A very short introduction to New Criticism

The New Criticism movement surged in the US during the mid 20th century. It's primary focus: the unity and integration of literary works. We can sum the purpose of new criticism up like this: the treatment of literature as an aesthetic object- void of all historical, political, social implications. That said, the focus of the new critics is on the interactions of verbal features, such as ambiguity, paradox, irony, connotation and imagery. Techniques used include "close reading". The "intentional fallacy" demands a reading of the text without any attention given to the personal biography of the author. Some well-known new critics include Cleanth Brooks, John Crowe Ransom, William K Wimsatt and Robert Penn Warren.

The Depth of Don Quixote: Two Portraits

Nabokov agrees with Aristotle's assertions in 'Poetics': "Tragedy wears better than comedy" (Nabokov 13). We see in the protagonists of our novel the embodiment of both: Sancho, whose prescense offers comedic relief, and "The Knight of the Mournful Countenance": blatantly the embodiment of tradgedy itself. With his face sunken and withered, and his under-fed body, he looks like a tradgedy. His armor is worn and moldy, his horse is less than valiant looking.
But his behavior works in complete opposition to pathetic appearance.

He speaks exquisitlely, is courteous
and respectful, and carries himself with utmost confidence. Nabokov spells it out and I agree; Don Quixote is "a hero in the truest sense of the word" (Nabokov 16).

We have the confident, courteous, and chivalric Don Quixote, but he exists in conjuntion with the madman Don Quijote. His elegance is subject at any given moment to fits of utter insanity. In his portrait of Don Quixote, Nabokov provides a complete analysis of "that basic madness of his". Before he went mad, he was a simple and kind country gentleman... a completely different character from his complex transformation into Don Quixote, who replaces Senor Alonso when he vows to commit his life to the pursuits of knight errantry. Later he renounces this commitment,cursing it as the cause of his ruination, and completeing the tradgedy of the novel.

Most readers, myself included, might read Nabokov's lectures and doubt his claim that Don Quijote is a tragic figure and the novel is a tradgedy. I was scanning for sarcasm as I went through them, wondering if Nabokov was seriously insisting that there is nothing funny about the plight of Don Quijote (this, again, coming from a girl who was laughing out loud by herself in her bedroom as she followed each outrageous episode of the knight and his squire). After speaking with Dr. Sexson yesterday, though, and re-reading the lectures as well, I am starting to consider Nabokov's point. From the day he devotes himself to "the colorful calling of knight errantry... with all it's brilliant visions, emotions and acts", he is ridiculed, taken advantage of, and mocked... and that's putting it lightly. All that befalls him henceforth is hurtful. Furthermore, he is viewed by those around him as insane: this is a highly debateable topic. Is our hero really insane? Or is he a man on a mission with a wild imagination who is constantly the victim of wicked trickery? His world, the world of the novel, is an ambigious world of reality and illusion. One can never know.

Nabokov recalls this conversation between Don Quixote and his squire, which, when as I consider it again outside of the adventure of the novel, allows me to understand his tragedy.
"How is it possible for you to have accompanied me all this time without coming to perceive that all the things that have to do with knight-errantry appear to be mad, foolish, and fantastic... Not that they are so in reality: it is simply that there are always a lot of enchanters going about among us, changing things and giving them a deceitful appearance, directing them as suits their fancy, depending upon whether they wish to favor or destroy us". (I wonder if Sancho even understands this nobel speech!) And actually now, re-reading that statement as i write it down, i feel tears brimming in my eyes because that is Don Quixote's world, and really it is our world too. That is the tragic sense of life. That there is always evil and people inspired by evil that are working to bring us down. "Enchanters among us" with deceitful intentions. I thought the tragedy of Don Quixote arose at the end of the novel when he renounces knight errantry, but it actually comes into play from the minute he commits himself to it. Sancho is there for comedic relief. But Don Quixote is alone in his world and troubled by his perceptions of the world around him which he sees as his duty to defend. It is outrageously honorable for him to accept this task in the first place, the task of weighing reality and illusion and defending madness and himself against the immoral attacks of the evil he encounters. And Don Quixote is a literary hero for attempting it, but in the end, even he cannot complete it. That is the great tragedy of this novel.

