Talk:Don Quixote

Editing Plot Summary

I am slowly editing the plot summary, removing unnecessary quotations and cleaning up the text. Unfortunately, many details and events get edited out or omitted in the process. If I have time, I might clean up further and add in the omitted or edited out details, but in the meantime, other editors are welcome to pitch in. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for, @LaivineOrodrim. I'm willing to help, but I'm afraid my help would consist of drastically shortening the plot summaries for parts 1 and 2 until they are close to the recommended upper limit for novels (~700 words). This is likely to be... slightly controversial. It would resolve several of the maintenance tags currently in place, though. Any objections? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally have no objection. Please do feel free to drastically shorten the plot summaries as you see fit. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I'll wait a day or so in case anyone else wants to comment. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

As yer man said: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly." What you propose has been on my to-do list for too long and main reason I've been holding back is my heavy-handed editing would definitely err on the over-the-top, controversial side, as opposed to the drastic and "slightly controversial" editing our IP friend is threatening us with above. Your proposal brings to mind those timeless words "Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay,..." Dally no longer, LaivineOrodrim! Tally ho, 199.208.172.35! --Technopat (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The hos have been tallied and Duncan has been slain (or was I not supposed to do that last bit? Let me consult my wife...). I'd like to address the tone tag, but I can't put my finger on the problem - Firestar464, what issues did you see? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

When I tagged the article there were things like rhetorical questions, which you seem to have removed. Looks good now. Firestar464 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Firestar464. If I was more talented (and knew any Spanish), I might try to get this article at least to GA status - which would top our coverage of The Divine Comedy, either in whole or in part - but alas. For now, an impossible dream. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for hosing all those tallies. Although methinks "more monstrous giants" will appear anon (or should that be 'anon.'?), a modicum of vigilance should keep 'em at bay... But in the meantime, if I can be of any service with the Snapish (as related to the present article, and bearing in mind that I'm more adept at cropping than trimming), let me know. Am not bilingual, but fluent enough to help out with both gist and nuance. As for that impossible GA dream, paraphrasing yer Man ("The Impossible Dream (The Quest)")... Go for it! (Have always been highly critical of GAs 'cos of the efforts made by fans to elevate their demigods over other more worthy subjects... And this particular subject, as so many other classics, is long overdue as an AG.) --Technopat (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Spanish semi-fluency would be helpful in this case because I see (not surprisingly) that this is an FA over on Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with their FA standards, but I'd bet there's a lot of good, sourced information which could be pulled from there to here. It's all going to be in Spanish, though, and the sources may not be easily accessible (to me, at least, with no Wikipedia Library access or anything of the kind), so my usefulness here is limited. I did recently order Salvador de Madariaga's Don Quixote: An Introductory Essay in Psychology on someone's recommendation, but of course that's going to be outdated, no idea of its current scholarly relevance. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I can help with the Spanish sources. Just send me the links. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's all Spanish to me - I'm not sure which sources would be useful (and I couldn't read them anyway). But if someone(s) with the Spanish and source access skills could give this a shot with me, I'm game. Dracula looks like it would be a good example to follow as far as layout and information to include. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'll start with the sources cited in the Spanish Wikipedia article. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced stuff currently in our version which would need to be either sourced or removed. If we're doing this, I'm not sure if it would be best to simply remove all that now, or attempt to source it first. My inclination has always been toward deletionism. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, after a look at the Spanish version, I see my idea wasn't a very good one. Their policy on inline citations must be lax indeed, and without those, there's nothing to easily transfer over. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'll ping Vami IV, who (IIRC) gave me the recommendation. See what you started, Vami? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Re using the Snapish version as a source, no comment. However, the search functions at the Centro Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes and Instituto Cervantes/Centro Virtual Cervantes do allow for searches using English words and have a wealth of links to articles in English on this, and several other subjects. Enjoy! (even though the CVC has one of the most annoyingly messy home pages I've ever come across...) --Technopat (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"So fancy"

'Fancy', as in "'cool', I'll go along with it" or 'fancy' as in 'fanciful' ("guided by unrestrained imagination")? With bated breath and on tenterhooks... --Technopat (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To reply in modern parlance, aka a meme: Why not both? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Historical Period as Part of the Setting

The subtopic "Setting" discusses the geographical location in which the novel was set. In my opinion there should also be a discussion on the historical period in which the novel was set, as this is also part of the setting. Thoughts? LaivineOrodrim (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There's certainly room for an explanation of, for example, the contemporary view of chivalric romances, which is important to the story (the novel itself describes some of them, but someone who hasn't read the novel, just this article, might like an explanation). Maybe even an overview of how real life in contemporary Spain differed from such chivalric fantasies - Wikipedia readers today might not easily notice the discrepancies. Short explanations of and/or links to contemporary events mentioned in the story could also be useful. But as always, the question is: sources? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I do have a source but just for a general overview, and admittedly, it's just one source. I'll see if I can find others, and maybe I'll do some edits based on whatever sources I can find. Thanks a lot!LaivineOrodrim (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd offer to help, but my reference library entirely consists of Disney Don Quixote Starring Goofy and Mickey Mouse, which I anticipate being of little use. But much fun. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lol! Sounds fun indeed! LaivineOrodrim (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"the historical period in which the novel was set, as this is also part of the setting" I read both volumes of Don QWuixote about a decade ago, and I thought that the chronological setting was rather vague. The character Ricote was specifically expelled from Spain during the Expulsion of the Moriscos (1609). Other than that, there is next to no information on political events of the 17th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

'and one of the greatest works ever written' ?

I'm rather suspicious about that list of 'top authors' who declared 'Don Quixote' one of the 'greatest works ever written'. I suspect most of them named it because they wanted to appear well-read and erudite, and ran no risk of being cross-examined.

Mark Twain defined a 'classic' as a book that ‘everybody wants to have read, but nobody wants to read’.

Aldous Huxley called ‘Don Quixote’ the world’s most unread classic.

S.J. Perelman, invited to write a screenplay of ‘Don Quixote’ for Mike ‘Around the World in 80 Days’ Todd told the producer that he had never been able to get past page six.

Quixote has lived on because of its characters who are real people, not symbols, and its scenes of comedy and pathos, but is, as Perelman remarked 'so soporific... it should be dispensed only on prescription.' ‘Don Quixote’ is known to most through stage and screen realisations, not the ur-text.

'Top authors' claiming to have read it - of their own volition - and enjoyed it, such that they might even quote from it? A hae ma doots. 110.174.255.160 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The characters arent real 88.5.24.77 (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)