Category Archives: Reading

La Mancha in the rear view mirror

“…which the Queen Doña Maguncia, the Princess Antonomasia’s mother, so took to heart, that within the space of three days we buried her.”

“She died, no doubt,” said Sancho.

Though I have no personal experience of it, I’m told that people who complete marathons customarily get a tee-shirt announcing their accomplishment. I think anyone who finishes Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote ought to get one too (mine would be XXXL), featuring the date and illustrated with an image of the Knight of the Rueful Countenance tilting at windmills. Henceforth let no man call me illiterate.

What do I think of the whole thing? DQ is certainly a book worth having read. Like the Bible, it’s full of cultural references an informed person ought to know about. And there are certainly funny moments, as in the excerpt above.

But one of the things a modern reader learns from reading it is how different our world, and our thinking, are from those of Miguel de Cervantes. This is a man who respects the Inquisition, and takes it for granted that trashy books ought to be burned. He’s not evil – he’s a man of his time and place.

There’s the case of the Moriscos, for instance. The Moriscos were descendants of the Spanish Moors who had – ostensibly – converted to Christianity from Islam. A few years back, the king had banished them all, based on accusations of plots against himself. The novel includes two separate subplots concerning Christian gentlemen who fall in love with beautiful Morisco girls. In each case Cervantes strives to find resolutions by which the individual girls, who are always true Catholics, might be allowed to marry their sweethearts and remain in the country. But it’s taken for granted (and even the Moriscos themselves admit, in Cervantes’ account) that the expulsions were entirely justified.

There’s also a sequence where, with the encouragement of the Duchess, who loves to put Don Quixote through his mad paces, a young lady of her court pretends to fall passionately in love with him, to test his faithfulness to his lady Dulcinea. Don Quixote withstands the temptation to go to bed with her. We are informed, matter-of-factly, that the girl is 14 or 15 years old. There is, in Cervantes’ world, nothing scandalous about her age.

There’s a strange quality of metanarrative present in the second book of Don Quixote. Cervantes was largely goaded into finishing the book by the appearance of an unauthorized sequel, which was (according to him) unimaginative and poorly written. Don Quixote himself is told about this book in the course of the story, and goes so far, in one episode, as to choose to ride to Barcelona instead of to Salamanca, simply because the bogus book sent him to Salamanca. The intrusion of real life into the novel timeline raises all kinds of questions of subtext and alternate realities, which have no doubt been dealt with by critics. I’m not sure the scenario described by Cervantes is actually self-consistent, but trying to puzzle it all out seems like more work than I care to take on.

What impressed me most in my reading, though, was something I’ve mentioned before. While the duchess delights in playing tricks on Don Quixote, she reserves actual physical insults for Sancho Panza. We’re meant to laugh when Sancho is poked with pins, or lashed until he bleeds. Because Sancho is a peasant, his body doesn’t deserve the respect accorded the body of a nobleman. He’s a buffoon, the clown of the story, made of rubber like a character in a cartoon. His pain is meant to be hilarious.

My egalitarianism is, of course, another anachronism I shouldn’t try to impose on Cervantes, who knew nothing of such things. It’s unjust of me, really.

But I can’t quite avoid it.

So do I recommend Don Quixote?

I recommend it for anyone who wants to read it. If you don’t, I can’t criticize you greatly. You should probably read a condensed edition, though.

Don Quixote’s biggest fans


“…so Samson Carrasco told me, and he’s at any rate one that’s a bachelor of Salamanca, and people of that sort can’t lie, except when the whim seizes them or they have some good reason for it.” (Sancho Panza)

It’s getting to the point where I have trouble remembering a time before I was reading Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote. According to my Kindle, I’m about 75% through it now, and I still have nearly 7 hours of reading to do. I don’t imagine I’ll be finished before sometime this weekend.

The profound literary insight that’s made me so rich and famous has enabled me to identify plot parallels between Book 1 and Book 2. In each book, a large portion of the story’s latter half is taken up with a kind of a drama. In the first book, the drama isn’t labeled as such, but the story takes on the form of a stage play. A large group of people are gathered in an inn, and the Aristotelean unities of place and time are observed – three (if I remember correctly) pairs of sundered lovers just happen to be present at once, and obstacles to their love are overcome, leading to happy romantic endings.

In Book 2, the drama is more overt. Don Quixote and Sancho happen upon a hunting party led by a duke and duchess, who turn out to have read Book 1. They are Don Quixote’s and Sancho’s Biggest Fans, and they proceed to merrily torture them, somewhat in the style of Kathy Bates in Misery, though with more charm.

