I have completed Part 1 of Don Quixote, but there is still Part II to read on the plane. It is the second part that was published exactly 400 years ago in 1615 and which is cause for many celebrations, exhibitions, and events throughout all of Spain this year. There seems to be a lot happening in Madrid, but I doubt we will get to all of it since we are there first and foremost to see friends and family. However, we will do our best to see as much as we can, and knowing my husband, that will include the maximum number of museums.
So, we leave to Spain tomorrow on the 1st of July, but I did not accomplish my goal to finish the novel. However, in my defense, I was trying very hard to brush up on and polish my very rusty Spanish before this two immersion course with family. I have gone back through my old Spanish textbook and flipped through the pages of 500 Verbs, but there is never enough time or room in my brain to truly master the language. I need constant practice and study. It takes me time to really learn something, and I need more to be fluent. Still, I think I am leaving in a good place for now. I should be able to communicate, and while my conjugations will almost certainly always be wrong, they will be understood. We shall see.
As for the novel, it has continued to amuse and entertain. However, I have to say I was struck by two main things as I read this first part.
First, I was surprised by the almost crude, slapstick type, physical humor in the novel. I mean this in the best way. It is almost along the lines of The Three Stooges or Charlie Chaplin, or even today's humorists like Will Ferrel, who create these elaborate, ridiculous scenarios of absurdity. What I enjoyed most as I read these passages was the thought that boys would love to read this part of the novel. Teaching teenagers, I know boys are the hardest to get interested in reading, especially classical novels or anything that appears girly. If I could just convince them to try this one out, then they might see the humor and comedy in it. Maybe they could see an intelligent novel can be a funny one too.
The part that struck me most in this vain was after Don Quixote attacks a flock of sheep (mistaking it for an army) and is consequently attacked by the shepherds who have sling shots full of stones. These knock out some of his teeth. So, he asks Sancho to come look at his teeth. What Sancho does not see is that Don Quixote has just taken a swig of a magical healing potion (obviously, not really one but a rather odd mix of herbs and oils) that when taken the last time caused don Quixote to immediately throw it back up. This time is no different, except Sancho is looking in his mouth at the exact time Don Quixote throws up. This so disgusts Sancho that he then throws up back on Don Quixote. It is disgusting and gross, but I did actually laugh out loud when I read this part. It was so unexpected, and it was just orchestrated so perfectly. This is not usually my cup of tea, but it just worked so well in the context of the novel.
Second, what I did not expect were the inserted novellas throughout the second half of the novel. These mini stories within the novel felt to me like plays that he had written and then inserted into the novel. He does it ingeniously, without doubt, and manages to weave all the narratives together. It is reminiscent of Love Actually where all the story lines come together and end happily. It is true that each novella reminds me very much of a Shakespearean comedy, and it is no wonder Shakespeare based a play on one of these novellas, Cardenio.Unfortunately, I sometimes felt that too much time was taken from Don Quixote, as was apparently the critique of others at the time as suggested by one of the annotations in my edition. Also, it gets a bit out of hand, to extreme proportions, with a whole cast of young lovers and drama. But, I suppose, that is partly the design. They are fun little digressions from the main story, but there are perhaps too many people crowded into one little in in the middle of La Mancha!
On my list to read...
Anyways, I will go into more details later, but these were my first overall impressions from the first part of the novel. I should have some more reading time on the loooong flight tomorrow, and then our journey to La Mancha starts on Saturday!
I have jumped around a bit in this blog, but I read much faster than I write. Besides, I am enjoying the novel, and sometimes it's only food and sleep that can really keep me from a good read. I have been trying to read slowly and enjoy each chapter fully, but I have not been able to keep up with reading and writing. Besides, the weather is nice, the pool is close by, and it's vacation.
Still, I only have 5 more days until we leave for Spain, and I want to be ready for my literary tour of La Mancha!
