Portrait of the Artist Post 1

My first post about this book has nothing to do with the content, but everything to do with the structure. I am about 50 pages into the book and I am just now getting used to the dialogue format. At first it was very difficult for me because I am used to a double quotation mark to begin and end each spoken sentence with a second set for subsequent quotes. For example:

"I dropped my glasses" Stephen said. "On the footpath."

I am also used to the single quotation marks used frequently in English literature. Joyce doesn't use either of these. He opts for the dash marks to denote dialogue, but doesn't signal the end of the quote. He will start a sentence with the dash, indicating something spoken, but when he goes into the "Stephen said" he doesn't employ a second dash, nor does he use another dash when the dialogue continues. It takes a while to get used to, and often time I will think that a character is continuing to talk when the narrative has taken over. So it has taken me quite a while to get to where I am, but I am able to recognize it much better now.

Joyce is difficult to pick up at first because the text seems scattered. But I have a weapon in my corner that most people don't: I have an Irishman who studied Joyce while he was a young Dubliner. His insights are deep. I may steal some of his thoughts and post them here.

A Farewell to the Knight

It took me more than two months to finish Don Quixote. By the end I was spent and ready to be finished. But in the end the effort was well worth the reward. I see now why the work is so revered.

Warning: plot spoiler! I knew that at the end of the book the knight dies. Yet when it really came I was still saddened. I was interested to see the reactions of his family and friends. Throughout the book while Quixote battles his mental illness they all play along, even encouraging him at points. Yet when he lies on his deathbed of a physical ailment, they all try to cure him, telling him that he really isn’t dying and that he’ll be fine.

The niece, housekeeper, Sancho and Sanson Carrasco all curse his mental illness and rue the day that he set out on his adventures. Yet when they know he is to die they try to tell him to hang on so that he can recover and go back out on his next sally. And it got me to thinking: why? Why would they use his crazy exploits to cheer him up and help him recover? One explanation could be that they know in their hearts of hearts that nothing they can say or do will save him, and they want him to die happy reflecting on his exploits.

But I think the real reason is that they know his pending death has less to do with his physical body giving in than his will to live. They talk of his future endeavors to revive the vitality he showed while seeking adventures. In the end they fail and lose the most loveable madman in history. Throughout the book they try to cure him of his ailment, yet it is the cure of the ailment that kills him.

Quixote’s death is not the greatest tragedy in the book. The great tragedy is the fact that he dies sane. Before dying he makes out his will, confesses his sins and denounces all the books of chivalry that made him mad in the first place. He even forbids his niece to marry a man who has love for the exploits of chivalry. His sanity is ultimately the most painful truth of the whole book.

Next I will be shifting gears and reading A portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Dubliners by James Joyce. Feel free to pick it up and make some comments on it.

Quixote on his deathbed, attended by Sancho

Quixote, after being defeated by the Knight of the Moons

Sancho Panza

Much is made about the insanity of the Knight of the Lions. His escapades and misunderstandings make for great comedy and discussion. But little is said about the insanity of Sancho Panza.

In the film Star Wars Han Solo (Harrison Ford) calls Obi Wan a ‘Damn fool.’ Kenobi (Sir Alec Guinness) retorts ‘Who’s more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?’ This is how I think of Panza. Often Sancho spouts off about how mad his master is and how Quixote will lead him to ruin. Yet Sancho always ends by deciding to continue to follow his master.

Even though Sancho knows that the knight is crazy, he still believes that he is going to bestowed his island kingdom. He also allows the crazy escapades to continue, even though they frequently end up with Sancho paying the price.

I have just reached the part where the duke and duchess concoct a scheme to ‘free’ the lady Dulcinea del Toboso. The plan entails a ‘sorcerer’ who tells Sancho that he must flog himself 3,300 times in order to disenchant his master’s lady love. Sancho knows that Dulcinea is not really enchanted, but truly is an ordinary country wench. He knows that she cannot be transformed into a beautiful maiden because she is not one. Yet he agrees to whip himself over and over so that she might be freed.

In addition to Sancho’s own insanity, I have to wonder about the other characters in the book. In order to transport Quixote back to his home after his second sally, the barber and holy man concoct a plan to convince the knight that he is being transported by spirits that are out to get him, instead of just locking him in the cage. Everyone seems to play into his insanity, rather that fight it. Some do so for entertainment purposes while others do so because it is the path of least resistance. I must wonder how often I do this. I know a few people who are a bit crazy in their own rights. Rather than correct them, I just play along. It keeps the peace that way. Sometimes is it not easier to think that a washbasin is a helmet?

Quixote vanquishes his puppet enemies

The Knight Confronting the Lions

Quixote comforts his page when the 'monsters' of the water mill howl.

