I doubt it. King Lear is kind of alien to me, and Macbeth eerily accurate. I like the weird late comedies best, especially Measure For Measure and Antony And Cleopatra--which is usually not considered particularly comic. But that's the way I see it.
I give a frick about the greatest knight errant in all of knight errantry don quixote de la mancha and his faithful squire sancha panza, idgaf about shakespeare though, watching throne of blood was the closest exposure I've got to him
No, Cervantes and Shakespeare are pretty much on equal footing when considering their entire works (people often forget Cervantes wrote theater and short stories, the Entremeses, along with poetry). Considering it took three frenchmen (Corneille, Molière, Racine) to measure up to them at the same time, I think only Montaigne could make a stab at their infinite variety; and this only by constant, minute self-reflection that still could not condense into eloquent, beautiful verses. Book 2 of Don Quixote is like Dante's Purgatorio and Paradiso: you have to work at it, but the rewards are beyond reckoning. And it is beautiful to see something so long in the making become fruitful.
Read Henry Fielding after these, Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones are wonderful after having filled with Shakespeare and Cervantes.
Rabelais is almost sardonic in his medieval, reaching wit . The four/five volumes that comprise his book are an amalgamation of erudite imagination which prefigure a lot of later, playful prose. His constant neologisms sparked a playful spirit in french letters that equals Shakespeare in his invention.
What translation would you recommend, if I may ask?
Don't care, is in Spanish.
You read it in Spanish. I first read it in the Signet mass paperback Walter Starkie translator (very good translator, along with Roger Shattuck), but I finally read it in spanish in 2013, when I was 21). I guess the Grossman translation should be good, but still always strive to read it in the original. I wish I could summon up the dedication to read Anna Karenina in the original russian, but I'm already committed to 4 languages and so I think myself spent.
I give a frick about the greatest knight errant in all of knight errantry don quixote de la mancha and his faithful squire sancha panza, idgaf about shakespeare though, watching throne of blood was the closest exposure I've got to him
Read Shakespeare, read every line as if you were the person to whom it was directed. Then you will know a little more about the theater. Read it aloud, take care to imagine the scene, the tone the voice needs, and when you hit upon a set of words that sound strange, read the context and take care to consider the happenings in the scene.
If you are confident enough in your spanish, I would recommend what I did when I was learning french at 14: read the original in the morning, and then read the english translation in the evening to see how much of the original you understood/retained. I did this with Proust, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Valèry, Mallarmé, Apollinaire when I was in high school and I think it really helped in teaching me the value of hard work and dedication.
12 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I'm reading some of the original Spanish version right now and I'm surprised how much of it I can understand. I'll follow your advice and see where that gets me. Thanks again.
12 months ago
Anonymous
I used to get up at 4am, read 50-100 pages of Proust and annotate what I understood and what was unclear, go to school and then come home at 4pm, read the same text in the English translation and compare what was understood, unclear, and what needed refining (with a good, physical dictionary at hand: I didn’t have access to the internet until I was 19).
I marvel at the time and dedication I had back then. I have a full time career, I’m in a committed relationship, and I stay relatively active, and I can’t imagine pulling more than four hours out of my day to focus on new things,
I really disliked the Grossman and everyone I know who read it stopped after 200 pages.
Rutherford keeps it funny and makes you want to keep reading, even though he takes liberties with the translation. The problem with Grossman is she tries to be to accurate and it fricks up the flow.
If you have a kindle just go to Anna's and get a few different versions. The signet is good if you have a physical copy because there is autism levels of footnotes.
Julius Caesar and Hamlet are kino.
Real history was shaped.
Don Beanoté is forgotten in his homeland by his countrymen. I have met scores of Englishmen more entertained and entertained cover to cover than Spanish speakers from Spain or anywhere in Latin America who have the slightest exposure to Don Quijote past the statues and public blahs.
>‘If only I had breath enough in my body to speak a few words to you at my ease, and if only this pain in my ribs would abate a little, so that I could make you understand, Panza, how wrong you are. Look here, you rogue: should the winds of fortune, hitherto so adverse, turn in our favour, driving the sails of our desire so that with a constant breeze behind us, and in perfect safety, we reach harbour on one of the islands I have promised you, what would become of you if, after conquering it, I made you its lord? Well, you would render things impossible for yourself, through not being a knight or even wanting to be one, or having the courage or the desire to avenge affronts and defend your dominions. For I would have you know that in freshly conquered provinces and kingdoms, the hearts of the natives are never so subdued or so well disposed towards their new master as to leave no fear that they might play some trick, to reverse the state of affairs once more and, as people say, try their luck again; and so the new master must have understanding to be able to govern, and courage to attack and defend in any crisis.’
Why?
I doubt it. King Lear is kind of alien to me, and Macbeth eerily accurate. I like the weird late comedies best, especially Measure For Measure and Antony And Cleopatra--which is usually not considered particularly comic. But that's the way I see it.
No one gives a frick about this book.
no one gives a frick about Shakespeare then
I give a frick about the greatest knight errant in all of knight errantry don quixote de la mancha and his faithful squire sancha panza, idgaf about shakespeare though, watching throne of blood was the closest exposure I've got to him
I love and care for this book.
I like Ornsby original or updated, and Rutherford.