Employing their considerable financial resources, the couple stage scenarios where costumed players present themselves as devils and wizards and ladies in distress, purposely enabling the old madman’s delusions, for the pure entertainment derived from seeing how far he’ll go in his self-destruction. The duchess delights in toying with Sancho, playing on his desire to be governor of an island, testing how far he’ll debase himself in exchange for that prize.

I’m almost embarrassed to admit I found some of it funny.

Being a professional social conservative, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to the old class system. But as I contemplate the humor in Don Quixote, Book 2, I begin to feel like a Jeffersonian Republican. I even start to sympathize with the French Jacobins. Whom I loathe.

But there’s more of Don Quixote to read, so maybe this stage will pass.

Quixotic beauty

My opinion of Miguel de Cervantes’ classic novel, Don Quixote, based on reading a condensed version long ago, has always been that it’s a very long, difficult book that people read out of a sense of duty, but that few actually enjoy much.

I’m almost 70% through reading it now, and to be honest my opinion hasn’t changed a lot. It was a hilarious book by 17th Century standards, but it’s mostly plain hard work today. Despite amusing moments.

Today’s reading was highlighted by two major scenes. In the first, Don Quixote wishes to view a famous cave, and is lowered into its mouth on a rope by his servant Sancho Panza and their guide. While in the cave, the knight apparently loses consciousness and has a vivid hallucination, which he afterwards relates to his companions. It involves – of course – a castle and a couple famous knights, along with a brief vision of his own lady fair, Dulcinea.

Another big scene is a puppet show presented in an inn (I wish the author had described it in more detail – I couldn’t figure out whether the puppets were marionettes, hand puppets, or shadow puppets. No doubt Cervantes scholars have worked it out). Don Quixote, overwhelmed by the excitement of the drama, comes to the main characters’ rescue, smashing several puppets with his sword. He lives his life poised on the knife edge of delusion.

A topic I meant to discuss in an earlier post, but lost track of, was that of beauty. In a scene in Book 1, Don Quixote discusses with his friend the curate whether books of Chivalric Romance were true stories or not. The curate points out that the books are full of impossible creatures and incidents. Don Quixote’s response appeals to the spiritual – the stories must be true, he argues, because they’re so beautiful.

That’s a fascinating point, so packed that I can’t begin to deal with it here.

Keats wrote in his “Ode on a Grecian Urn” that “beauty is truth, truth beauty.” All my life I took that as a poet’s hyperbole. More recently I’ve been thinking there’s more to it.

Andrew Klavan’s book, The Truth and Beauty is one I’ve read several times without entirely figuring its point out. But it’s something to do with the idea that Beauty is a real expression of God Himself. In our mundane world, many beautiful things are corrupted by sin, but Beauty in itself is always a pointer to the Gospel. This is particularly notable in the experience of transcendent beauty, as when Wordsworth beheld a field of daffodils, or when Keats contemplated his Grecian urn. Wordsworth’s ecstatic experience of the daffodils actually led him on the road to Christian faith. Klavan thinks Keats would have become a Christian if he’d lived longer.

And it occurs to me that when a sinner repents and turns to Christ during an altar call, breaking down in remorse and suddenly in love with Christ, he’s having an experience not entirely different from those.

Nevertheless, Cervantes insists Don Quixote is wrong. In this world we live in, a thing can be both beautiful and bad. Beauty can be seductive, in a woman or in a story, or in an ideology. Socialism, for instance, is a beautiful ideology that springs from Romantic aspirations. But it leads away from God, and ends in death.

Relating what will be seen there

I’m sailing along into Book 2 of Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote now. I see no reason to disagree with most critics, who think Book 2 is a little smoother and better-conceived than Book 1. The author has more control of his material, and has learned to exploit better the possibilities in his characters.

Sancho Panza, his squire, especially comes into his own. Sancho has always been smarter than his master, in matters of real life, and he’s learning to manipulate him (quite often for his own good).

The scenario at the start of Book 2 is that Don Quixote is resting, somewhat against his will, at home – but his family and friends perceive that he still longs to ride out and have adventures. A new character is introduced – “the bachelor Samson Carrasco.” (I find it amusing that the bachelor’s degree, which has become almost worthless nowadays, once carried enough prestige to function as a title, like “Doctor.”) The bachelor is a well-meaning young man, and he comes up with a clever plan to entrap Don Quixote in his own delusions and force him to give it a rest. Except his plan fails, leaving the old madman at liberty to ride forth to adventure again.

