[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 23 KB, 333x500, 413HGXT0H8L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4762271 No.4762271[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Pleb here.

I just got into reading, and started with pic related. I'm having a bit of a hard time getting through it.
The prose is pretty thick and it makes references to something I know absolutely nothing about.
I get that the prose is supposed to be thick in order to add to how batshit insane Don Quixote is though.

I'm about 60 pages in, was this maybe the wrong choice for a good first real book?
Also, how do you pronounce it? Key-Oaty?

>> No.4762284

"Donkey Hotey"
It is one of the earliest novels ever written. There are some others, Moll Flanders, Pilgrim's Progress, and before all those, probably Chaucer. But it is a solid classic. Stick with it anon.

>> No.4762299

>>4762284
chaucer? a novel? what

>> No.4762303

Are you not enjoying it?

>> No.4762310

>>4762303

I sometimes zone out when Don Quixote starts his monologues, but I have chuckled occasionally and I'm overall pretty interested in the story.

But it is heavy, I don't find the setting every interesting, and the references go over my head.
I'm not entirely sure if I could finish it before my interest tanks, but if the story picks up, I'll probably get more engaged.

I'm only 16 chapters in, so it's probably a bit early to complain if the story isn't very engaging yet.

>> No.4762311

>>4762299
the Prologue portion, yes. it can be argued that it is an early example.

>> No.4762318

>>4762310
It might be worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the general concept of chivalry, as many of the references are related to that concept.

>> No.4762326

>>4762310

Try following along with these lectures on the story -

http://oyc.yale.edu/search/node/don%20quixote

It's a Yale professor who teaches a course on the novel and covers the whole book. It certainly makes clear many things that might be obfuscatory and provides much insight for the modern reader as he provides a good historical context in which it was set at the same time as well as tidbits of the spanish culture relevant to the book.

>> No.4762327

>>4762310
Are you familiar with Tristram Shandy?

>> No.4762336

>>4762326
>>4762318
Thanks.

>>4762327
I am not.

>> No.4762359

>>4762336
You might want to take a look at it; unlike Don Quixote it's originally written in English, and it was written in non-English, so it's closer to familiarity. It's avant-garde and absurd something in the realm of Don Quixote, and once you get used to that and understand how to properly enjoy it and embrace it, then Don Quixote might go more smooth with ya (Trstram Shandy makes several references to Don Quixote, which was undoubtedly an influence).

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1079/1079-h/1079-h.htm

>> No.4762363

>>4762359
>written in non-archaic English

>> No.4762373

>>4762359
nigga do not make a newcomer to reading read tristram shandy if they are afraid of not getting don quixote. it's not closer to familiarity because he's reading the grossman quixote which is in more idiomatic modern english than shandy is.

>> No.4762387

>>4762359
are you seriously recommending someone having trouble with Don Quixote read Tristram Shandy?

>> No.4762382

Key-HO-Tay

>> No.4762377

I also find that it is helpful to have at the very least a cursory familiarity with both the Bible and Greek/Roman mythology. Mainly the former, however.

Another early novel is "Pamela". I found it fairly tedious, however. 'Moll Flanders' for my money every time!

>> No.4762390

>>4762387
Yes. Tristram Shandy is less plotted, so it's sampling a buffet throughout, rather than devouring a fifty-course meal.

>> No.4762394

>>4762390

How long is it, though?

>> No.4762396

>>4762373
Tristram Shandy makes it very easy to get into the mindset of savoring the confusing and nonsensical, so that these qualities cease to grate and become desirable.

>> No.4762399

>>4762390
what do you mean by "less plotted"? OP mentioned he was waiting for the plot to kick in for don quixote. so why recommend something "less plotted"?

>> No.4762400

>>4762390
You think a new reader is going to be comfortable with that level of digression?

>> No.4762404

>>4762394
A few hundred pages and unfinished. I don't think you have to read the whole thing--it's not really a novel like that. The writer set out to just fuck around and said he'd write about this dude until he died, and the "novel" is simply all the work he put in on the matter. He didn't have a definite beginning (indeed, the narrator takes a hundred pages to get around to his own birth) or end; it's basically masterpiece rambling.

>> No.4762407

>>4762396
you are such a pain in the ass

>> No.4762408

>>4762271
Which translation do you have?

