LOL look he thinks he's a knight xD

Based XVIoomer knight-errant

Don Quixote is one of those books that faux-intellectuals like to namedrop for their taste to seem more 'eclectic' and not just limited to the Anglo-Saxon canon and Russian realism.

You need to be 18 to post here.

You can say that about any classic novel, it doesn't make it true

You need to have a decent-to-solid understanding of the social structures/movements in Spain during the time to understand any of the subtext.

99% of people do not have this unless they are Spanish. Personally I blame western education for being so limited in geographic scope

If you need that amount of context to understand, why is it so highly praised Internationally?

Actually, the novel mocks the vulgar world the herd has created. Quijote is good and right always, while the rest of the characters are quite vulgar and low. For example, treating a prostituted like a lady and getting mocked for it.

I didn't even end up finishing this. Maybe it's better in Spanish or I just didn't have the cultural context to understand the humor, but a fat sidekick on a donkey is bitch teir comedy and the fighting windmills stichk got old pretty fast.

You're an absolute fucking brain dead cuckold if that's your honest and unironic interpretation of Don Quixote. De Cervantes fought at Lepanto and lost the use of his arm during the battle. He considered that battle his greatest honor and achievement, probably because even with the success of Don Quixote he was still poor as fuck constantly. He was even nicknamed the one armed man of Lepanto, it won him free meals and drinks. He was sick as fuck when the invasion started and his captain advised him to stay away from the fighting and he said
>“. . . up to now I have served as a good soldier. I shall not do less on this occasion, even though I am weak and full of fever. It is better that I should fight in the service of God and the king and die for them, than keep under cover.”

Does that sound like your average ironic, , post-national, passive-aggressive urbanite? To the extent that he was mocking anything in Don Quixote, he was ridiculing what is essentially the capeshit archetype. Interpretations have varied over the centuries but you're not even fucking close to any legitimate take.

>He IS a knight
ftfy

>cuckold
>capeshit
>take

Attached: 8889.png (200x196, 21K)

maybe he was just a bad writer then

Your disgust validates nothing. You have no fucking argument.

arthurian knights were basically the capeshit of the day tho

More likely that pseuds on this board can't grasp basic shit.

They had cheap novels that were basically on-par with comic books or marvel movies. Anything Arthurian wasn't quite as low-brow. But close.

Not sure how the mockery of wannabe knights is incompatible to what Cervantes said, plus an author and his works are essentially different entities. My interpretation is as valid as yours.

they were like comic books though in terms of the constant retcons and new OC's being introduced etc, superpowers like galahad being able to kill 50 knights solo etc and how it was like 1 (cinematic) universe with dozens of different writers adding to it

>the mockery of wannabe knights
You never said that. You said that "chivalry", was a thing to mock and ridicule at the time, you tryhard, passive-aggressive leftist faggot. What de Cervantes was doing was having a bit of fun about the way the romanticization of immature notions of chivalry and martial virtue developed in his time. If you would have ever actually read the first chapter of the fucking book or known anything about the man you may have understood this. I doubt it though.

good post, made me laugh

>superpowers like galahad being able to kill 50 knights solo
This was absolutely what de Cervantes was referring to, kek. Unironically, perhaps they had different writers adding to the stories because of avg. lifespan in the middle ages. Perceval was one of the most incredible stories ever written imo, for instance. It is incomplete because de Troyes died and maybe other potential writers just didn't want to blow it.

>You said that "chivalry", was a thing to mock and ridicule at the time
>What de Cervantes was doing was having a bit of fun about the way the romanticization of immature notions of chivalry and martial virtue developed in his time.
That's essentially the same shit but with more flies and different smell. Also I've read the book in an annotated edition in Spanish. And I lean right btw.

>That's essentially the same
It's not. The core concept of chivalry isn't being ridiculed, there is no contempt for the immaturity and delusion of Alonso. You are once again wrong about everything, fucking remarkable.
>And I lean right btw
Which is why you scoff at the idea of bravery and reduce this novel to mere satire. Sure thing, kid.

>Which is why you scoff at the idea of bravery and reduce this novel to mere satire. Sure thing, kid.
I never "reduced" the novel to mere satire, though. If anything the satire and bittersweet nature of the story set it apart from those solemn dull turds in the canon.

Some of the worst discussion about Cervantes I've seen anywhere in the internet, bravo.

OK retard

even disregarding the historical subtext in which Cervantes wrote, Don Quixote has so much to offer in the theme of the coming of the "golden age"

did you even pay attention?

We weren't discussing Cervantes.

It isn't satire at all though. Alonso isn't stupid or of a low opinion, he is legit sick, fucking delusional. I think the balance between tragedy and comedy are more what you're referring to, and it does set the book apart from most all others for that reason and many more. Maybe I was being too hard on you (autism) but when pseuds here use the word reactionary unironically it rustles my jimmies. The book is more complex than what you were describing it as in that original post though, and de Cervantes was a man of honor, not the type to mock or use smuggy insults in general, especially not in a book with his name on it.

Anecdotally english translations read very "academic" while in the original spanish the tone is very laid back and almost informal for the era, similar to the picaresques it likely was inspired by. This might be why some people are (apparently) getting the idea that Cervantes was pretentious, like .
Another thing to understand is that nobody *really* took chivalry all that seriously even during the middle ages and it was already getting kind of passé by the High Middle Ages let alone the fucking Early Modern period during which Don Quixote was written. Alonso isn't crazy because he thinks he's a knight, he's crazy because he thinks he's a knight from like 100 years prior to the time period on which the story is set, the knight-errant literature which drove him crazy was kind of old-fashioned by itself, and the entire concept of nobility that chivalry was meant to reinforce no longer existed to any real extent. He's also pretending to be a much higher-ranked noble than he actually is (which Sancho's wife points out at the beginning of the second part) and he's wearing his grandparent's antique arms which look blatantly out of place and many characters remark upon.

The second part is far more poignant and thematically complex so I'd greatly advise people to stick with it even if they don't find the first one very funny.