As for the role of Sancho "Pig Belly" Panza, we can't consider him a complete fool or simpleton- the things that come out of his mouth are far too clever at times to diminish him with those names- but he is certainly outshined by his master and foil, Don Quixote. Where as Sancho Panza is "a product of generalization" (Nabokov 20), Don Quixote is the emblem of individuality. In Nabokov's opinion his most human trait is his unfailing love and devotion to his master. He recalls a speech of Sancho's in the novel where he puts my exact thoughts into words about our hero: "Why, damn me, how your grace does manage to say everything here just the way it should be said, and how well you work that Knight of the Mournful Countenance into the signature!" (Nabokov 20). That is exactly what I think as I marvel over the impressive rhetoric and wisdom of the man of la mancha. In analyzing the two main characters of the great novel, Nabokov sets up his main point (which has been stressed and mulled over in LitCrit this semester) that they represent two ways of looking at the world: "The explication of critical attitudes toward the two heroes lies, I suspect, in the fact that all readers can be separated into Don Quixotes and Sancho Panzas" (Nabokov 24).

Nabokov gives brief attention later to the structural devices of the novel, but he only points them out and goes no further. In his opinion, there is nothing to praise regarding the technique of the novel, which would be nothing if it weren't for the character it takes it's title from. "Don Quixote has been called the greatest novel ever written. This, of course, is nonsense." (GASP!) "...but it's hero, whose personality is a stroke of genius on the part of Cervantes, looms so wonderfully above the skyline of literature... that the book lives and will live through the sheer vitality that Cervantes has injected into the main character of a very patchy haphazard tale, which is saved from falling apart only by its creator's wonderful artisitic intuition that has his Don Quixote go into action at the right moments of the story" (Nabokov 29). Now, Nabokov has a way of turning your mind over. Every point he makes about the novel is brilliant and true, and not at all what anyone would initially consider upon reading it. But this novel is nothing without it's hero, think about it, if Cervantes had wrote any less of a madman into the lead role, would anybody be interested in this jolty ensemble of outrageous episodes. Don Quixote is that dynamic of a character, not only does he pull the novel together, but he has allowed it to endure as "the greatest novel of all time" in many reader's eyes. And Nabokov's goal in these lectures is not to disillusion readers as far as the integrity of this novel, but really to give credit where credit is due, I think. Cervantes isn't the greatest writer of all time, he was a struggling playright who barely knew fame until he created Don Quixote. He didn't write the best novel of all time, but perhaps the best character. Don Quixote of La Mancha: "A hero in the truest sense of the word".

Real Life And Fiction

Like Frye and Dr. Sexson, Nabokov began his lectures on Don Quixote with a warning to "avoid the fatal error of looking for so-called 'real-life' in novels" ("Lectures on Don Quixote" Nabokov 1). We are not to try to discern fact from fiction or vice versa in any novel. A fairy tale is a fairy tale that takes place in it's own world, and therefore cannot really speak to the world of the reader, which he considers to be his reality.

But, if we are honest with ourselves, all realities are tainted by fiction. Which is why as a preface to his lectures Nabokov warns the listener that "there is no use looking in these books for detailed factual representation of so-called 'real-life'" (Nabokov 2). In this way, the when and where of Don Quixote have no real importance. The "where" is Spain, but a ficticious Spain. The time period is the early 17th century, but the events are fictious. Nabokov gives a very breif introduction to the when and where of the book, as well as general criticism, the author introduction, and form... brief enough to answer any general questions, but then he veers away from "generalities", and casts them all aside to deal with the hero of the novel. With all predictable questions about the "real life" of the novel answered, he can freely begin to discuss "fiction": beginning with the portraits of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.

