Talk:Don Quixote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do:
This article includes an incomplete infobox, which is part of the standard display of novel information developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. You can help by filling in the missing or incorrect information yourself, or copying the "source code" into the attached article if you need it, and filling in the information yourself, or by providing the following information here on the Talk page so that someone else can construct the box:
  • ~title of novel~
  • ~cover image of novel fair use~
  • ~image caption to give edition details~
  • ~author of novel~
  • ~country of publication~
  • ~language of original novel~
  • ~illustrator for novel~
  • ~cover artist name for novel~
  • ~novel genre~
  • ~publisher for novel~
  • ~dd month yyyy~
  • Print (~binding~)
  • ~pagecount pp (~binding~ edition)~
  • ~ISBN ~999999999~ (~hardcover~ edition)~
  • ~prior book in series if relevant~
  • ~subsequent book in series if relevant~
Edit this message
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Don Quixote as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Serbian or Spanish language Wikipedias.

Contents

[edit] Editors! This article is a major mess. What can we do?

I have been watching this article for some time now and I have noticed that while it is actively redacted its overall quality remains woeful, particularly in light of the extraordinary importance that the novel continues to have, in terms both of its seminal role in the history of modern (or proto modern) literature as well as the extremely important and enduring cultural significance of the charaters, the story and the many themes that permeate its pages. There is much excellent content here, but the organization is all over the place.

I've also noticed that the article receives a considerable number of anonymous or casual edits, which is a good thing, since partcipation is always warmly encouraged. But the absence of a clear structure or obvious outline means that, considered in the aggregate, the result of such constributions is often to make an already confused assemblage of facts, trivia, references and ideas even more so.

Further, it is clear that many people come to this page, perhaps making a plan to clean up its organisation, content and overall intent even more compelling. Don Quijote is regularly voted the best or most important or most influential, etc etc, novel of all time. As such it deserves a really excellent free public encyclopedic entry for people looking for information about the topic. I think many would agree that this standard has not been met by the current efforts.

There is a feature version of Don Quijote in Spanish, the link to which is indicated in the box above. It might be a good start to consider translating some of that content into English, and also to adopt some of the structure that has been arrived at on the Spanish language page. As this article has a long edit history, it is inappropriate to place a translation request. But perhaps a more informal approach could work, whereby a more stable structure and determination of appropriate content could be worked out through discussion. I invite your thoughts. And please feel free to tell me that I am way off base in my reading of the current article. Eusebeus 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody needs to be bold (preferably with complete prejudice). One of the problems, though, is that this article is about:
  • Don Quixote de la Mancha, the common name of two significant Spanish books by Miguel de Cervantes,
  • Don Quixote, the assumed name of Alonso Quixana the Good in the above two books, and a famous character in both Spanish and world literature, *and*
  • the effect of the above mentioned books on English and world literature.
That's a lot of bases to cover =). Still, somebody ought to be be bold and neaten whatever's on the website at present, and then we can see where we can go from there. Gaurav 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about everything, except for the book itself. What a load of poop. 201.19.202.103 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

"There are many adaptations of the book, mostly designed to modernise and shorten the text. One such adaptation is authored by Agustín Sánchez and runs to only 150 pages."

The second sentence seems oddly placed at the beginning of the article, especially since a) the information is reiterated below, and b) nothing in the first paragraph says how many pages the non-shortened version is, giving nothing to compare to (and in fact, I skimmed the article looking for that information elsewhere and could not find it; I might have missed it, though). Cheers

[edit] Quote

Prominent quote from the article: "[Don Quixote] is generally considered to be the first novel and the best book in Spanish."

Is this true? Has there not ever been a book since the middle ages that 'bettered' (whatever that may mean when talking literature) Don Quixote? Man, that would warant hundreds of articles on Wikipedia on the psychological distress of writers in the Spanish speaking world who are devastated and humiliated by that fighting windmill called Don Quixote.