>> No.4762412

>>4762271
I wouldn't force yourself to get through anything when you are starting out with literature. I usually don't recommend Don Quixote to people starting out because it's long and I don't think most modern readers would be really into its aesthetic. I would recommend picking up Crime and Punishment or something. Maybe The Death of Ivan Ilyich. I think the Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are the best entry points to srs bsns literature. Alternatively, Lolita, which for reasons I don't really want to get into right now I think is the best book to get people into literature.

>> No.4762415

>>4762399
Because it makes it so you don't need a plot to enjoy reading that type of shit.

>>4762400
Yes, because it is satirical in ways that realate to every day life--stuff like Uncle Toby forcing conversation digressions to talk about fortifications is funny because we've all encountered that, and we've all encountered people like the narrator. It reads more like lsitening to a blabber mouth, and in fact it's written that way: the narrator acts as if you are in the room, and tells to you "shut the door" and argues against things you are supposedly saying, and changes you from sir to madam because the reader could be either. The dashes simulate conversational pause, that's why they're so prominent.

>> No.4762418

>>4762396
not for a lot of readers they don't

18th century novels are like the worst starting point for a new reader ever. most readers never even get around to reading them.

>> No.4762420

OP have you considered starting with the Greeks?

>>4762412

I second Crime and Punishment. It was my first step into serious literature. Also if you don't like it now you won't like the next 900 pages just quit and come back later

>> No.4762424

>>4762408
John Ormsby's

>>4762412
I was thinking of Crime and Punishment or War and Peace, but I thought they were harder to get into than Don Quixote.

I figured I'd start with this, because I see it on a lot of beginner's recommended picks, and I didn't want to be one of those dorks that went straight to trying to read Machiavelli or Ayn Rand or something.

>>4762420
900 pages? Mine is only 400.

>> No.4762430

>>4762424
>900 pages? Mine is only 400.
enjoy the abridged version

>> No.4762431

>>4762271
OP I would recommend that you switch to the Grossman translation of Don Quixote if that's not what you're already using, and please put off Tristram Shandy until you've got a taste for stuff like that; feminister is just in love with watching himself, he has little interest in actually helping you

>> No.4762433

>>4762415
here's you:

>OP says he's having trouble with don quixote, not sure if he wants to finish
>worried the book is too difficult for him
>wants the story to pick up
>you recommend tristram shandy
>a more difficult book with more obscure references and less of a plot
>less plot recommended because "fuck you you need to learn to read without plot"
>false statements about how archaic the language is in tristram shandy vs don quixote
>don't seem to understand that one of the OP's troubles with don quixote is that it's episodic

i don't understand you. did you just finish tristram shandy or something?

>> No.4762437

>>4762424
>John Ormsby's
That might be it or maybe not.

>Mine is only 400.
I'm so sorry.

>> No.4762441

>>4762430
Oh shit, what.
God fucking dammit, that sucks.

>>4762431
Yeah, that's a good idea.
I didn't know I was reading a gimped version.

>> No.4762442

>>4762424
>John Ormsby's
getting a better translation might help

>> No.4762435

>>4762424
>Machiavelli or Ayn Rand
Both of those are probably easier, although DQ is more fun. Now you've started just read it, start second-guessing and changing books on people's advice here and you'll never develop the attention span needed.

>> No.4762446

>>4762418
Yessssss, you are absolutely right. That is because they are written as overly descriptive, abundance of adjective, dwelling on unimportant details and digressions, and so on. The difference is Tristram Shandy does that consciously and ironically, so it ceases to be boring because it turns that style into a skit; it exaggerates the description so much that it becomes overtly absurd, and you are no longer reading the description to get an idea of what's being described, but to laugh at how fucking ridiculous it is to talk that way.

>> No.4762448

>OP asks for honest help
>feminister stinks up entire thread with a horrible recommendation

why are tripfags allowed

>> No.4762447

>>4762442
>>4762437

I'm beginning to see why people bitch about the kindle store now.
What pieces of shit.

>> No.4762453

How is the Motteux translation?

>> No.4762455

native spanish speaker here. You english speakers will never fully enjoy the jewel that is Don Quixote in it's original language

>> No.4762457

>>4762448
We're all to blame for replying

>> No.4762458

>>4762446
so why do you think that a BEGINNING reader is going to enjoy it? many people hate it because despite the fact that it's self-consciously imitating a grating style, it's still written in grating style. why would a beginning reader not hate it for this reason?