I will try to start over and return to my first topic about the prologue. In Don Q, Cervantes employs almost every literary device used in any novel long before those devices were common. Remember, this is the first modern novel of the kind. Two of those literary devices are the frame story and the insertion of a narrator/writer who has been told the story and is simply recording it as heard or witnessed. Some novels that come to mind are Eaters of the Dead, Frankenstein, Dracula, Marco Polo's Travels, Great Gatsby, Heart of Darkness, etc. to name a few of the well-known frame stories with a narrator/writer character.
Cervantes' narrator/writer is Cervantes himself, but he is only translating the story of the famous Don Quixote as written by Cide Hamete Benengel, an Arab and Manchego writer from the past. Cide is a fictional character and a Moor, which is an interesting choice, but Cervantes employs this device to add dimension to the story and allow for occasional interruptions or commentaries about the original manuscript, Cide, and the novel itself.
Alhambra- Moorish Spain
Cervantes calls himself the stepfather of the novel, claiming that Cide Hamete Benengel is the father and true author of Don Quixote. I love the next part where he goes into an elaborate conceit about fathers/ children and writers/books. He writes, "Sometimes when a father has an ugly,
loutish son, the love he bears him so blindfolds his eyes that he does
not see his defects, or, rather, takes them for gifts and charms of mind
and body, and talks of them to his friends as wit and grace" (Gutenberg). It is true, is it not, that parents are blind to faults in their children? Most newborns are red, squiggly things and need some time to grow into cute babies, but no new parent would ever see anything but an angel. Cervantes claims it is the same with writers and their books. They do not see the flaws and mistakes in their prodigy, and instead go around bragging about how great their book is to everyone who will listen.
Then, Cervantes lets the reader know that he is having trouble writing the prologue to the story and finishing the novel because it does not have all of the things a good book should have, according to tradition and society. This is when a friend drops by and asks Cervantes what is wrong. This friend of his is no doubt the personification of satire, wit, and imagination, for this is where the modernity of the novel begins. Cervantes complains that he does not have a million sonnets, annotations, citations, lists of other books and authors, quotes from the Bible, etc. He has decided to not write the story because he is too lazy to find authors to quote when he can just write it himself and say it as well. The meta-textual nature and its commentary on the act of writing itself in this satirical prologue is astonishing and hysterical for the time period. I suppose the best comparison I can think of is Shakespeare's Sonnet "My Mistress' Eyes are Nothing Like the Sun," where he makes fun of romantic, hyperbolic sonnets while writing a very romantic sonnet.
The friend of Cervantes, then, gives great advice. For the sonnets, he tells Cervantes to write them himself and then just add a legendary name to claim it was written by that person. Then, he suggests just adding common Latin phrases into the book wherever possible and citing who said it or add notes in the margins. Then, he tells him to always use Biblical or famous names for anything in the novel, like the giant should be Goliath and all the rivers should be named Tajo (or Jordan or Ganges or Nile, I imagine) and then add a long citation and explanation for each with the history of the name and origins. And then for the bibliography, simple, just copy and paste one from another book. He is, of course, pointing out the uselessness of such pretenses and the false criteria for a good book or prologue.
Making fun of geeks while showing you are one?
Cervantes takes this advice and does just that, humorously, at the start of the novel. He is clearly making fun of this kind of long prologue and lists intended to show off the author's knowledge of other readings, Latin, the Bible, etc. He has read extensively and does know all of this; otherwise, he could not mock the need for them by listing so many and going through all of them. He manages to show off his learning while simultaneously mocking himself and the books of that time. I doubt he would have been very popular with writers of these romances or those who read them. Essentially, he says to just make it all up because it's all nonsense anyways!
I shall have to consider his advice as I struggle to write my own novel. It is fantasy, and yes, follows many set patterns, formulas, archetypes, etc. It is not wholly original, but since "what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun," I just hope it can be good and entertaining, if not novel.