Sancho Panza is a little more successful operating along the same lines. When his master asks him to go to his fair lady “Dulcinea’s” village and find her for him, Sancho doesn’t know what to do, as he’s never actually seen the woman. He solves that problem by waylaying the first three peasant girls he sights riding along the road on asses. The inherent problems that none of the girls is at all beautiful, and that they have no idea what this old scarecrow in armor is talking about, are easily solved. Sancho simply talks Don Quixote’s own language to him – his perceptions, Sancho explains, have been confused by evil enchanters. The old knight is a sucker for evil enchanters.

As I read, I was struck more and more by the resemblance between Don Quixote and today’s Woke college graduates. They have both alike been driven mad through reading and believing insane books. I think it might be a good idea to study Sancho’s strategy, employing similar tactics to disarm the Woke. (The bachelor Samson Carrasco, perhaps because he’s a college graduate himself, was less fortunate in this strategy. Caution is in order.)

I also have to mention one of the actual laughs I experienced in my reading. Cervantes, in the style of his time, provides a long descriptive title to each chapter. But Chapter IX is entitled, “Wherein Is Related What Will Be Seen There.” That’s a nice, dry little gag.

Quixotic minds

I feel a little like Don Quixote myself today, having taken a journey on Saturday and having come away feeling a bit as if I’d been tossed by windmills.

They held an all-school reunion in my home town this past weekend. Our high school’s history ran from 1915 to 1990, after which year the district was consolidated with that of a neighboring town. The reunion was for everyone who attended the old Kenyon High School (our team was called the Vikings, which shouldn’t surprise you at all). My class was not the most snowy-headed and venerable among those present, but we were well along in that direction. I saw many old friends and acquaintances, some of whom I’d not laid eyes on in almost 60 years.

Yikes!

I strolled with my brothers through the hallways of our old elementary school, which still exists serving its original function, subsequent additions having been built on in stages, pushing ever westward into what used to be our playground.

When I think about it, I realize that I have both good and bad memories of the place. But it’s the bad ones that come to mind when I’m just flipping through the negatives. We discussed the nature of memory, how every time you remember a thing, you overwrite it, as in RAM. Thus, the more often you remember an event, the more unreliable its memory becomes. Do I really have any idea what happened to me?

Don Quixote, the first book of which I’ve now finished, presents a not entirely dissimilar problem. The old, crack-brained “knight” is certain of his perceptions, though no one else sees what he sees. This is no postmodern book, in which we’re supposed to wonder what the truth is. Cervantes is certain of what’s what – one of Don Quixote’s faults is that he refuses to submit to common reason. He’s a victim of pride, though insanity gives him some excuse.

When the curate and the barber, who come to bring him home, manage to lure him back to the inn where he’s suffered previous humiliations, we’re treated to fully three inserted subplots. In each of these episodes, lovers with sundered hearts are reunited through sheer coincidence. One could easily argue that stories like these are fully as fanciful as the Chivalric Romances Cervantes has already condemned. I suppose Cervantes might answer that, a) coincidences are a lot more plausible than the giants and wizards and flying horses of the chivalric stories, and b) such love stories are morally useful, as they assure lovers that God will intervene to bring them together if they only submit to proper social and religious strictures. (If readers who are lovers are disappointed in this expectation, they’ll at least have been kept from sin.)

Don Quixote is a sinner too, if an amusing one. His humiliations are the fruits of pride, and the same goes for those of Sancho Panza, who’s willing to become a blind man led by the blind, in his ambition to be governor of an island.

The Counterproductive Dream

It was on Facebook or Twitter, just today, that somebody mentioned the movie, “The Shootist.” I commented that it was a very faithful adaptation of the novel, except that the final action (altered on John Wayne’s insistence) changed the entire point of the story.

Much the same could be said about “Man of La Mancha,” the blockbuster Broadway production inspired by (not based on, as the writers insisted) Miguel Cervantes’ Don Quixote.

I’ve never actually seen the musical, but I heard the songs multiple times, as my college roommate (confined today to a mental institution, I kid you not) was a Broadway musical nut. He especially loved “Man of La Mancha,” which was appropriate, because he never quite found a place in the real world.

“Man of La Mancha” takes the form of a play within a play. We find Miguel de Cervantes in prison, awaiting trial before the Spanish Inquisition (I don’t think that ever actually happened to him). The other prisoners try to steal his trunk of possessions, but their leader agrees to give him a “trial.” He is permitted to present a defense of his writing, and he makes it in the form of a play based on his novel. All the prisoners then act out the story.

