorous discussion about what Cervantes was actually trying to achieve, how well he achieved it, and whether all the stuff he put in was of value to his purpose or whether Fadiman was right that it really distracts us from the value of the book.

But I have to say that your remark on Aristotle reminded me of my beloved quote attributed, rightly or wrongly, to Pascal, though some believe it goes back to Pliny, who said that he had written a long letter because he lacked the time to write a short one. (Sometimes I feel this way about some of my own posts here!)

Yesterday, I went to a book discussion led by the author Jennifer Haigh who wrote Mrs. Kimble, The Condition and Baker Towers. She got her start in play writing and short stories. She said something almost echoing that message of Pliny/Pascal.
She said it is much harder to write a short story than a longer novel. She explained that mistakes will be more apparent in a short story. It has to be polished right away. Every word has to be measured since don't have enough time to lure the reader sufficiently into the tale so he/she will remain, hoping it gets better if you mess up. She said if you are 50 pages into a novel and you hit a few bad pages, there is a greater chance you will continue the book.
It made sense to me.