Speaking of formulas and set plots for novels in the last post, I had to include this wonderful little excerpt from the novel as a I read it. I do not think I could do a better job at explaining it:
From Chapter 21 of Project Gutenberg Ebook:
[Sancho complains that they should just go to a king or emperor and work for him directly instead of wandering the countryside and getting beaten up]
"Thou speakest not amiss, Sancho," answered Don Quixote, "but before that
point is reached it is requisite to roam the world, as it were on
probation, seeking adventures, in order that, by achieving some, name and
fame may be acquired, such that when he betakes himself to the court of
some great monarch the knight may be already known by his deeds, and that
the boys, the instant they see him enter the gate of the city, may all
follow him and surround him, crying, 'This is the Knight of the Sun'-or
the Serpent, or any other title under which he may have achieved great
deeds. 'This,' they will say, 'is he who vanquished in single combat the
gigantic Brocabruno of mighty strength; he who delivered the great
Mameluke of Persia out of the long enchantment under which he had been
for almost nine hundred years.' So from one to another they will go
proclaiming his achievements; and presently at the tumult of the boys and
the others the king of that kingdom will appear at the windows of his
royal palace, and as soon as he beholds the knight, recognising him by
his arms and the device on his shield, he will as a matter of course say,
'What ho! Forth all ye, the knights of my court, to receive the flower of
chivalry who cometh hither!'
{the idea that he must create a reputation first through great deeds and sacrifice; I love the idea that there is probably a giant involved or magic enchantments, but it's not really important exactly what he does}
At which command all will issue forth, and
he himself, advancing half-way down the stairs, will embrace him closely,
and salute him, kissing him on the cheek, and will then lead him to the
queen's chamber, where the knight will find her with the princess her
daughter, who will be one of the most beautiful and accomplished damsels
that could with the utmost pains be discovered anywhere in the known
world. Straightway it will come to pass that she will fix her eyes upon
the knight and he his upon her, and each will seem to the other something
more divine than human, and, without knowing how or why they will be
taken and entangled in the inextricable toils of love, and sorely
distressed in their hearts not to see any way of making their pains and
sufferings known by speech. Thence they will lead him, no doubt, to some
richly adorned chamber of the palace, where, having removed his armour,
they will bring him a rich mantle of scarlet wherewith to robe himself,
and if he looked noble in his armour he will look still more so in a
doublet. When night comes he will sup with the king, queen, and princess;
and all the time he will never take his eyes off her, stealing stealthy
glances, unnoticed by those present, and she will do the same, and with
equal cautiousness, being, as I have said, a damsel of great discretion.
{of course, the king has a beautiful, virtuous daughter for the knight to fall in love with}
The tables being removed, suddenly through the door of the hall there
will enter a hideous and diminutive dwarf followed by a fair dame,
between two giants, who comes with a certain adventure, the work of an
ancient sage; and he who shall achieve it shall be deemed the best knight
in the world.