>>4762447
yeah the kindle store is terrible for classics, IMO

>> No.4762468

>>4762433
No, I'm saying the books require similar mindsets to enjoy. Yes, Tristram Shandy is more off the deep end than Don Quixote is, and that's the point; it's not necessary the OP read Tristram Shandy cover-to-cover, but sampling it puts on the same page as that sort of writing because it's more clearly off the deep end than Don Quixote is. You can't enjoy Don Quixote like you can a regular book--you can try. But with Tristram Shandy, you can't even try, so it becomes immediately clear that you must enjoy those sorts of work differently.

>> No.4762466

>>4762455
cool. everyone knows that dude.

>> No.4762472

Just finished Don Quioxte 10 minutes ago. I liked it but not sure if I loved it, gotta let it sink in a little. Is it just me or was the stories in part one the best part?

>> No.4762477

>>4762468

Why in the fuck are you recommending Tristram Shandy?

>> No.4762476

>>4762458
>so why do you think that a BEGINNING reader is going to enjoy it? many people hate it because despite the fact that it's self-consciously imitating a grating style, it's still written in grating style. why would a beginning reader not hate it for this reason?
Because those are the most upsetting things to a beginning reader, the humor is readily visible and makes a clown out of everything that is scary about books.

>> No.4762483

>>4762458
Well, I'm glad that we figured this out before I went any further with the book.

Guess I won't even download public domain books from the kindle store. Is this a reoccuring thing though?
Like, what are the chances that my copy of Wealth of Nations is cut by 60% while you have to pay for the unabridged version?

Guess I'll download a proper version.
Is it Grossman's version I should be going for?

>> No.4762488

>>4762468
why don't you let OP read things like regular books for a bit and then he can get back to how much of a retard you are

>> No.4762491

>>4762483
>Is it Grossman's version I should be going for?
yeah i think most people agree that's the best right now

do you have a good library near you?

>> No.4762493

>>4762483

Actually your addition might not be abridged. The page numbering on e readers can be weird

>> No.4762506

>>4762491
I have a library in my town, but it's not very good. English is not my native language, so probably the only chance of finding the book is in my language.
Which of course means that it has been re-translated from the English version.

>>4762493
It definitely is abridged, I just checked the Amazon page.

>> No.4762515

>>4762476
>Because those are the most upsetting things to a beginning reader
Oh I hadn't realized you had your finger on the pulse of the frustrations of every beginning reader

>the humor is readily visible and makes a clown out of everything that is scary about books.
You really think a novice is going to to like proto-postmodernism written in the 18th century in an impenetrable digressionary style because it's deliberately written that way? You think that when he's 100 pages deep and is flummoxed and exhausted that the humor is going to be any consolation?

>> No.4762520

>>4762477
Because it brakes, crushes, grinds the ice into power, so that "getting it" ceases to be something you're sweating, and you can just focus on laughing.

>> No.4762527

>>4762515
It's written more in conversational style than novel style, so in a way it comes easier. It was one of my first "real" novels, and I personally loved it because it made me comfortable; it made jokes of everything that makes you uncomfortable about reading complex works.

>> No.4762566

>>4762520
Honestly, this is pretty stupid advice. It sounds nice in theory and it would be fantastic if it actually worked, but what is significantly more likely to happen is that OP, a novice reader who is already intimidated by the size and difficulty of what most people consider to be a fairly accessible novel, will be bored and confused by Tristam Shandy and thus will give up on both books all together. I don't know if you're consciously ignoring this incredibly realistic possibility because you wanted to hear yourself talk/be controversial? or if you have spent very little time around novice readers and are genuinely deluded enough to actually have faith in your "deep end theory" but either way your behavior is very annoying/oblivious.

>> No.4762570

>>4762566
>because you wanted to hear yourself talk/be controversial?
Bingo: you can see it a mile away

>> No.4762573

can anyone tell me why don quixote is considered one of the best novels ever? i'm almost done with part 2, and while i do like quixote's monologues, it just seems like the novel is very formulaic. don does something stupid, says something smart, sancho wants to leave then he decides to stay. rinse repeat.

pretty good novel, but there have definitely been better. is it just because it's one of the first modern novels is why it's so praised?

>> No.4762575

Where would be my best bet of finding a download of the Grossman version?
Does this Bookz channel have .mobi downloads?

That is to say if my library doesn't have it.