1600s is not Middle Ages by any account. And yes, it generally thought the best book in Spanish (you can disagree, of course, de gustibus non est disputandum). Spanish is also nicknamed the "language of Cervantes", just as English is Shakespeare's. Characters, quotes and events in the book are a source of metaphors, symbols in Spain and Spanish-language countries. That doesn't mean that every or even most speakers have read it. But most of the educated ones know bits or pale reflections from it.
About the distress, top Argentinian (for some value of "top") author Jorge Luis Borges wrote "[somebody I don't remember], author of the Quixote". It is about an author that tries to recreate the book not having read it. He tries to get in the mindset of Cervantes to achieve the same output. Strange.
--Error 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote". And it's stranger than that - after initially considering the idea of rewriting the book by mentally becoming Cervantes, Menard dismisses that as "too easy", and sets about trying to do it while still mentally remaining himself, albeit a version of himself capable of writing a novel in a centuries-old version of a foreign language he doesn't speak. It's all very strange and wonderful, and no summary does it justice. —Paul A


[edit] Spelling

Is it:

  • Don Quixote

or:

  • Don Quijote
Yes :) --Error 23:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bugs in "The Book" section?

I believe there to be at least two minor bugs in "The Book" section. At first I didn't realise the articles had these "Talk" meta-pages so I simply put my reservations in the main article (in parentheses). If this is wildly inapropriate, please let me know, and I'll edit them out and put them on the talk page for further discussion.

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your comments by entering ~~~~; that way we know who said what!
Indeed, it's considered totally inappropriate to put discussion into the main article. That's what the talk page is for. If it's really necessary to put a comment into the page inself, you should hide it from view by putting <!-- --> around it. It will appear in the editing box, but not in the article itself. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up Chameleon, I'll go read some FAQs before I do any more damage :-).
Right, the problems are:
The article states that "At the end of the second book, Quixote decides that his actions have been madness and returns home to die". In Johns Ormsbys 1885 translation and in a Danish translation from 1999, Don Quixote only has this insight on his death-bed, in line with the common belief at the time (of Cervantes) that the mentally ill would be cured just before they passed away. Also, the shepherd-idea is don Quixotes invention. It comes about because he is defeated by the curate (disguised as the Knight of the White Crescent) and wows not to take up arms for a year.
Secondly there's the thing about Dulzinea coming to Quixotes death-bed. This doesn't happen in either of the aforemented translations, but it might be true in other versions?
My english prose is not very good, but if someone could back me up on these claims (there's a Gutenberg-link at the bottom of the page), I'll try to do a rewrite of some of the sections.
Friism 07:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If your info is accurate, feel free to work it into the article. In what chapter does Dulcinea come to him? I've just had a quick look at the last chapter, and she's not there. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 09:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My understanding is that Man of the Mancha features the encounter, not the original book! -- Error 01:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thats the problem - the article claims that Dulcinea appears at Quixotes death-bed ("the peasant girl he has mistaken for her, eventually, comes to his death-bed and acknowledges that she is, in fact, "his Dulcinea""), but this doesn't happen in either of the versions I've read/checked so far. I'll try to incorporate these changes soon. Friism 12:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Frism is correct. I have read Don Quixote, and Dulcina does not appear at the end, and becoming a pastoral shepherd is Don Quixote's idea, not Sancho's. I will make the changes. DaveTheRed 03:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting coincidence. Apparently the error of confusing the musical with the book in Dulcinea coming to Don Quixote's deathbed was there since August of last year. When I saw it (I had not edited this article in a while) I corrected it at then came to the discussion page to see if someone had discussed it, and find that almost as the same time I was correcting DaveTheRed was writing here that he would correct it...funny. --AstroNomer 03:55, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaim spoiler before mentioning death?

I recently moved the spoiler tag above the paragraph that reveals Don Quixote's death. Friism astutely pointed out to me that Cervantes' own introduction to volume 2 reveals that Quixote will die in the end. I'm pretty neutral about this, but before I move the tag back, I thought I'd share my perspective...

