WeBuzz
Reader discussion: Don Quixote
Public reader discussion about Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.
I hated the ending of Don Quixote.
By hidden_wren
I was genuinely impressed (and honestly amused) by how Avellaneda’s bogus “Second History” gets worked into the story, and all the constant little shots at how it’s written. That part had me laughing a bunch.
Then the last chapter just flips a switch and Don Quixote is suddenly totally sane again as Alonso Quixano, renounces all the crazy stuff he did, and even dumps his lifelong obsession with chivalric romances. And the way his death is handled feels weirdly overdone too—like it’s mainly there to make a big point about him swearing off more stories, not to actually land emotionally.
The whole meta stuff has been one of the best parts of the book before, but here it kind of messes with what the story is supposed to feel like. Up until then, you can see him trying, with this earnest drive to do good even if he’s misguided. At the end it feels like Cervantes goes “nope,” turns everything into just a mistake, and basically repeats how much he mocks the whole chivalry ideal. Earlier it felt more like a careful cut to show how outdated it was; this feels like someone swinging a sledgehammer to make sure you get the message.
I can’t help thinking maybe Cervantes has been pretty hard on Quixote from the start, and maybe what people like me liked was just that patronizing “aww, look at the fool” kind of thing that gets mocked in the second part. But I don’t know—I still saw him as “wrong,” sure, but also as reacting to the muddy mess of modern life, trying to hold onto some clear, simple sense of right and duty. His heart felt in the right place even when his actions weren’t.
This ending just feels like making this big beautiful statue and then smashing it yourself so nobody can enjoy it. I really wish someone could convince me I misread it or that there’s another way to see it, because right now I would’ve been happier if it just ended more open—like him going off to bed in the penultimate chapter and leaving it there.
Trouble with Don Quixote!
By simple-market5111
I’ve been rereading a bunch of older books I missed when I was younger. I just read *East of Eden* and I loved it so much. Then I jumped into *Don Quixote* right after so I wouldn’t have to live with “I never read it,” but so far it’s kind of dragging for me 😬 I actually paused and went to something else. Should I go back and try again, or is it pretty slow the whole way through? I’m only around the end of his first little stop on the trip.
Why Don Quixote (maybe) wasn't crazy
By happy-bison1999
Hi everyone! I’m definitely not some expert on Don Quixote, so this is more of a theory I’ve picked up and been chewing on. I’m not trying to “prove” anything, just throw some ideas out there and see what people think.
I’m Spanish and I really like reading, so I had to get through Don Quixote at some point. Before that I read Martín de Riquer’s *Aproximación al Quijote* (which is honestly great), then the original text, trying not to miss stuff lost in translation/adaptations. And lately I’ve been reading theories too, especially Jesús G. Maestro’s work.
The main claim I came across is basically: Don Quixote isn’t “crazy,” he’s more like… disappointed with the world. And he acts the way he does for freedom, to dodge the law, and so that people just let him do whatever he wants. The reasoning was something like:
- Cervantes wasn’t really trying to trash chivalry books as a genre so much as attack idealism. Those chivalry titles were written way before 1605, and they weren’t exactly the mega-popular thing we imagine. Plus, Cervantes’ own life doesn’t really scream “optimism”: war, getting injured, being accused, almost being hanged, prison by pirates, and even a friend who didn’t help him get his ransom paid. So maybe he critiques stuff like honor, fame, war, romantic love, etc. because he has no patience for those values.
- There’s also the idea that Cervantes lies a lot—both about the book’s “point” and through the narrator. There isn’t some god-like narrator telling everything straight; we’re getting it through a historian reading a book about Don Quixote. So it’s like three layers: Don Quixote’s “real” version, the first retelling, and then the version we end up reading. Supposedly those deceptions are hidden as if they were just “mistakes” from one transcription to the next.