>> No.4762584

>>4762573
0/10, no one's stupid enough to judge a book written in 1605 by 2014 standards

>> No.4762587

>>4762566
You are right in that I haven't spent much time around novice readers. Perhaps you are right about the rest as well, I don't know. But since you are hardly the only one expressing that sentiment, I will conclude that you are right, and withdraw my recommendation.

>> No.4762592
File: 516 KB, 2203x2937, pink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4762592

>>4762573
/lit/ seems to think that novels are only famous because they're good reads—that is utter bullshit. don quixote was a milestone in literature; it ushered in a wave of lit that was accessible to the everyman, that drew nuance more from pop culture than from the arts and sciences. its allure isn't in its prose or its character development or in its symbolism. it's just a hell of a fun read. and it wasn't meant to be read all at once, or in english, both of which make it infinitely harder to appreciate.

this goes for Catcher in the Rye, too, by the way.

>> No.4762618

>>4762592
I disagree with some of your points, but you're right that /lit/ thinks famous novels must be enjoyable, but thats true for all art forms. People watch The 400 Blows or Citizen Kane or a von Trier movie and are bored because they think all classic movies should be whimsical good times.

>> No.4762629

>>4762618

But if art is not meant to be enjoyed what is the point? I get that some pieces of art are remembered more for their impact on the medium, but who is going to read 1000 pages because it is important?

>> No.4762645
File: 57 KB, 1005x438, lit rules.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4762645

>>4762424
>trying to read Machiavelli or Ayn Rand or something.
>trying
>Ayn Rand

whoever recommended Rand to you sucks in general, and specifically s/he sucks for implying that Rand is in any way advanced fare.

just skip Rand altogether. she's an ideologue that you either hate or like according to your politics, but she sucks at actual writing.

sage for rule violation

>> No.4762649

>>4762645

This wasn't actually a recommendation I received, it was more of a rhetorical statement.

>> No.4762650

>>4762618
"Whimsical good time" is a really narrow definition of enjoyment. You enjoy gummy bears differently than you enjoy port, but you ingest both for enjoyment.

>> No.4762654

>>4762629
"Enjoyable" is a bad word for what I mean. My point is enjoyment comes from many things. The average person wants to sit back and zone out and not think about things. Whereas I often get enjoyment out of having my preconceptions and ideas challenged. If every book someone reads could be described as "fun" then they have a very limited sense of enjoyable literature because they just want to read the mindless equivalent of a Transformers movie.

>> No.4762734
File: 2.92 MB, 394x222, 2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4762734

>>4762629
the arnolfini portrait is immensely important but i wouldn't recommend a random person look at it to gain a better understanding of portraiture, now would i? you'd have to do some research, have to gain a solid understanding of the context surrounding it, have to compare it to other works to really take any delight in it.

same with don quixote. why someone would pick it up as their first "book," i haven't a clue.

>> No.4762837

OP here, a question about author's and translator's notes, while we're on Don Quixote.

I've noticed that these notes can stretch on for pages upon pages, and in Grossman's version, the first chapter doesn't begin until page 53.
Is this generally worth reading? Or is it more just something you can look through if you're interested in how the translation went on, and history of the book and such?

>> No.4762948

>>4762837
Hey man, I'm about halfway through Grossman's translation myself and I'm really enjoying it a whole lot. I work at a library and a woman came in looking for Don Quixote because she thought it was something she should read at some point. Good on her! But the version we had in the library at the moment had NO footnotes of any kind, so I ordered the Grossman translation for her. I'm really enjoying it myself, and the notes add so much. Not that it would make no sense without it, but I would definitely feel like I was not getting the joke.

I pick it up every couple of months and a read 50-100 pages before being burned out on it, but I say stick with it! That's what I'm doing, even if it's only in chunks every now and again. This book has already almost moved me to tears twice. The insane man is the only sane one in the room.

>> No.4763114

>>4762472

dat government though...

>> No.4763745

Cervantes fought at the battle of Lepanto, what a badass.

My fav part was the slave story, he was also enslaved.

Whats with all the tripfags recently? Seriously, what do you get out of it? Are you so starved for attention on the internet?

