← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24670665

22 posts 4 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24670665 >>24671114 >>24671119 >>24671145 >>24671164 >>24671180 >>24671547 >>24672451 >>24673776
How good is it in the original Castilian for it to be fellated as it is?
Anonymous No.24671114
>>24670665 (OP)
bump for interest
Anonymous No.24671119 >>24671190
>>24670665 (OP)
Books like this are felated for thier meme potential and smugness they create in thier readers.
Anonymous No.24671145 >>24671181 >>24671398 >>24673776
>>24670665 (OP)
You really think there are people on /lit/ who can read Castilian?
Anonymous No.24671164 >>24671167 >>24671182
>>24670665 (OP)
read the first two hundred pages then drop it. its a copy paste weekly serial publication pressed into one book after all.
Anonymous No.24671167
>>24671164
You haven't read book 2.
Anonymous No.24671180
>>24670665 (OP)
Bump because the word fellated has got me salivating.
Anonymous No.24671181
>>24671145
you think there are people on /lit/ who can read?
Anonymous No.24671182 >>24671398
>>24671164
Damn that's what I did. At least I dropped it some time after the boring story-with-in-a-story. It was something about a prince who was a cuck.
Anonymous No.24671190
>>24671119
the only people i've seen meme about books like don quijote and dante's comedy are ones who clearly haven't read them.
Anonymous No.24671194 >>24671315
>he thinks quichotte loses anything in translation
kek
Anonymous No.24671315
>>24671194
Yeah I imagine it does
Anonymous No.24671398 >>24671435
>>24671145
How difficult would this be for an ESL (Español as a Second Language) learning contemporary Spanish to read?

>>24671182
For some reason, people back in those early modern days thought that cuckoldry was the funniest thing in the word. There's a set of supposedly humorous Latin stories (written by a churchman too), where at least two that I looked at, the entire "joke" of the story was just that a man got cuckolded in some way.
Anonymous No.24671435 >>24671529
>>24671398
Basically as difficult as an ESL reading Shakespeare.
That is to say, not all that much
Anonymous No.24671529
>>24671435
I've speculated before that archaic authors might be easier in a sense for non-natives because they're less sensitive to how far the style is removed from contemporary speech.
Anonymous No.24671547
>>24670665 (OP)
as good as it is in english with more arguable "contextual immersion." i've never understood this shit with western novels. with latin, russian, japanese etc or something, i get it, but western languages have equivalancies for almost everything, even older ones. it's just pretentious literary scholars that overromanticize shit like this because it hives them an excuse to feel worldly about reading a book that millions have already read in multiple languages.
Anonymous No.24672451
>>24670665 (OP)
I kinda prefer El Criticón from Baltasar Gracián.
Anonymous No.24673776 >>24673791 >>24673830 >>24673840
>>24670665 (OP)
>>24671145
I read it in the original Old Castilian. My native language is Castilian. And it's not very difficult to read.
But although it's good, I don't think it's as good as Spanish propaganda says it is. I liked Amadís de Gaula better, which is the most famous book of chivalry of its time, and it's more entertaining too.
Don Quixote is just a parody of chivalric novels and copies many of the adventures in Amadís in the form of parody. And Don Quixote became popular because it parodied these books, which were the most widely read in 1600.
To enjoy and understand Don Quixote, you really have to read at least a couple of books of chivalry. I would recommend Amadís de Gaula and Orlando Furioso, which I think are the best.
People who say they liked Don Quixote and haven't read any books on chivalry, which is the majority, have always struck me as liars who praise Don Quixote just because it's a famous book and to look good, and not because they really liked or understood it.
It's like watching Scary Movie and saying you liked it without having seen any horror movies in your life. Obviously, you're not going to understand the jokes.
I also read Amadís de Gaula (1508) in its original Old Castilian. I found Amadís de Gaula (1508) more difficult to read than Don Quixote (1605), as it is a century older. In other words, it is written in older Castilian. But even so, I was able to understand everything once I got used to the way it is written. And although it is difficult at first, it is worth it.

I haven't read Don Quixote in English, but in its original Castilian it's not poetic at all. It's prose written in the style of its time, but nothing spectacular. Cervantes only became famous for this book near the end of his life, while his other books didn't achieve fame because he wasn't such a good writer. But with Don Quixote, he hit the jackpot and it became a bestseller. Then time turned it into a classic.
I don't think much is lost in translation. Borges said he liked Don Quixote better in English than in Spanish. The charm of Don Quixote lies in its story, and it is a book obsessed with books, and bibliophiles like stories where there are other bibliophiles, and I think that's why it became famous. I suppose that in its day it became a favorite of many readers because it referenced several books of chivalry that everyone knew and understood the jokes in. Nowadays, no one reads books of chivalry, which is why I am suspicious of those who say they liked it if they have never read a book of chivalry.
Anonymous No.24673791
>>24673776
I think people who don't read books of chivalry but still enjoy Don Quixote probably admire the latter for the originality and liveliness of its characters. Genius is always bound to be appreciated as a standard unto itself, with its original context forgotten or partially blurred. And genius expresses itself in more ways than just fancy prose.
Anonymous No.24673830 >>24673852
>>24673776
>To enjoy and understand Don Quixote, you really have to read at least a couple of books of chivalry
I don't think it's that necessary, most people have a fairly decent understanding of the common tropes of a chivalry novel simply because of how prevalent that type of story is to the public conscience, particularly thanks to the massive amount of entertainment media about the arthurian legend, Lancelot, Sir Gawain etc.

Also , keep in mind that Don Quixote is not a love letter to chivalry novels. Cervantes thought they were stupid and he was completely right. They have very little to no literary value, they were basically the lowest form of entertainment at the time, like Marvel movies or Isekai anime are today.
Anonymous No.24673840
>>24673776
Also, Don Quixote's obsession with chivarly books is just the surface plot device. The book itself is about a man who escapes into delusions because he stubbornly believes his ideal world is superior to the real world. Even if the ideal world is a lie, he stubbornly clings onto that lie until the very end of book 2. That story is relatable to everyone reading it today, regardless how much background knowledge they have about chivalry novels. The chivalry novel is just the 16th century stand-in to today's escapist media, which everyone who reads the book would be familiar with
Anonymous No.24673852
>>24673830
>They have very little to no literary value, they were basically the lowest form of entertainment at the time, like Marvel movies or Isekai anime are today.
I agree with your general point but this is a ridiculous statement. Some of the greatest works of literature from the Middle Ages are chivalrous, think Wolfram's Parzival.