The play includes the song, “The Impossible Dream” (performed above by the great Richard Kiley, who created the role) which became one of the monster hits of the second half of the 20th Century. I remember when it was new. It’s a splendid song, one of Broadway’s jewels. It’s also the precise opposite of Cervantes’ meaning.

Cervantes was delivering a warning against becoming so idealistic that you lose contact with reality. As a Christian, he understood that the body as well as the spirit must become sanctified. Don Quixote doesn’t only make a fool of himself. He injures people – and might have killed some of them if he’d been a little more accurate with his lance. He does kill a man’s sheep. He damages an innkeeper’s property and is too lofty-minded to even pay his bill.

Continue reading The Counterproductive Dream

Thinking about Don Quixote

“…and to put the whole thing in a nutshell, I persuade myself that all I say is as I say, neither more nor less, and I picture her in my imagination as I would have her to be, as well in beauty as in condition….”

I am now about a third of the way through Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. It’s quite a trek, and it offers ample fodder for thought. This thought, of course, I propose to dump in your lap.

It would be easy to call Don Quixote an attack on “chivalry.” It is that, in the sense that it parodies a literary genre called “Chivalrous Romance.” However, it’s far from an attack on the concept itself. Considering the general (low) character displayed by so many of the world’s great writers, Cervantes stands as something like a paragon. He fought bravely for his king in the Mediterranean wars against Islam, suffering a permanently crippled left hand (or arm) at the Battle of Lepanto. He was captured by Barbary pirates and enslaved for five years, leading several escape attempts, which all failed. In each case, he endured torture and refused to name any of his partners – in one instance nearly being executed. (Eventually he was ransomed.) He did father an illegitimate daughter, but he acknowledged her and saw to her upbringing.

What Cervantes seems to recognize in the Chivalrous Romance genre is, first of all, its poor quality. He was himself a great writer, and had no patience for shoddy work. But he seems to particularly object to the unreality of the stories. As a disabled veteran, he knew the real face of war. He must have found many of the Romances contemptible, just as a genuine secret agent might sneer at a James Bond movie from the Roger Moore era.

He sees even more, though. Don Quixote, through excessive reading of such pop literature, has lost touch with reality. He has entered a virtual world, walking around like a gamer in Google glasses, stumbling over actual physical objects in his path.

Andrew Klavan says that one of the most common objections he hears from Christians in regard to his fiction is, “But fiction isn’t real!”

Good fiction is real, in a profound sense (related to subcreation as Lewis and Tolkien understood it). But trash literature, written to amuse the reader through catering to his predilections and sugar-coating life’s tragedies, does interfere with serious, moral thought. (Straight farce, as in Wodehouse, I would insist, is another matter.)

Or so it seems to me.

Errant in La Mancha

A further counsel bear in mind:
If that thy roof be made of glass,
It shows small wit to pick up stones
To pelt the people as they pass.

“Sir, one solitary swallow does not make the summer….”

“…for it is my great familiarity with thee that has bred this contempt.”

I’ll need to beg your forbearance for a few days – or weeks. I feel I must cut back on my book-buying for a while, so I made up my mind to tackle one of those big, classic books that I’ve been putting off. Therefore I chose Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. This project must inevitably take a long, long time, because it’s a long, long book.

I’m not unacquainted with Don Quixote, since I read an edited version back when I was in high school. But I recall a college professor saying that shortened versions omit some of the most delightful parts. I’m curious to see what those delightful parts are, because – to tell the truth – what I’ve read of the book to date has never given me a lot of pleasure.

[At the top of this post I list a few common aphorisms I found in the text. Whether Cervantes coined them or borrowed them, I have no idea.]

I think of Don Quixote as “the book that, when they wanted to make a successful musical out of it, they had to turn its meaning completely on its head.”

Which brings me back to my old do-it-yourself psychological diagnosis – you can figure out any person’s neurosis through discovering what they don’t find funny. When we neurotics recognize ourselves in a joke, the humor drops abruptly through the floor.

I, for instance, am not much amused by stories about deluded bookworms who make fools of themselves in the world, and get laughed at behind their backs.