The forlorn knight being transported back home by the 'spirits'

Maxims from Cervantes

As I have been reading Don Quixote I have been struck by how many maxims and proverbs are in the book. I realize that Cervantes lifted all of these proverbs from various sources, but I’ve been highlighting them as I spot them, and have listed some of my favorites thus far.

- Until death all is life.
- When you are at Rome, do as you see.
- A man prepared has half fought the battle.
- Let the worst come to the worst.
- Delay always heeds danger.
- The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
- All will come out in the washing.
- Not with whom you are born, but with whom you are bred.
- God who sends the wound sends the medicine.
- Make yourself honey and the flies will devour you.
- Said the pot to the kettle, "Get away, blackface."
- Make hay while the sun shines.
- Leap out of the frying pan into the fire.
- I find my familiarity with thee has bred contempt.
- I drink when I have occasion, and sometimes when I have no occasion.
- Many go out for wool, and come home shorn themselves.

Don Quixote Part 1

Being that the Admitting Book club has been clubbed, I have decided that I will take over the blog for the time being. Since I always have a book going I have decided to use this blog as an outlet for my thoughts. Feel free to contribute.

Currently I am reading Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra and translated by Tobias Smollett. A co-worker of mine loaned me a copy of the book in the original Spanish, and at one time I had the ambition to tackle it. That notion didn’t last long. I am reading the translated version. Call me lazy if you will.

I am currently about a third of the way through the book, and thus far I have not been disappointed. Though I must admit I wasn’t sure what to expect. The only thing I knew about Don Quixote was that he attacked windmills, thinking in his mad delusions that they were giants. That particular event occurs early on in the book, which left about 800 pages to go.

I recognize that Cervantes was poking fun at the old tales of chivalry, and it is most obvious in his tale of Cardenio and Dorotea. While studying medieval literature and the chivalric code in college I was always amazed at how women were treated. The story of Cardenio and Dorotea is a good example of the disregard in medieval literature toward women.

I will summarize (and shorten) the tale as best I can. While wandering in the wilderness Don Quixote and Sancho Panza encounter Cardenio, a young man who has forsaken civilization and survived in the wilderness living like an animal. Cardenio is prone to fits of rage and spends his time in isolation lamenting his misfortunes and the loss of his love, Luscinda.

Eventually Cardenio tells why he has chosen to live apart from man. He was at one time in love with Luscinda, a beautiful woman who he had promised to marry. But before he was able to wed, his father sent him to work for Don Fernando, a wealthy young man. Cardenio confided in Don Fernando that he was to marry Luscinda, but upon seeing Cardenio’s beautiful bride to be Fernando decided to steal her away. He sent Cardenio on an errand, and then asked Luscinda’s parents for her hand in marriage, which they immediately agreed to. After figuring out Fernando’s plan, Cardenio returned to marry the woman who was rightfully his. He arrived just in time for the marriage, and to witness Luscinda say “I do” while he hid in a curtain. Cardenio fled the city and began his sojourn in the mountains alone.

Shortly after Cardenio confides his story of woe, we are introduced to Dorotea. He has been living in the mountains masquerading as a man while working for a sheep herder. Not having heard Cardenio’s story, Dorotea relates her tale of misfortune. She had been courted by a wealthy young man named Don Fernando (yes, the same). She had told Fernando that she would not give herself to him unless he promised to wed her. He did so, saying that he was her husband and that one day he would make it official. He then disappeared, much to the dismay of Dorotea. Dressing as a man she searched for him only to find that he had wed Luscinda.
At this point in the story I thought that Dorotea and Cardenio would connect and live happily ever after. It made sense, considering that the two had both been wronged by a lover, and needed someone. But no. Instead we find out that Dorotea had to go into hiding because her parents were looking for her and that it was rumored that her attendant was having inappropriate relations for her. Disgraced, she like Cardenio fled into the wilderness. Dorotea also relates that she had heard, before fleeing, that Luscinda had fainted after saying her ‘I do’ and a letter had been found in her breast that stated that she could not marry Don Fernando because she was committed to Cardenio.

When Cardenio hears this news, he is overjoyed to find that his love is not really married, and that she was actually faithful to him. His intent then is to return Dorotea to Fernando, and for him to return to marry Luscinda. So the man gets to return to his love, who had been faithful to him, where the woman gets returned to the husband who had betrayed her in favor of another woman. And everyone is supposed to be happy.