I haven't read Don Quixote (either volume) yet. Researching the story, I started to read the Wikipedia entry and, without any warning, I'm told that he dies in the end! Doh!  ;-) So from my point of view, it spoiled a little of the whole story, or at least volume 1 where, arguably, you're not intended to know that the the main character ends up dead before you begin volume 1. Thoughts? -- Ds13 16:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I whole-heartedly agree, the spoiler warning belongs before the "Quixote dies" statement. Friism 22:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I read both volumes of this amazing book... I remember that at preface of volume 2 Cervantes already says that Don Quixote will be dead at end. Sincerely, I don't see why it spoils anything...
I don't thing the SPOILERS tag is necessary. As you pointed, it's early said in the book itself, and it adds not much. Another thing would be to say HOW he dies or what happens in the book. Anyway, being a classic as it is, I don't think anything would be such a spoiler.
It's like saying that Romeo and Juliet die at the end. (oops, sorry!) -- Marianocecowski 12:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's even mentioned in the contents, at least in the version I read - the final chapter is listed as "The Death of Don Quixote". However, people who don't know this might be annoyed if there isn't a spoiler warning, and having one can't hurt. --Philip Hazelden 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

i removed the following ''jaspreet singh jassi'' which was randomly put in the the first paragragh after the TOC. Does this mean anything to anyone??? On another note; Don Quijote rules! The bellman 11:51, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

That's the main character of an Indian Telenovela based on Betty La Fea. No idea why it was put there.--Plumcouch 17:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Copy of Don Quixote found?

This may not be the forum for such a question, but so bet it: A friend mentioned to me that another draft of Cervantes' manuscript was found, and I've been scouring the news...for news. Is this true? Would someone direct me to information regarding this statement? And, of course, Don Quixote rules.


Believe me, this isn't true! --Daniel Eisenberg, editor of the journal of the Cervantes Society of America

No, if they had found a 400 year old draft of anything it would be on the front page of every newspaper---sdfjsl

[edit] "Best Spanish novel ever"

Why don't we just stick to the facts rather than put in something about how some people think it's the best story ever, which is simply adding personal opinion that can never be NPOV? If we can find references that show that Spanish-literature academics almost universally regard this as one of the greatest Spanish novels, then we could add that in, maybe specifying the academics. But simply saying "some consider it the best" (even with a cite to a trivial poll of 100 people from a book club) will always be POV, IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 17:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • See above, this is already discussed. We can stick to the facts, but the facts are: Some people consider this the best book in the Spanish language. Is it a "trivial poll"? It was cited by the BBC. (The BBC is a distinguished British news source, in case you didn't know) Yes, you can find websites that say that "Spain is the dumbest country", a concept that you so elegantly use as an example to boost your arguments, but those websites aren't going to get as much respect or attention from the BBC, and those websites won't be as credible as the BBC. That statement has been in the article for quite a while. Many Wikipedians have seen it and not removed it. CanadianCaesar 23:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I do know what the BBC is, but there are a lot of cases of the media putting more faith in a source than Wikipedia, which is supposed to be NPOV; BBC isn't and doesn't need to be. And just because other Wikipedians haven't bothered with it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. (I have no problem with Spain, btw. It's just to make a point that just because enough people think something doesn't make it NPOV.) Again, I'd have no problem with a referenced analysis on the novel's greatness by respected academics, but a British news organization citing a Norwegian book club poll isn't an analysis at all. —Cleared as filed. 23:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

This should not be an argument. Mr O'Rourke has his facts wrong, is all. The "greatest book" label is silly, of course, but the title has been earned due to the 2002 Oslo vote. This was not a random book club voting, but rather leading international authors. From the Guardian:

"In 2002, the novel was voted the best book of all time by a group of 100 writers, including Salman Rushdie, Nadine Gordimer, Wole Soyinka and Norman Mailer, in a survey organised by editors at the Norwegian Book Club in Oslo."

I am willing to submit to the opinion of Gordimer, Rushdie, Kailer inter alia. Bottom line: the fame of those who selected it should be sufficient for its inclusion in the article, and alleviates the NPOV suspicions cited above. See: [[1] Dottore So 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellany

I have removed the following lines from the para on the opening line:

En un Lugar…, says the french Don Quixote specialist Dominique Aubier, is an allusion to lugar not the village but the abstract idea of the jewish maqom. Don Quixote, she asserts is coded with hebrew kabbalistical keys.