"The king will then command all those present to essay it, and none will
bring it to an end and conclusion save the stranger knight, to the great
enhancement of his fame, whereat the princess will be overjoyed and will
esteem herself happy and fortunate in having fixed and placed her
thoughts so high. And the best of it is that this king, or prince, or
whatever he is, is engaged in a very bitter war with another as powerful
as himself, and the stranger knight, after having been some days at his
court, requests leave from him to go and serve him in the said war. The
king will grant it very readily, and the knight will courteously kiss his
hands for the favour done to him;
{So, then, he is asked to take on a task that no one else can complete that is dictated by some Merlin type figure- notice how little important the details are of this adventure}
and that night he will take leave of
his lady the princess at the grating of the chamber where she sleeps,
which looks upon a garden, and at which he has already many times
conversed with her, the go-between and confidante in the matter being a
damsel much trusted by the princess. He will sigh, she will swoon, the
damsel will fetch water, much distressed because morning approaches, and
for the honour of her lady he would not that they were discovered; at
last the princess will come to herself and will present her white hands
through the grating to the knight, who will kiss them a thousand and a
thousand times, bathing them with his tears. It will be arranged between
them how they are to inform each other of their good or evil fortunes,
and the princess will entreat him to make his absence as short as
possible, which he will promise to do with many oaths; once more he
kisses her hands, and takes his leave in such grief that he is well-nigh
ready to die. He betakes him thence to his chamber, flings himself on his
bed, cannot sleep for sorrow at parting, rises early in the morning, goes
to take leave of the king, queen, and princess, and, as he takes his
leave of the pair, it is told him that the princess is indisposed and
cannot receive a visit; the knight thinks it is from grief at his
departure, his heart is pierced, and he is hardly able to keep from
showing his pain. The confidante is present, observes all, goes to tell
her mistress, who listens with tears and says that one of her greatest
distresses is not knowing who this knight is, and whether he is of kingly
lineage or not; the damsel assures her that so much courtesy, gentleness,
and gallantry of bearing as her knight possesses could not exist in any
save one who was royal and illustrious; her anxiety is thus relieved, and
she strives to be of good cheer lest she should excite suspicion in her
parents, and at the end of two days she appears in public.
{Their love is desperate and painful and full of dramatic words and gestures}
Meanwhile the
knight has taken his departure; he fights in the war, conquers the king's
enemy, wins many cities, triumphs in many battles, returns to the court,
sees his lady where he was wont to see her, and it is agreed that he
shall demand her in marriage of her parents as the reward of his
services; the king is unwilling to give her, as he knows not who he is,
but nevertheless, whether carried off or in whatever other way it may be,
the princess comes to be his bride, and her father comes to regard it as
very good fortune; for it so happens that this knight is proved to be the
son of a valiant king of some kingdom, I know not what, for I fancy it is
not likely to be on the map. The father dies, the princess inherits, and
in two words the knight becomes king. And here comes in at once the
bestowal of rewards upon his squire and all who have aided him in rising
to so exalted a rank. He marries his squire to a damsel of the
princess's, who will be, no doubt, the one who was confidante in their
amour, and is daughter of a very great duke."
{A happy ending, where once again the details are not important, as long as he marries her somehow and inherits and becomes king}
Every great writer has a very specific idea of what makes writing good. Most have written some sort of essay or treatise on the topic. Wordsworth compiled an entire collection of poems and essays to explain his ideas about poetry with Lyrical Ballads. Hemingway wrote novels dedicated to the question of what makes writing good. You can Google any writer today and find a website, YouTube clip, interview, article, etc. all about their thoughts on good writing.
I think most writers feel the need to justify why their writing is good, especially if it is different or not a blockbuster hit. The problem with literature is that it is so subjective. Thus, it is difficult for anyone to follow an exact formula to produce consistent results of critical acclaim, popularity, and financial success. So many writers have died penniless and unappreciated, like Melville. If you are like me, then you find Moby Dick to be one of the greatest novels ever written and your copy is annotated, sticky-noted, and well-worn. Even if you do not have a particular interest in Melville, you can appreciate his work, even though no one did in his time. He is one example of many who failed to be a successful writer in all aspects, meaning he wrote good novels, but no one read them or liked them if they did, and he had to take other jobs to pay the bills. Cervantes wrote what is now considered the best novel of all time, but he was not so lucky in his own time to be recognized this way.
Some writers have found the formula for mass production and making money. Unlike Melville or Cervantes, they have been able to find wide popularity and financial success in their own lifetimes. Stephen King has written 54 novels and 200 short stories, many of which have been turned into movies, TV series, and mini series. No one doubts his financial success with a net worth around $400 million. Danielle Steel is right behind King, though much of her success may be credited to the designer of her book covers and Fabio. James Patterson has written 130 novels with 19 as best-sellers. He
sells about 2 million copies of each. The secret to his success? Pay
others to actually write the books. Still, he is worth something like $350 million. Topping the list are other writers like Nora Roberts, Tom Clancy, and John Grisham. Grisham has written something like 30 books of legal thrillers and worth around $200 million. The other names on the list are familiar, you can browse the top 50 here.
