Don Quijote

[Richard Romeo]

Hey Mr. Q--

Fancy that review of Lucky Pierre
Finally finished the book ;)

Richard 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf Of The Great Quail
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:58 AM
To: The Whole Sick Crew
Subject: Re: Don Quijote

Jbor writes:

> I think Don Quixote, the character, is tedious when he speaks and tells his
> versions of stories, and that Cervantes has deliberately made him so.

Perhaps -- but after many of his speeches, other characters fall over
themselves to indicate how wise he is, despite his insanity. So I disagree
with you -- he may be deliberately pompous, but not even Sancho finds him
tedious. 

>It's
> an element of the characterisation. I don't find the narrative digressions
> tedious, which seems now to be your complaint.

I said I didn't mind the digressions. I find the action in general to be
tedious -- it's basically the same thing over and over again over 1000
pages.

> As to "the book's racism, sexism and classism", for one, it's of its time
> and historico-cultural context and I don't see any logic or point in judging
> it against current cultural values and mores,

I agree with you; more on that below, where I will try to refine my
position. 

Gabriel writes:

> I guess your reading of pre political correctness texts must be very
> discouraging. Disqualifying DQ for expressing some average values of his own
> time & place is very unfair.  It's the "But those greeks had slaves!"
> attitude that disturbs any discussion about, say, Plato.

No, this is not at all where I am coming from. Believe me, I'm one of the
least PC people on this list. And I agree with you whole-heartedly: I am the
last person who will throw away a classic text because it is not "modern" in
its ideals. As we have never corresponded off-list or on-list, I just wanted
to emphasize this, because I do not care for that "Thomas Jefferson was an
useless asshole because he owned slaves" attitude either.

So let me be more specific.

Of course DQ is a historical text, and reflects some of the prejudices of
its day. That does not bother me, per se. I mean, I love Plato and Homer and
Shakespeare and so on. And also, of course Cervantes tries to subvert many
of these ideologies. I get that, too, and I mentioned that I respected that.

But nevertheless, when I was reading DQ, I felt completely confined in the
Spanish mind-set of that period. The subversive and parodistic elements are
not enough to stop the book from grating on me.

For instance, in Book II, DQ and Sancho run into a Morisco -- a Christian of
Moorish descent. Like all Moriscos, he has recently been forced to leave the
country. Now, while Cervantes is *clearly* showing him to be a good guy, and
his presence in the book is *clearly* intended to show that this may be an
unwise policy, at several points, the Morisco explains that the policy is
overall actually very fair, etc. etc.

Now, of course I realize that Cervantes had to put this speech in his mouth,
or he might not have been allowed to publish his book. But that doesn't mean
I have to enjoy it: its is obsequious, hard-to-swallow, and it grates on me.
Imagine reading a book written in the American 1800s that has a sympathetic
Black character whose story is intended to show that maybe slavery may be a
bad thing, but at several points the character himself justifies it: "But I
understand why slavery is the law, after all, it is correct to consider us
inhuman, as many slaves are brutal and heathenish; but in my personal case,
it is unfair, although I am not complaining."

Is it just "PC" to find this offensive and artificial? Of course, you can
look at the overall text and say, "For its time it was trying to do some
good." Well, I understand that, but it still reflects a mindset in a
particular way that I find off-putting.

And DQ is full of stuff like this -- while a few particular women may show
courage, as a whole they are dismissed; while some members of the nobility
are lampooned, there is still much writing devoted to upholding the idea
that nobles are, well, inherently noble.

So yes, I "get" the satire, parody, and subversiveness. And yes, I
understand that Cervantes did a lot of good in his portrayals of Moors and
Arabs. And no, I don't expect DQ to be an Enlightenment text. But I still
find some of this stuff to be irritating and off-putting in a way that I do
not see in most other "classic" writers.

>Let's not talk about USA politcs
> concerning their "defeated enemies".

Yes, please, let's not make this into a modern political discussion, thank
you. 

--Quail