/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1058323]

just got Don Quixote.

how good is it?

[Anonymous No.1058326]

There's a reason Cervantes ends up on the same lists with Shakespeare and Dante.

[Anonymous No.1058330]

ery good. I was actually surprised at how good it really was. And it's fun, too!

[Anonymous No.1058338]

It is the best book ever written. Well, maybe not, but it's up there.

[Anonymous No.1058340]

FUCKING WINDMILLS

[Anonymous No.1058378]

guess I'll have to file the dissenting opinion, then.

I couldn't get through it. there were things I enjoyed about it, but these archaic authors are just so mired in bullshit, reading a page is like wading through molasses. they did it on purpose, too. a million dollars says we go back in a time machine and speak to Cerevantes or Dante or Shakespeare and they sound nothing like how they write.

I understand that we're products of different times and conventions, but it's impossible for me to read their prose as anything but pretentious-as-fuck or at best caught up in some "keeping up with the Jonses" convention/dogma.

It is just no fun to read.

sorry, c/lit/s.

[Anonymous No.1058388]

>>1058378
>archaic authors
i don't think you know what archaic means. both Cervantes and Shakespeare were early moderns.

>mired in bullshit
give an example, we won't just take your word for it. give some evidence that your opinion is worth having.

>reading a page is like wading through molasses
how so?

>they did it on purpose, too
did what on purpose? so far all seem to have said is that you don't like their writing. are you saying they wrote poorly on purpose?

>they sound nothing like how they write
lol, why is this important? are you seriously suggesting that all literature should be written in informal, conversational dialogue? because if so you're excluding the vast majority of anything written ever over some arbitrary standard you haven't even bothered to defend.

>impossible for me to read their prose as anything but pretentious-as-fuck
please define the word "pretentious" and explain how Cervantes and Shakespeare are pretentious (i'll give you Dante; even a broke clock is right twice a day).

>caught up in some "keeping up with the Jonses" convention/dogma.
isn't suggesting that all writing should be mimic conversational speech a dogmatic convention? besides, i'm not sure you could even articulate what sorts of conventions/dogmas you think these authors are aiming for. Basically you're an uneducated would-be contrarian talking out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.1058390]

>>1058388
oh, and I can tell you're uneducated because (for example) you criticize Dante because if you talked to him he would "sound nothing like (he) writes," when in fact Dante was an early adopter of the use of vernacular (you know, the language the common people speak in) in literature, not to mention the several examples of earthy, conversational dialogue he employs in his Comedy. so yeah, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.1058404]

Protip: Quixote is not insane. I just increased your enjoyment of the book by a factor of 10.

[Anonymous No.1058417]

Read the Edith Grossman translation. The prose is as clear as day, it's true to Cervantes' intentions, and it's also quite funny.

[Anonymous No.1058419]

>>1058378

[Anonymous No.1059586]

Bump.