I don't love everything King has written, but I like most, and some of it is really, really good
We have all heard JK Rowlings is wealthier than the Queen of England now (worth $1billion), and I imagine Suzanne Collins is doing nicely after the Hunger Games movies.
It may make me sound like a total geek to say, but I remember going to the midnight release of the books just to be the first in line to get the newest book =)
You have to admit The Hunger Games are pretty cool =)
These are the writers who write a lot and make a lot of money. These are the Lope de Vega's of Cervantes' time. Cervantes was not a King or Patterson of his time. He did not even enjoy so much success as Shakespeare, to whom he is so often compared. Cervantes did not like this kind of mass production. He was quite vocal about Lope de Vega writing too quickly and too much.Cervantes was probably also a little jealous of the popularity that others (who did produce mass quantity) received while he did not. He considered his writing much superior, more quality and less quantity, and yet, the public paid to see Lope de Vega's plays, produced frequently, and not the plays written by Cervantes. Lope de Vega "wrote approximately 3000 sonnets, 3 novels, 4 novellas, 9 epics, 3 didactic poems, and several hundred comedies" (Classic Spanish Books). According to Cervantes, Lope de Vega's plays had many errors and plot holes and all sorts of problems because of this mass production. It is the same complaint some may have of novels by modern writers who are more concerned about publishing quickly than editing carefully. Cervantes tried for quite some time to be a famous dramatist and to compete with Vega, but was never very successful. It is the reason Cervantes became a tax collector- to pay the bills his plays could not.
Street Tile in Madrid (I love these)
My husband took me to see a Lope de Vega play in Madrid at the Classic Theatre
Unfortunately, Cervantes was not any better at collecting taxes than making money with plays. He had a reputation for being bad with numbers, which is what got him imprisoned. This, however, may have been a good thing since it was in prison where he began to write Don Quijote. So, perhaps, things do happen for a reason. Perhaps there is some method to the madness of life. Still, even with the success of Don Quijote (part 1), Cervantes had more bad luck. The government took his rights to the book and its profits, and another person wrote a second part to the novel. Without money, Cervantes had to find a patron to support him to write a real second part to the novel. He was successful in this, but died just after its publication and before he could reap the financial or literary rewards of this second part to the novel. Cervantes' life as a writer was more akin to Melville or Poe who struggled throughout their lives to support themselves through writing. Cervantes was jealous and critical of those who did have fame and money, just as I am sure there are millions of writers who want to tear apart the novels of Rowlings, King, Grisham, Steel, Patterson, etc. And they are not wholly wrong to do so.
Anyways, why do I bring all of this up? Because the prologue to the novel raises the same questions that many people, literary critics, writers, professors, teachers, and students still ask today. What makes for good writing? Is popular writing good or bad? Breadth or depth? Quantity or quality? Financial success or literary acclaim? What is it that matters?
Are Harry Potter, Pet Sematary, Jurassic Park, Private Berlin, Fifty Shades of Grey truly great works of literature?
These types of books belong to what we call genre fiction...
And the formula to write one....
Now, I love novels like Harry Potter, and I recently dragged my husband to the movie theater to see Jurassic World because I loved Jurassic Park so much as a kid. I am an avid sci-fi and fantasy reader, so I never see my favorite novels on the list of Pulitzer Prize Winners. I love them just the same. And as great as JK Rowlings may be or as successful as King is, they are not Nobel Prize Winning Authors. Most of them do follow a pattern or formula and contain a lot of the same ideas. I love anything that resembles JRR Tolkien, but in the end, a lot of those fantasy novels are a little repetitive. I can admit that there are standards and archetypes that sometimes limit originality.