Anyway, I’m still less than a quarter through in my reading, and I’ve come up with one thought that may or may be of value: Don Quixote is the ancestor of the modern college graduate, who has been force-fed so much otherworldly theory that he can’t see reality at all. The liberal who observes a city sidewalk covered with homeless tents and human excrement, and calls it “vibrant,” is brother to Knight of the Doleful Countenance, who thought windmills were giants and country inns castles. The liberal who sees a tattooed thug beating up an old woman to steal her purse, and calls him a victim of racism, was foreshadowed when Don Quixote liberated a group of convicts on their way to the galleys, only to be pelted with stones by them.

A day trip, and historical meditations

I shall tell you the tale of my adventures last Friday. I was part of a group of members of the Georg Sverdrup Society, and we went to visit a seminary not our own.

I think I won’t mention the name of this seminary, though there’ll be enough clues to work it out, if anybody cares to. It is an impressive cluster of buildings on an impressive campus, with a  history going back to the 1870s. However, the church body it serves, which I generally refer to here as the Very Large Lutheran Church Body That Shall Remain Nameless, finds itself now unable to support the institution’s real estate, so the property is being sold. The seminary will continue, but in more modest quarters.

Because of this approaching change, our society president arranged a visit. It would allow us to view the buildings, the library (now being packed up) and the archives (soon to be packed up). We got to see a number of interesting items on display. Below is a copy of Martin Luther’s death mask, with matching hands (his right one swollen and cramped from much writing). Luther was a man who liked his carbohydrates:

There was also the legendary bust of Hans Nielsen Hauge, the Norwegian lay evangelist about whom I’ve written a lot on this blog. I had the pleasure of informing those present that this bust is not actually a portrait, but the product of an artist’s imagination, originally carved in wood for a ship’s figurehead.

Our guide was very cordial, so nobody mentioned the well-attested fact that seminary students have a tradition of holding a beer bash on Hauge’s birthday, with the bust present, in order to demonstrate their contempt for the man and his movement.

We also got to visit Old Muskego Church:

Old Muskego Church from Muskego, Wisconsin is often called the first Norwegian Lutheran church building in America. This is not true – I, for one, favor the Haugean church in Fox River, Illinois. But Old Muskego, which was moved here in 1904, is the oldest surviving one. A new location will have to be found for it. All our guide would tell us was that they were in negotiations about the matter. I have my suspicions, and I wish the project well. The old place deserves preservation.

We sang the old Scandinavian hymn, “Children of the Heav’nly Father” in harmony before we left.

Afterward we wove our way through circuitous highway repairs to Lakewood Cemetery, traditional resting place of Minneapolis’ great and good. There we visited the graves of Professors Georg Sverdrup and Sven Oftedal, the founders of the Lutheran Free Church. Our guys.

This outing got me thinking about our tradition, the Haugean movement, and its place in history.

Continue reading A day trip, and historical meditations

My top ten mystery list

Photo credit, Getty Images via Unsplash license.

Today is my birthday. Don’t ask which one. If anybody out there wants a birthday, you can have one of mine. I have a lot more than I need.

My friend Hunter Baker, of North Greenville University, has given tongue to the voice of multitudes, thus: “When, oh when,” those multitudes ask, “will Lars Walker offer a Top Ten list of his favorite mystery novels?”

To which I reply, “Why would anybody care what my favorite mystery novels are?”

Nevertheless, the challenge has been delivered, and I shall endeavor to give satisfaction.

First, some clarifications.

This list is not, and does not purport to be, an actual list of Best Books. There are whole swathes (I’ve grown uncertain how to pronounce that word: I’ve always rhymed it with “moths,” but other people rhyme it was “lathes.” Most troubling) of the mystery genre which I’ve rarely or never tried. Especially in the Cozy vein. Many passionate (sometimes frightening) people are devoted to Cozies; I haven’t got the nerve to laugh at them. I’ll just note that Cozy is not my cuppa arsenic-laced tea and, having writ, move on.

Agatha Christie remains, I believe, the most popular mystery writer in the world. I’ve read some Christie, but was not won over. Her focus is on the puzzle, not on the characters. Her readers delight in following clues and trying to figure out whodunnit before the Big Reveal at the end.

Me, I gave up solving mysteries long ago. On the rare occasions when I’m able to outthink the sleuth in a story, it’s usually because the author tipped his/her hand through trying to misdirect me in some way, and I caught him/her at it. I’m a better storyteller than a detective.

I read mysteries mostly to live vicariously through the characters and to observe them acting in extreme situations. I am not a man of action; I’ve managed to cram, I’d estimate, ten or twelve years of living into my three-score and several years of life.

With all this understood, here’s my Top Ten list. Purely personal, biased and subjective. Delivered with no authority whatever.

Continue reading My top ten mystery list