The ingenious hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha

The premise is interesting: an old man looses his mind and believes himself to be an errant knight and the world to be a huge chivalry novel. So everywhere he sees there is adventure to be had. Giants to kill, princess to save, fame and honor to be gained through valiant deeds.

Don Quixote hires a squire named Sancho Panza, a simple minded peasant that follows his master everywhere he goes. Because he's limited intelligence, Sancho actually believes everything his master imagines. So when Don Quixote says that the he is about to charge are actually giants, he is mistrustful at first, because all he sees are windmills. But when Don Quixote then says that the giants are concealed as windmills by the way of magic from an evil sorcerer, Sancho believes in him.

It is a simple yet sufficient logic. Because although mad, Don Quixote is still an intelligent and rational person.

Together, they travel trough Spain getting themselves into a lot of trouble. No matter what they face though, Don Quixote always maintains his delusional view of himself and the world. When all logical explanations fail, he blames it on magic. It is a perfect kind of madness.

Although not every adventure is very interesting, what killed the book for me were the many short stories intertwined inside the main plot. So Don Quixote might find someone in trouble on the road, and that person would tell him how he came to be in that predicament. Or maybe he finds a book, and then the next few pages is the story of that particular book.

All of these breaks the immersion of the plot and prevents me from appreciating the characters. The story isn't that strong to survive all this interruptions.

I read this in two parts, fair enough since it was published in two books ten years apart. I was surprised by how much the first part departed from Don Quixote's adventures to interpolate other stories from different people he meets along the way, and even a manuscript he finds (which may have been written by Cervantes himself, in a metafictional touch). The second part keeps the focus firmly upon the Don, because he has now become famous through Cervantes's novel (more metafiction), though a rival false Quixote is also abroad. His persona has hardened because of the self-consciousness this necessitates, but at least the story stays in one track throughout.

It was all very confusing and muddled, and I need to read it again to understand better what was partly obscured by my previous assumptions and ideas about one of the most famous books in the world. But I would already argue with anybody who sees Don Quixote as a benign, kindly champion of idealism and of the imagination, a notion that seems to be common. He's a coward and a fool, who can prate of great deeds but does nothing worthwhile. As such, he is probably a good representative for humanity, but the honestly self-serving Sancho is more palatable.

What to say about Don Quixote that hasn't already been said many, many times already? I suppose the thing that struck me most about the book was Cervantes's extreme self awareness. You are constantly being reminded that you are, in fact, reading a novel, almost to the point where one could argue that Cervantes was the first postmodern novelist. The concept in Part II of having it take place after Part I had been released, and characters knew of Don Quixote from reading his histories, as well as his focus on the fake Quixote in the latter part of Part II is genius. It's also hilarious, packing jokes and wordplay (that most often, sadly, do not translate into English very well) in every chapter. And although it isn't the most emotionally charged book of all time, it still stirred me as it all was coming to a close. As for downsides, the novel can be meandering at times, and go on for pages without very much introspection/physical events actually occurring, and most of the novel is fairly cut and dry. However, this novel is a must-read for anyone that wants to understand the Western Canon, or just wants to read a very good classic.

An incredible adventure, the first part being startling at how wonderfully original the premise is and then, in my opinion, the second part is perhaps the greatest achievement in literature... To effectively invent the novel, and then invent meta fiction around that novel while deepening the psyches of his two main characters, Cervantes is absolutely one of the supreme geniuses in all art. The best part about this book is that Quixote and Sancho are such seemingly static yet dynamic characters, their morals and resolve so steadfast, that they truly come to feel as friends by the end of the book. I don't think I've ever experienced that with any other novel, but at the end, there really was a small feeling that a friend had died, or a relationship ended, such was my love for the Don and his squire.

I read this book when I was in University. I do not remember it as a favourite. I remember being very upset with the ending (which I won't share here). I see that it is being read in one of my GR books which led me to write this review. For now I will leave my review at 3 stars, it was a ponderous read, with so many side stories and too much pathos...(now that was my 19 y.o. Stressed out Uni self review)....sometime this year I hope to read this again with 20 more years of life under my belt....I think my opinions of this classic will change. I'm looking forward to reading this with older eyes.

Wikipedia says of Don Quixote, “it is often labeled as the first modern novel and one of the greatest works ever written.”

The first point would be something I'd be interested in hearing debated. There are a number of aspects to the book – the highly unreliable narrator(s), the stories within the story, etc – that I think can be cited as markers of a modern novel found in Quixote; but, I'm not sure what other novels it is up against for the claim.

The second claim is just bullshit.

This book was actually published in two parts and the first part is aimless, jerky, and annoying. The second part is actually a bit more sophisticated, I think, and it opens by trying to address some of the plotholes from the first part. But the second part is more cynical than the first, and still very annoying.

Nevertheless, I find almost all the characters obnoxious in some way or another. My favorite is probably Sancho Panza, but he is either genuinely stupid or deliberately stupid. In any case, dude is a dumbass. But Quixote himself is deluded, self-righteous, insulting, stupid, rude, and fickle. Various other characters – like the Duke and Duchess – entertain Quixote and his delusions (Along with Sancho who agrees to go along with said delusions in hopes of getting rich) just so they can make fun of Quixote.

The plot is aimless. I don't find there to be much real character development or change. It's as if the episodes are written for pure absurdism rather than the development of any particular theme.

I understand the interest in the book. There are lots of layers to it even if ham-handedly executed. And it reveals a lot about 17th century Spain. Thanks, I would argue, to its lack of focus, there are a lot of details to pick at, analyze, and understand as revealing some aspects of Cervantes' life and times.

But to call it the greatest book ever written is as absurd as Quixote's own adventures. If someone tried to publish this today, it would be scourged by critics and abandoned by readers. I promise you: the art of the novel has progressed significantly in the last half millennium.

I'm happy to have listened to the audiobook. I hated the book itself. I enjoyed thinking about the book as a book and historical document, though.

Would not recommend unless you're interested in such things.

Sancho: ‰ЫПI only understand that while I‰ЫЄm sleeping I have no fear, or hope, or trouble, or glory; blessed be whoever invented sleep, the mantle that covers all human thought, the food that satisfies hunger, the water that quenches thirst, the fire that warms the cold, the cold that cools down ardor, and, finally, the general coin with which all things are bought, the scale and balance that make the shepherd equal to the king, and the simple man equal to the wise. There is only one defect in sleep, or so I‰ЫЄve heard, and it is that it resembles death, for there is very little difference between a man who is sleeping and a man who is dead.‰Ыќ

Sancho, about his wife Teresa: ‰ЫПI love her more than my eyelashes.‰Ыќ