Since fantasy novels are very much the modern day chivalric romance, this is exactly the genre Cervantes is discussing. Though, I would say modern romance novels, thrillers, and mysteries also belong to this same category. They tend to be formulaic and repetitive as well. He is making a little bit of fun of the predictability of these stories. If you have watched enough episodes of CSI, you can see what he means. My husband and I can guess the rest of the plot about 15minutes into an episode of Castle. We love it, but it is predictable. It is not hard to guess the plot of most of these novels. George RR Martin was the last major writer to really shock his readers with the excessive killing off of main characters, but still, my mother and I are pretty good at predicting a lot of the twists and secrets of his series and every other that we read.
Who kills the good guys at the beginning??
The point that I am trying to make is that Cervantes uses the Prologue as his chance to, in a sense, expose the conventions of these kinds of writers, mock the formulas set forth by popular fiction, and set his up as something different. I have rambled on too much, however, for one post and will tackle the details of the prologue, the book burning scene, and Cervantes' satirical critique of chivalric romances and formula writing in the next post! Until then, enjoy the kitten knight.
I spent a ridiculous amount of time playing with the You Tube video editor, so that is all I will post for today.
This is my husband reading the first page (in Spanish) of the novel. I recorded it without his knowing it at first while we were reading together, but he'll forgive me:
From Project Gutenberg (translation of what he reads)
CHAPTER I.
WHICH TREATS OF THE CHARACTER AND PURSUITS OF THE FAMOUS GENTLEMAN DON
QUIXOTE OF LA MANCHA
In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I have no desire to call to
mind, there lived not long since one of those gentlemen that keep a lance
in the lance-rack, an old buckler, a lean hack, and a greyhound for
coursing. An olla of rather more beef than mutton, a salad on most
nights, scraps on Saturdays, lentils on Fridays, and a pigeon or so extra
on Sundays, made away with three-quarters of his income. The rest of it
went in a doublet of fine cloth and velvet breeches and shoes to match
for holidays, while on week-days he made a brave figure in his best
homespun. He had in his house a housekeeper past forty, a niece under
twenty, and a lad for the field and market-place, who used to saddle the
hack as well as handle the bill-hook. The age of this gentleman of ours
was bordering on fifty; he was of a hardy habit, spare, gaunt-featured, a
very early riser and a great sportsman. They will have it his surname was
Quixada or Quesada (for here there is some difference of opinion among
the authors who write on the subject), although from reasonable
conjectures it seems plain that he was called Quexana. This, however, is
of but little importance to our tale; it will be enough not to stray a
hair's breadth from the truth in the telling of it.
You must know, then, that the above-named gentleman whenever he was at
leisure (which was mostly all the year round) gave himself up to reading
books of chivalry with such ardour and avidity that he almost entirely
neglected the pursuit of his field-sports, and even the management of his
property; and to such a pitch did his eagerness and infatuation go that
he sold many an acre of tillageland to buy books of chivalry to read, and
brought home as many of them as he could get. But of all there were none
he liked so well as those of the famous Feliciano de Silva's composition,
for their lucidity of style and complicated conceits were as pearls in
his sight, particularly when in his reading he came upon courtships and
cartels, where he often found passages like "the reason of the unreason
with which my reason is afflicted so weakens my reason that with reason I
murmur at your beauty;" or again, "the high heavens, that of your
divinity divinely fortify you with the stars, render you deserving of the
desert your greatness deserves." Over conceits of this sort the poor
gentleman lost his wits, and used to lie awake striving to understand
them and worm the meaning out of them; what Aristotle himself could not
have made out or extracted had he come to life again for that special
purpose. He was not at all easy about the wounds which Don Belianis gave
and took, because it seemed to him that, great as were the surgeons who
had cured him, he must have had his face and body covered all over with
seams and scars. He commended, however, the author's way of ending his
book with the promise of that interminable adventure, and many a time was
he tempted to take up his pen and finish it properly as is there
proposed, which no doubt he would have done, and made a successful piece
of work of it too, had not greater and more absorbing thoughts prevented
him.