At The End of Don Quixote: the book and the man

Even with an awareness of what was revealed in our class discussions about the end of Don Quixote, I still couldn't imagine our knight renouncing his life's quest. Even through the chapter where he is defeated by the knight of the white moon, i still didn't expect Don Quixote to submit to his orders and return to his village. Not very Quixotic! But I knew, on page 893, that our hero was lost, at this moment: "You sound very philisophical, Sancho... and you speak very wisely". What?!!? Did he just call Sancho Panza wise? That's when I knew that my hero was lost, and oh what a loss! Starting in chapter 66, just after his encounter with the knight of the white moon, this novel plummeted from hightly comedic to utterly tragic... all in the span of a few chapters, until his death. Even despite our revealing class discussions I did not expect Don Quixote to really renounce kniight errantry or to die, but its true, the end result is both. In chapter 66 there is still hope, because when he speaks of going into seclusion- his year sabatical from knight errantry- he says to Sancho "in that seclusion we shall sgather new strength to return to the practice of arms, which will never be forgotten by me" (894). But by the last chapter he has worsened to the point of cursing the "practice of arms" forever ("now all the profane histories of knight errantry have become hateful to me... I despise them) and, most tragic to me, saying they were a waste of his life. That is a painful statement. Almost 900 pages of thrill, adventure, passion- all a waste? That, to me, was the most tragic part of our hero's demise. When he says (p. 935) "My judgement is restored, free and clear of the dark shadows of ignorance imposed on it by my grievous and constant reading of detestable books of chivalry. I now recognize their absurdities and deceptions, and my sole regret is that this realization has come so late it does not leave me time to compensate by reading other books that can be a light to the soul". Other books? Is this my same Don Quixote? No it's not. He has lost his honor and self-dignity. No longer the "knight errant, daring and brave", he has transformed into an "ordinary gentleman" (NOOOO!) lacking the confidence, lacking those dignified self-introductions I loved so much! He actually asks Sancho to respond for him, doubting his own judgment and competency. The end of Don Quixote had me in tears, for the loss of a hero. I feel as disenchanted as Dulcinea, whom he sought throughout the entire book to no end.

In Memory of WB Yeats

I looked this poem up on google because Sexson cited the beautiful last lines after my presentation, reminding us that poetry is meant to praise, and that a defense of poetry is, effectively, it's praise. Here is the poem in its entireity.

This is the poet WH Auden who wrotet "In Memory of WB Yeats". Not surprisingly, he was greatly influenced by William Blake.
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15544

For some reason, when i searched for this poem i was bombarded by website from church groups. Its been used in an large amount of sermons.

More term paper support via Don Quijote

I would like to include a few more parts from Don Quixote that take place in one of the episodes I used in my term paper, that is, "regarding what befell Don Quixote with a prudent knight of La Mancha" (Cervantes 550). That prudent knight being the man in the green coat. This episode is chock full of material that defends not only poetry, but specifically, english majors and student poets! Because, to reiterate, the man in the green coat is venting to Don Quixote about his frustrations with his son, who "isn't as good as he would like him to be" due to his choice of studies, which is Latin and Greek Languages. His father sees this as a complete waste of time, and is frustrated that instead of moving onto other areas of knowledge, he continues to read and debate books and poetry. Don Quixote advises him that although it is true that "poetry is less useful than pleasurable" (Cervantes 556). He echoes everything we've heard from subsequent defenders of poetry this semester, saying that "art does not surpass nature but perfects it; therefore, when nature is mixed with art, and art with nature, the result is a perfect poet" (557). And in his conclusion- and this is the big line for all us english majors- Don Quixote defends our field of study, praising the man's son for having "already successfully climbed the first essential step, which is languages, with them he will, on his own, mount to the summit of human letters, which are so admirable in a gentleman" (557)

Term paper posted

In Praise of Poetry: My Inspiration in Literature

"This purifying of wit-this enriching of memory, enabling of judgment, and enlarging of conceit-which commonly called learning, under what name soever it come forth, or to what immediate end soever it be directed, the final end is to lead and draw us to as high a perfection as our degenerate souls, made worse by their clayey lodging, can be capable of."
Sir Philip Sidney

