/lit/ - Literature

>>19929677
>and then make moaning sounds as loud as we could

Hall*ween is a satanick holiday. Do not take part in such evil mischief anon.

>>19032406
Women fuck me.

>>19031850
I post frogs on a mongolian basket weaving forum.

>>19029489
What are some books for this feel?

>>18864946
>Finally, Harold Bloom wrote an introduction to the translation which, when you read its title, would seem to be just the ticket. It is called: “Introduction: Don Quixote, Sancho Panza, and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.” So it looks like we’re promised something about the main characters and the author, something we hope will introduce us to the text and its author, maybe something to help us understand the text better. Instead, seemingly, the Introduction expects us to know the book already, and be familiar with the vast panorama of Western Literature as well, most particularly Shakespeare. Not much about Cervantes’ novel is really explained or even talked about. So, what’s the Introduction for?

>The first sentences are these: “What is the true object of Don Quixote’s quest? I find that unanswerable. What are Hamlet’s authentic motives?” (xxi). Two comments: First, I thought that don Quixote’s quest was really easy to define—to help the needy in trouble. Don Quixote says it many times. In fact, the Introduction later states: “Don Quixote says that his quest is to destroy injustice” (xxii), in which case why is the nature of the quest so mysterious? Later, the Introduction says: “In Kafka’s marvelous interpretation, the authentic object of the Knight’s quest is Sancho Panza himself ” (xxxiv). I don’t see it myself, but it’s another proposed answer to the question. Finally, the Introduction ends suggesting that: “We cannot know the object of Don Quixote’s quest unless we ourselves are Quixotic” (xxxv). (I guess the author of the Introduction is himself not Quixotic.) Second, regarding the comments dealing with “Hamlet’s authentic motives”: just what do Hamlet’s motives have to do with “Don Quixote, Sancho Panza, and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra”?
There is, in my opinion, much too much in the Introduction which has nothing to do with what an introduction to this novel should have.

>I gathered some data from the Introduction: Cervantes is mentioned 50 times, Don Quixote is mentioned by name, as “the Knight, or as Alonso Quijano, 65 times. Sancho Panza is mentioned 29 times, Dulcinea twice and as Aldonza Lorenzo once. The only other characters in the book who are named are Ginés de Pasamonte (10 times), also as Maese Pedro (6 times); Durandarte once, Belerma twice.

>team member giving an advert about a racial awareness course at a team meeting
>seeing the glazed and inhuman expression as this ambitious person toes the inner party line

What clownworld is this? What have things come to