I am only about 50 pages into the novel so far, and it lives up to its reputation. It is very difficult for anything, let alone a novel, to truly meet the expectation of greatness. So far, I am pleased to say it has met all of my expectations. I am enchanted. It is whimsical, ironic, satirical, comic, and tragic. I find myself smiling constantly and laughing out loud at times.
This has, of course, led to many interruptions of my husband's work to ask him about everything related to the story and setting. I want to know more about La Mancha.
First, he showed me this clip of the TV show he used to watch as a kid in Spain, and it is adorable:
I think it is great for kids to be introduced to great literature through cartoons and songs!
We are also trying to plan our trip to La Mancha and my husband's descriptions of the region helps shine a light on some of the humor of the novel. The romantic vision we (and Don Quixote) have of knights and chivalry is from A) a different time and a place and B) fiction. Knights did exist and were a large part of feudalism throughout Europe in the Middle Ages/ Medieval times. That is why Medieval Times today is a restaurant where we watch jousting and eat turkey legs.
By the early 1600's, however, Europe had changed politically and economically, and Spain was a strong leader due to its wealth and military prowess. The focus of Habsburg Spain was expansion, trade, colonies, and gold. Cervantes and Don Quixote did not live in Medieval Spain. It was a time of explorers, not Knights. Tall ships and galleons, not horses. My husband and I just recently saw the Nina and Pinta in the river at Richmond, VA when we were there recently at the Boathouse, one of our favorite spots there. My mom took me and my sister to see all three (the Santa Maria was too big for the river in RVA I think) when I was little in the port of St. Augustine, FL. It was a long drive, and my sister and I hardly remember the ships, but I am glad my mom took us. It is funny sometimes how life comes around full circle. And I have to thank my mom for inspiring a love of learning, adventure, and history!
Just think about it. These three little ships sent across the sea blindly by Spain started an entire age of exploration and colonization!
These photos are from the Richmond-Times Dispatch by Phil Riggan
These ships, exploration, gold, etc. meant that trade replaced feudalism and merchants replaced knights in the daily life of most Spaniards. There was a king, lords and ladies, and knights (still are today, in fact), but they belonged to the courts of Madrid. They did not wander the countryside spouting verses of love. It was also the Spanish Golden Age for the arts with the most famous Spanish painter Diego Velazquez living and working at the beginning of the 16th century. Literature and art were changing drastically, and the medieval romances were going out of fashion. It was the time of the Italian Renaissance. I know this is meant to focus on Don Quixote and Cervantes, but it worth while to watch this video from Khan Academy about Las Meninas in the Prado Museum:
It was not a time of knights errant who wandered the Spanish countryside. Remember, this was near the same time that Shakespeare was in England. It was a Renaissance, a time of art and some peace, a time of progress and urbanization. It was a time moving forward. Besides, the legends of knights and the chivalric romances were, really, just that: fiction. The famous tales of King Arthur or of El Cid glorified and romanticized the idea of knighthood. In reality, knights were warriors, paid mercenaries, and while they may have followed the code of chivalry, their first priority was to follow the orders of their superiors (not ladies or the Church) and win military battles (not take vows of silence or write poetry). Here is an interesting link for more on knights: "We should be careful not to be blinded by the light refelcted off shining armor."