- And Don Quixote and the others don’t feel as simple as they get turned into. Like Sancho Panza is often shown as dumb and kind of greedy, but when he rules a town (even though it’s a joke) he shows he’s more capable than that. And he refuses bribes when it happens.
But what really messes with the whole “is he sane or not?” question are some things that don’t line up neatly:
- When he talks about things that aren’t chivalry—love, war, law, politics—he can sound surprisingly logical and sharp. And there are spots where people basically say he’s only “absurd” when it’s about chivalry, but otherwise he makes sense.
- There’s also a moment where he tells Sancho something like: if he wants belief for what Sancho saw in the sky, then Sancho should believe what Don Quixote saw in the cave of Montesinos. He’s acting like he’s fully aware of what he’s doing.
- And I find it weird how he reacts to real vs imaginary danger. He gets beaten up for his behavior and faces stuff like a lion, but with other scary sounds he reacts in a more frightened way than you’d expect from someone who just charged at “thirty giants.”
Anyway, I know this isn’t a final answer or anything. But I do think there’s space to discuss it. So yeah—was Don Quixote actually crazy, or not?
Done reading the massive book - 'Don Quixote' (Review in comments)
By DesertDog95
This was one of the hardest books I’ve ever tried to get through, mostly because there are a lot of little throwaway references to older Spanish stuff (and other old literature). The language is old English-ish, but once you settle in it’s not *too* bad, and it actually helps the whole vibe.
Also bonus: since it’s public domain, you can grab it on Kindle and audiobooks for free, which is nice.
My rough rating: 3.4*
I liked the basic setup—Don Quixote reads a ton of knight stories and decides to go do it in real life, and he brings along Sancho Panza with that “maybe you’ll be governor” promise, and off they go. There’s lots of adventures, weird people they meet, and even that whole “book inside a book” thing, which is honestly where the book really shines. A lot of the funniest moments come from the constant back-and-forth between the knight and the squire.
That said, if you’re not super familiar with the era or the literature, there’s a lot of filler. Like there are whole chapters that basically list and review knight books, plus Don teaching Sancho how to be a governor and stuff like that. Some of the incidents were interesting, but a few also just felt like they disappeared the second I finished them.
So yeah, I’m kind of wondering if I should’ve picked a more edited version. I did enjoy it overall, but I wouldn’t tell everyone to read the entire thing straight through. It’s more like something you experience at least once—either a shorter edition or if you’ve got the time, take it slow and keep it in your “someday” pile.
Story 7/10, Comedy 9/10, Characters 7/10, World 7/10, Meta 8/10. Repetitive/incoherent parts: maybe like 20%.
I read the John Ormsby translation (Fingerprint Classics paperback), and I actually liked the older style English—it was kind of fun to see.
Don Quixote
By cosmicChair98
I’ve had this sitting on my shelf for a while. I made it through the first couple hundred pages, but it just felt like the same thing happening again and again, and I wasn’t really seeing much in the way of character growth or any real forward momentum plot-wise.
I get that the first book is basically a bunch of standalone stories put together and published like that, but I guess I’m not totally getting why everyone’s so into it.
I’m willing to try again, but I’m honestly not sure if it’s my kind of book—what was everyone else’s experience?
Don Quixote…one novel or two?
By ReadsZenith
Kind of a nitpicky question, but I just started *Don Quixote* and I keep a spreadsheet of what I read. When I’m done, do I log it as two separate things (1605 “Part 1” and the 1615 “Part 2”), or as one full book?
I haven’t actually read it yet, but it feels like it’s two books—like a main volume and then a follow-up—so I’d normally split it. But I keep hearing people talk about it like it’s just one book, and I don’t really hear Part 2 called a sequel. Does anyone have a strong preference for how they count it?
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1605)
By WrenThunder44754
One thing I keep thinking about is that where I’m from, “Don” is basically like “Mister” or “Sir” in English. So whenever people say Don Quixote, my brain immediately goes to Mr. Quixote.