Yes
The 'try to seduce my girlfriend to test her loyalty' was amazing.
One hit wonder.
It's only book you will ever need. It's more complete than the bible, so don't hold it against him.
No, Cervantes and Shakespeare are pretty much on equal footing when considering their entire works (people often forget Cervantes wrote theater and short stories, the Entremeses, along with poetry). Considering it took three frenchmen (Corneille, Molière, Racine) to measure up to them at the same time, I think only Montaigne could make a stab at their infinite variety; and this only by constant, minute self-reflection that still could not condense into eloquent, beautiful verses. Book 2 of Don Quixote is like Dante's Purgatorio and Paradiso: you have to work at it, but the rewards are beyond reckoning. And it is beautiful to see something so long in the making become fruitful.
Read Henry Fielding after these, Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones are wonderful after having filled with Shakespeare and Cervantes.
So fricking based, and yeah you're definitely right about Cervantes and Shakespeare's similarities
Shakespeare is far least inspired than Cervantes
Neither match up to the true master, Rabelais
Rabelais is almost sardonic in his medieval, reaching wit . The four/five volumes that comprise his book are an amalgamation of erudite imagination which prefigure a lot of later, playful prose. His constant neologisms sparked a playful spirit in french letters that equals Shakespeare in his invention.
You read it in Spanish. I first read it in the Signet mass paperback Walter Starkie translator (very good translator, along with Roger Shattuck), but I finally read it in spanish in 2013, when I was 21). I guess the Grossman translation should be good, but still always strive to read it in the original. I wish I could summon up the dedication to read Anna Karenina in the original russian, but I'm already committed to 4 languages and so I think myself spent.
Read Shakespeare, read every line as if you were the person to whom it was directed. Then you will know a little more about the theater. Read it aloud, take care to imagine the scene, the tone the voice needs, and when you hit upon a set of words that sound strange, read the context and take care to consider the happenings in the scene.
Okay, I have access to the Grossman translation, and I have some knowledge of Spanish, so I appreciate your advice. Thanks.
If you are confident enough in your spanish, I would recommend what I did when I was learning french at 14: read the original in the morning, and then read the english translation in the evening to see how much of the original you understood/retained. I did this with Proust, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Valèry, Mallarmé, Apollinaire when I was in high school and I think it really helped in teaching me the value of hard work and dedication.
Yeah, I'm reading some of the original Spanish version right now and I'm surprised how much of it I can understand. I'll follow your advice and see where that gets me. Thanks again.
I used to get up at 4am, read 50-100 pages of Proust and annotate what I understood and what was unclear, go to school and then come home at 4pm, read the same text in the English translation and compare what was understood, unclear, and what needed refining (with a good, physical dictionary at hand: I didn’t have access to the internet until I was 19).
I marvel at the time and dedication I had back then. I have a full time career, I’m in a committed relationship, and I stay relatively active, and I can’t imagine pulling more than four hours out of my day to focus on new things,
I really disliked the Grossman and everyone I know who read it stopped after 200 pages.
Rutherford keeps it funny and makes you want to keep reading, even though he takes liberties with the translation. The problem with Grossman is she tries to be to accurate and it fricks up the flow.
If you have a kindle just go to Anna's and get a few different versions. The signet is good if you have a physical copy because there is autism levels of footnotes.
I haven't read both.
What translation would you recommend, if I may ask?
Don't care, is in Spanish.
Which spanish edition would you guys say is the best?
400 years RAE edition. Its really written for morons, with many contextualizing notes and complementary reading.
Shakespeare's stories were far more concise and coherent.
This. A playwright has low mileage and has to milk every moment.
Don Quijote does not respect your time. It proudly squanders it.
>misunderstanding
>betrayal
>military funeral
dude does the same shit like ten times in a row
Julius Caesar and Hamlet are kino.
Real history was shaped.
Don Beanoté is forgotten in his homeland by his countrymen. I have met scores of Englishmen more entertained and entertained cover to cover than Spanish speakers from Spain or anywhere in Latin America who have the slightest exposure to Don Quijote past the statues and public blahs.
I'm going to take my copy to Portugal with me next Monday and see how much of it I can get through in two weeks. It's not Spain but it's close enough.
Can't compare them at all, it's like comparing a film director with a musician. It's dumb.
Both are great at their thing and that's all that matters.
Well, Sir Francis did occasionally top himself...
>‘If only I had breath enough in my body to speak a few words to you at my ease, and if only this pain in my ribs would abate a little, so that I could make you understand, Panza, how wrong you are. Look here, you rogue: should the winds of fortune, hitherto so adverse, turn in our favour, driving the sails of our desire so that with a constant breeze behind us, and in perfect safety, we reach harbour on one of the islands I have promised you, what would become of you if, after conquering it, I made you its lord? Well, you would render things impossible for yourself, through not being a knight or even wanting to be one, or having the courage or the desire to avenge affronts and defend your dominions. For I would have you know that in freshly conquered provinces and kingdoms, the hearts of the natives are never so subdued or so well disposed towards their new master as to leave no fear that they might play some trick, to reverse the state of affairs once more and, as people say, try their luck again; and so the new master must have understanding to be able to govern, and courage to attack and defend in any crisis.’
Falstaff/Quixote crossover episode when?