El Cid in Burgos
To make matters even worse for our main character who desperately wishes to be a Knight Errant straight from the medieval romantic poems, songs, and stories is that La Mancha in Spain was probably the worst place to attempt to do so. This region was, and still is, very rural. Named for the Arab word al-mansa, "dryness/wilderness," it is just that. It is a large plain of arid but arable land that stretches for many miles between Madrid and Andalusia. Its economy is based on vineyards, wheat fields, and sheep. And of course, its famous cheese. The somewhat difficult conditions and distance from the seat of the Royal Court meant that La Mancha was never a large or important center of chivalric romances or knights.My husband confirms that it is somewhat of a joke that Cervantes has Don Quixote originate from this region and includes it proudly as a title: Don Quixote de la Mancha. People did not go around dressed in armor or talking about knights in La Mancha in this time period. He cannot keep from laughing as he pictures it in his head, and I can clearly see the wide-eyed, dear-in-headlights look of the Manchego people when they meet Don Quixote.
Peanut Farm
I think the idea still works today. I am from Georgia, so I imagine trying to do the same (dressing as a knight and spouting poetry) around the south of Georgia with the peanut farms and the reaction I would get from the people there. At a medieval festival or convention, sure, people would be happy for you to dress as a knight or pretend to be a squire or princess. It would be somewhat normal, familiar at least. But going out into a rural part of southern Georgia dressed like a medieval person and 100% invested in acting the part? I don't think people would approve. Living in Colonial Williamsburg, I see colonial people buying groceries all the time, and after the first few times, I no longer even notice that Lafayette or Thomas Jefferson is in line in front of me buying chips and soda. But, the first time, it was weird.
In large cities like New York or Atlanta, you see weird stuff all the time. There are so many people doing so many things that it all blends together. You are no longer shocked by the strangeness of the way people talk, walk, dress, etc. I've seen cats being walked in Central Park. Naked cowboys sing to you in Times Square. In little five points of Atlanta, I bet a Don Quixote would be stared at a little and asked to pose in pictures, but there wouldn't be much scandal or concern. It'd be one more story, one more interesting character, among many.
However, in the rural South, where less of this type thing happens, where people work long, hard hours and tend to be more practical because of it, where communities are smaller and people like the familiar, such a spectacle would be more shocking. Especially since based on my year of teaching literature to rural teenagers in Virginia, they have not likely even read any of the medieval romances or studied the history of it. They have little use for such things. This is exactly the setting for Don Quixote, and Cervantes was genius in choosing the right place and time.
Landscape of La Mancha
Don Quixote's sallies into the world are somewhat successful at the beginning because no one know what to do when confronted by a farmer dressed in bit of pieces of armor and talking strangely. I think of the scene with two friars who are traveling and happen to be next to a carriage with a soldier's wife when Don Quixote passed them. Our knight is convinced that it is a captured princess in the carriage, and the friars are monstrous captors. When he addresses them in the archaic and poetic language of chivalric romances, the friars cannot understand what he means because both the language is foreign and the content is nonsensical. Keep in mind, they know nothing of the carriage or who is in it. They are just trying to get some where and happen to be on the road with a carriage. So, when a man dressed in armor (an very odd thing in itself) accuses them of kidnapping a princess and does so in the form of poetry and archaic language, it takes them time to figure out what is happening. It would have to seem like a practical joke to them, but I doubt elaborate practical jokes like this were popular at the time. Don Quixote uses their complete confusion to his advantage and charges one of the friars and knocks him from his donkey. Both friars run away as soon as possible, still unsure of what has happened or why.
Don Quixote is able to be successful because there are no princesses, captors, monsters, or knights in La Mancha. So, he manages to shock people into awkward confusion. He interprets their fear of his madness and retreat as signs of victory. Again, imagine someone quoting Shakespeare at a random stranger in a field while dressed in bits and pieces of armor and a bucket on his head. I wouldn't know what to do if confronted by such a person outside the context of a convention or show. And who would imagine that someone would actually charge at you with a horse and lance? People may dress up and act a part, but no one actually believes in that character or attacks you! It is a very amusing conceit for his novel.
I could go on and on, but this was meant to be a brief introduction to the setting of the novel and the region of La Mancha. I have digressed and ran on too long, so I will end with one last item. I recommend streaming this documentary on Netflix Lost in La Mancha (Read more here) and the curse of making a film from the novel.