To Inform. To take. To create. By means of my education I have come and will continue to come into my own. Learning has led me to an awareness of my own passion for poetry, and thus, passion for life: of what I need and where I need to go in my life. This quote from Sir Phillip Sidney’s “Defense of Poetry” succeeds in expressing expresses in words what, naturally, I could not, and so stood out from the entire essay to me, and this entire course, as a summary of what I’ve been mulling over in my mind for so long: the beauty of knowledge, education, information: the poetry of wisdom. It is through this journey of learning that I have and will continue to confront the best version of myself.
I would like to model that ideal version of myself on that ingenious hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha, a hero by my standards, and in a sense that is completely un-pared in all literature I’ve encountered. Senor Quixote begins his quest when he dedicates himself to the pursuits of knight errantry; he makes it his mission to imitate the language of his books. It takes an understanding and appreciation of literature (which I harbor in my heart as an English major) to consider this mission as one of utmost honor, and not in the least bit farce. In fact I envy our hero for boasting this as his life’s mission: to live himself into his books. Don Quixote speaks of himself and his adventures in the style of the books of chivalry that have ransacked his mind. Oh, that Don Quixote would ransack my mind and invoke me to speak in this high rhetoric so long ago lost! Even if everyone I encounter on my journey thinks me mad, that I would pay it no mind, like our hero. I have wistful notions of adopting Don Quixote’s mission and his rhetoric, but alas, I cannot even read his words out-loud and sound convincing, much less invent my own discourse. I suppose I fear those accusations of madness that the Knight of La Mancha handles so gracefully. That I would be so graceful, this Knight is my hero! The high-rhetoric and wit and wisdom via madness that Don Quixote possesses, his delightfully dignified manner of presenting himself: I envy the hidalgo for all these heroic qualities.
As different as I am from Don Quixote in some respects (those listed in the previous sentence, for instance), I feel smugly similar to him in others. We both have our books, of course (that is we share a dependence on literature). And we have something else, too.
I recall one of many episodes where the knight defends himself and his profession, in Chapter 13 of the First Part, after Don Quixote has met a group of goatherds on the road and is traveling with them to a funeral. One of the travelers they encounter en route to the burial begins to interrogate Don Quixote about his purpose in the land, to which he reiterates his usual elegant explanation of his mission as a knight errant. They immediately consider him mad, both for his exuberant undertaking and equally exuberant way of relating it. They continue to inquire, so as to gauge exactly how mad he is. Don Quixote speaks to them of great knights and soldiers of the past like King Arthur, and then audaciously praises theses knights as more valiant than priests and religious men, because they actively defend the morality that priests only speak about. “In this way we are ministers of God on earth, the arms by which His justice is put into effect on earth” (Cervantes 88). It’s an outrageous claim, I know, but I would defend the poets in the exact same way, including myself: the poets represent the divine in art. Further on in the book, Don Quixote gets another chance to explain lend his knightly wisdom and opinions to a stranger he meets on the road- this time a man in a green coat, with a son studying languages in university. The man in the green coat confesses that he is troubled by his son’s coursework, which he hardly considers to be an “area of knowledge” worth studying. Don Quixote does a better job than I can of defending his son’s choice of curriculum, as well as defining anagogy and praising the poet, explaining that the natural poet, “with that inclination granted to him by heaven, with no further study or artifice composes things that prove the truthfulness of the man who said: Est Dues in nobis” (Cervantes 557). God is in us.
Outrageous. Extravagant. Over-the-top. How could I compare myself to that ingenious knight of La Mancha? I suppose I aim to model myself off of this man just as he does those warriors in his beloved books of chivalry. And since the imaginative Don Quixote makes a far better symbol of poetry than he does a knight errant anyway, maybe it’s not that outrageous.
And so I declare that I am an English major, “the kind, as people say, who go to seek adventures” (Cervantes 553), and like my hero, I am willing to leave my home and comfort and “throw myself into the arms of Fortune so that she may carry me wherever she chooses” that I might “fulfill a good part of my desire” (Cervantes 553). While our desires may differ- his being “to revive a long-dead knight errantry”, and mine to praise and defend the madness of such characters and exuberance in literature- I can only hope that one day I will arrive at a place where I am so “obliged to sing my own praises” as impressively and eloquently as my hero of La Mancha.