It is a very satirical commentary on the way that women were treated in the tales of knights errant. They are property, and their happy endings are contingent upon the happy ending for the knight. I am reminded of the tale of Erec and Enide. Erec, in his quest for greatness treats his wife as a tool. At one point he chastises her for warning him about impending danger and forces her to walk ahead of his horse while tied to a rope. He uses her as bait for other knights, who attack and are all killed by him.

The idea of women in literature being treated as property, and even being treated by a double standard of fidelity goes back even to the time of Homer. Fernando’s desire for a woman other than his wife is much like Odysseus’ relations with other women during his adventures home from the Trojan War. His wife Penelope waits for him faithfully at home, rejecting the suitors who court her in her husband’s absence. Odysseus has relations with the enchantress Circe, as well as a long relationship with the nymph Calypso. His extra marital affairs are viewed as acceptable, even necessary. Yet any sign of unfaithfulness on the part of his wife would have meant death for her. And just as the women from the medieval literature are treated as property so too is Penelope. Odysseus refers suggests that his wife is his property, much like the cattle and other property that the suitors so wrongly tried to take from him. Luscinda and Dorotea are likewise property, to be given from one man (fathers) to another. Luscinda only consents to marry Don Fernando because her father has given her hand, and she doesn’t want to disgrace the old man.

Cervantes meant to poke fun at the medieval tales of knights errant and chivalry, and this example of the folly of the men in regard to the treatment is a very subtle but very effective jab.
In conjunction with my reading of Don Quixote I rented the movie “Lost in La Mancha”. If you get a chance, I highly recommend it.

Chris' thoughts on 1984, Part 3

Did Big Brother really exist? Did Goldstein really exist? The answer to these question is that it doesn’t really matter if either of them existed. They were only embodiments used by the Party to represent good and evil. As the book explained Big Brother earned his name in order to give it a protective family reference. Someone who could be trusted and always there for you.

At one time Goldstein might have been a resistance fighter, chosen to be the face of all that was wrong with the world. Had he lived he might have been years dead by Winston’s time but still used subversively (kind of reminds me of Osama bin Laden).

When Winston asked O’Brien if Big Brother existed, O’Brien said that he did. But when pressed further, as to whether or not he was a flesh and blood man, O’Brien was vague, never getting pinned down. O’Brien claimed that Winston was not a real man anymore, but according to Winston’s definition of what a ‘real man’ was, Winston did exist. So by O’Brien’s definition, both are true. O’Brien defined man differently from Winston, therefore he did exist. But he didn’t exist because he does not occupy space in the way that Winston defined man.

Coming back to my point, it doesn’t matter. People thought that Big Brother existed, and therefore he had power. They were told that he was watching, and therefore were kept in check more by fear than by any real threat. With all of the people populating the world it would be impossible to watch everyone at once. But if people thought they were always being monitored, they would behave, just in case. The power is in not knowing.

It reminds me of an article I read of Michel Focault. In discussing the panopticon, the prisoner in the cell cannot see if the ward is watching him, and therefore will behave in accordance to whether or not he thinks he is being watched. If he is trying to do what he thinks is expected of him, he will behave in the chance that he is being watched.

Big Brother, and more specifically the Party hold power not because they have the ability to monitor everyone at once, but because they hold the illusion that they can watch everyone at once. People know the punishments for disobedience and therefore behave, and even train their thoughts to keep them safe from the thought police.

It is only those who give the Party reason to suspect them that are monitored, as is the case with Winston. He took and strange look from O’Brien to be a signal, and acted upon it. He was set up, and after he acted, he was monitored full time. But the majority of the people who spent their lives in front of a telescreen were probably not watched 24/7. Power, as always is more heavy when the illusion of power holds it up.

Chris' thoughts on 1984, Part 2

The ‘Big Brother’ created by Orwell was so stunning that decades later we still hear the term used quite frequently. It has even increased usage with all the clamoring of government spying on citizens. But I don’t think that it is appropriate to compare. Big Brother watching in Oceana is a far cry from what we think of today. The purpose of government spying in 1984 was to control people, to force them into appropriate behavior and to prevent deviations from the Party. In Orwell’s world the spying was a way for the government to keep people from finding the truth or acting upon it. I don't think that’s the case today. I don’t see people who are spied upon kidnapped, tortured and murdered because they disagreed with the Party. Sure, people may be implicated in crimes against the people of our country, but it is for the purpose of keeping people safe.

The term ‘Big Brother is Watching’ is meant to suggest that everyone had better keep on their toes and follow all of the rules set forth, or face the most severe punishment. In our case, any watching that may go on is for protection, not as a tool for incrimination. I think that George Bush is a bad man. Recent polls would suggest that I amnot alone in my opinion. I don’t have to hide my journal the way Winston did. His thugs aren’t going to come along and ‘disappear’ me as a thought criminal.