It would be strange, and indeed unfair, if Madame Aubier were the only "specialist" to be referenced regarding this work. It must be noted that Mme Aubier is a specialist in finding kabbalistic messages in such diverse works as Hollywood films ('Bus Stop') and 17th century novels. One would, however, be hard pressed to recognise her amongst the leading Don Quixote researchers.Asav

It is not the right to remove that interpretation. It has been accepted by the Bar Ilan University, prof. Ruth Reichelberg confirms. She is a competent authority. As well as prof. Mac Gaha from Pomona University, California. Madame Aubier is a well known and respected specialist in Spain. I do not accept that the commun ignorant just erades what he does not agree with. I suggest to restaure the lines wich have been controled by a competent authority. Franck.


Response to above: We obviously want to avoid an edit war. I think that Asav's point is accurate. Setting aside Mme Aubier's satus, the fact is that an encyclopedia is not the venue for analysis of this kind. Dottore So 08:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Dottore : The question is not at all about Mme Aubier"s status, but the fact that the concept of the jewish maqom as lugar and Don Quixote as a complete hebrew coded work has been verified by competent people, like prof Mac Gaha, Pomona university. Even if the result does not please to several kind of people or ideologies ("analysis of this kind") we have to be serious and objective and respect the results of this linguistic investigation.

  • Ummm, from a Mancha resident POV, I think "lugar" it is not reefered to "village", neither to maqom. When used as "el lugar", "the place", it means a village, usually the origin village of the speaker, (vamos al lugar -> let's go to the(our) town). When used as "un lugar", it would be better translated as somewhere, as it has clearly some poetic sense.

I also agree somewhat on the "hebrew sense" that the book has in many places, but I think it is not very important due that the intended "hebrew keys" are not intentionally put as a secret message, it is more some cultural heritage from the jewish population in Spain (expelled in S.XV), that maybe seen from foreign people can be read as jewish keys, but in the space-time of Cervantes where normal elements in the culture.

[edit] Is Don Quixote a translated work?

There is a theory stating that El Quijote was not originally written in spanish, but in catalan language, and was translated because of censorship. This was not a special case but the norm at that time. Two kinds of proof are given:

  • Historical evidence of one Joan Miquel Sirvent who fits in, Cervantes being the usual translation for the name Servent. Plus evidence that other candidates don't match known data.
  • Several dozens of blatant translation errors present in the text. I give only three examples:
    • When they are selecting books to be burned, someone asks "¿quien es ese tonel?" (in english: "Who (which person) is that barrel?") that does not make any sense in that context. Catalan original would have been: "Quin és eixe tomell?" (in english: "Which one is that small book?". The spanish sentence would then be a literal, but erroneous translation (quin->quien; és->es; eixe->ese; tomell->tonel). The translator had misunderstood the seldom used word "tomell", and commited a syntactic error by properly translating "quin".
    • When Don Quijote is again sane, he "pasó graciosísimos cuentos con sus dos compadres" (in english: "He passed very funny stories with his two friends", this does not fit the context. The original would have been "passà comptes amb els seus dos companys" (in english: "He settled up with his two friends"). The translator having added the word "graciosísimos" to clarify "cuentos" in an attempt to make it understandable. The error is in not understanding the idiom "passar comptes" and translating, correctly, those two words but not their meaning as a whole.
    • In several places the expression "porqué me lo sé de coro", or similars are used (in english: "because I know it of choir"). This being a wrong translation of "Perquè m'ho sé de cor" (in english: "because I know it by heart"). Again the translator has missed the meaning of an idiom and translated its constituent words individually. "cor" can mean "coro" (choir) but also "corazón" (heart). The idiom does not exist in spanish.
I don't think that history is much credible. I think it has more to do that spanish in that age wasn't quite the same as the one we use now, and thus the renditions on modern spanish sometimes are not 100% right. -- (drini's page|☎) 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That kind of argument is a catch all that would cover anything without need for further explanation. Yet "pasar cuentos" or the other many errors mean nothing in spanish at any century.
Of course, it is a translation from Cide Hamete Benengeli :).
About de coro, DRAE:
coro4.
(Del lat. cor, cordis).
de ~.
1. loc. adv. p. us. De memoria. Decir, saber, tomar de coro.
Diccionario Critico Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico gives de cor in Gonzalo de Berceo, Libro de Aleixandre, Apolonio, de cuer en Siete Partidas, de coraçon in Aleixandre, Bocados de Oro and Primera Crónica General. De coro is in Antonio de Nebrija and "ya es frecuente en autores del S. XVI".
Please note that Gonzalo de Berceo is 12th century. About 16th century you are right, there are many books with similar errors. At that time all books writen in catalan had to be compulsory published in spanish. Complaints about this abound (Antoni Beuter, 1546; Lluís Ponç d’Icard, 1572; and many others).
My argument is that de cor and similar forms have a long history in Castilian (and in Occitan). --Error 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
About the other errors, can somebody check the recent edition by the Academies? I browsed its prefaces and editing Don Quixote requires a lot of work contrasting different editions and deciding on probable misprints.
--Error 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Some editions tried to correct several errors, thus giving an interpretation to the original. You should refer to the original version, available in facsimile form in the internet. The errors given here cannot be mistaken for typing or understanding errors (the text was read aloud to the typographer by another person). They are genuine translation errors.
From my reading of the preface of the Academies edition, you cannot take literally the princeps edition. It has several clear errors and many that incite doubt. --Error 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this is the first time I've heard about this theory. Do you have any supporting reference? 141.30.221.42 13:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
In the Catalan Wikipedia, they attribute it to some Bilbeny. --Error 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Refutation of Bilbeny’s “conclusive proof” that Quijote was written in Catalan mentions La prova concloent que el Quixot va ser escrit en català by Jordi Bilbeny.
Please note that in this attempted refutation only one of the supposed translation errors is addressed. Text there is in english and basically contain insults to Mr. Bilbeny. There are literally hundreds of translation errors found in El Quixote.
In that web site (histocat), it can be found the copy of one of the first editions of "Don Quixote" claiming on the front cover to be "This time, fully translated".

Three more examples of errors:

  • "le dejó ir a la buen hora". Not a spanish expression. Doesn't mean anything. It is the wrong translation from catalan "El deixà anar en bona hora" which means that it was a well done thing to release him.
  • "medio despaldado estaba". Again, this is not spanish; it's the wrong translation from catalan "estava mig espatllat" which means that it was half broken.
  • "ser los historiadores puntuales, verdaderos y nonada apasionados". The word "nonada" not exists. "no nada" are existing words in spanish, but this is ungrammatical. Doesn't mean anything. It's the wrong translation from catalan "no gens" meaning not even the smallest amount. ("gens" is usually translated into spanish as "nada")

[edit] Converso origin

One hypothesis I have not seen in the article is that of a best-selling book from this year, I think. According to it, Cervantes is actually a Converso from the kingdom of León and the landscapes of "La Mancha" are from León (Sanabria?). Don Quixote would be full of hints of this. I don't remember the title nor the author but it is on every bookshop in Spain.

--Error 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my dad told me that Cevantes came with it during prison and Quixote was actually just a parody of all the other stories iof knighthood and stuff like that. - summerwind159

[edit] Not a very good translation

Hi, I think that the tranl

[edit] Removing links

Hello, everyone, I removed the links for the cabbalistic encoding within Don Quixote. Two of the links link back to Dominique Aubier's page - I couldn't find a second oppinion on her claims anywhere on the internet. As for Prof. MacGaha's article: he claims Aubier was nominated twice for the Noble Price - could find a source to verify that either, which makes the article doubtful in my eyes. If I'm wrong, don't hesitate and correct me. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel reference

Norwegians may like to be associated with the Nobel prize and/or institute, however, only the Peace prize is handed out by Norway, literature and all other except the Peace prize are both decided and given in Sweden.

[edit] The unauthorised sequel

is given no mention in this article! Salad Days 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summary

Why is there no plot summary for this work? Major characters (surely Sancho and Don Quixote de la Mancha are not the only ones). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UAAC (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/n/Talk%7EDon_Quixote_5518.html"