>> No.4763763

I hate to break it to you, OP, but there are few books better than this one. Fortunately, if you're not enjoying it that could have more to do with your inexperience as a reader, meaning that if you go back to it years from now you might enjoy it more. More fortunately, de gustibus non est disputandum...literature comes down to matters of taste. You won't always like the classics you feel you're supposed to like. Nor will you always dislike the pulpy stuff you feel you're supposed to dislike. To be honest, I thought the beginning of Don Quixote was the book's strongest part. It might be better to come back to this book another time, when you can appreciate it more.

A classic (if you want to start with classics) you'll have more fun with as a beginner is The Count of Monte Cristo.

>> No.4763773

>>4762271

>and it makes references to something I know absolutely nothing about.

It's literally all explained in the footnotes.

Plus if you're reading the Grossman edition it has the most comprehensive footnotes of any translation available.

How could this possibly be an issue for you?

>> No.4763778

>>4762271
>prose is pretty thick
lmao

>> No.4763780

>>4763773
>Plus if you're reading the Grossman edition it has the most comprehensive footnotes of any translation available.

He said here >>4762424 that he's reading a different translation, and it's also abridged.

>> No.4763781

>>4763763

>I hate to break it to you, OP, but there are few books better than this one.

The new reader doesn't realize this. If he sticks to reading he'll probably forget about it momentarily along the way and consider it outdated, but when he gains a bit of sensibility and erudition he'll come back to it like it's the holy grail.

Same goes for Plato.

>> No.4763790

>>4763780

>implying I read every post in a thread before I make one of my own

Don't make me guffaw my monocle right off my supple cherubim face.

>> No.4763823

I, and everyone I know, pronounce Don Quixote as "Don keyshot". On my Dutch version the name is written Don Quichot.
Any Spanish natives can tell us the proper pronouncuation?


I finished it just 2 weeks ago, and I have to say I liked part 1 a whole lot more than part 2. Interestingly, when I was only halfway through part 1 someone on /lit/ said that part 2 was the best.

>> No.4763828

>>4763823
>I liked part 1 a whole lot more than part 2

Why? Part 2 is where the characters start to grow more, where Don Quixote starts to act more than just a crazy old man, and it's also where those boring digressive tales about princesses and shepherds go away.

>> No.4763847

>>4763828


The characters do get more depth, but not all that much. I find the the crazy of sancho and Quixote much more entertaining when they encounter random people. The staged adventures that make up a large part of the 2nd part were so dull.

>> No.4763853

>>4763823

>I, and everyone I know, pronounce Don Quixote as "Don keyshot".

Keep doing that.
Don't listen to anyone else.
Just keep doing that.

>> No.4763856

>>4763823
There is no proper pronunciation it is part of the continuing humour. Cervantes would probably have pronounced it key-shote-ee, Donkey Hotay is closer to modern spanish and quick shot is common in the anglophone world. Don Quixote would probably tell you that due to his noble heritage it was actually pronounced Qackrot.

>> No.4763897

just finished book one and had some good laughs till now.
What am I in for? Is the Motteux translation ok?
I love the wordsworth classics so I tend to buy these when available.

>> No.4763899

>>4763897
>What am I in for?
read it and find out

>> No.4763912
File: 2.66 MB, 3920x2204, 1397222447147.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4763912

explain to me in normal English what he means with the sentence starting with "Yet".
I'm not that fluent but I can cope with most sentences.
This one however is incomprehensible for me.

>> No.4763957

Don Key-ho-teh. Not tay, teh, like telephone.

The X was pronounced like the J, both letters were used, J is more common now.

>> No.4763962

>>4763912

The author considers it both impossible and unfair that a great knight such as Don Quichot doesn't have some writer recording his adventures.

>> No.4763978

>>4763962
So what does the author want to say with this? Is he liberating himself from his role and is he by saying he had to search for the history of Don Quixote, telling us that he "didn't write it himself"?
Is that little part something funny thrown in between?

>> No.4764016

>>4763978

Cervantes uses the "I did not write this myself" throughout the book, as a narrative device.
I think its also ment as a joke on Don Quixot believing all the books about brave knights to be true stories. Imagine a scholar just constanly walking behind the knight and writing down everything he does and thinks. This is how Don Quixot thinks all his favorite books are written, so Cervantes jokingly says that Don Quixot must have also had someone doing that for him.

>> No.4764592

>>4763912
"You wanna know what sucks? This knight doesn't have a scribe, those knights had like three, they got to write down cool adventures and thoughts, this knight doesn't :c"

>> No.4764767

>>4762271
did you get the edition in the pic op because it explains a lot of things as they go along