The transition between the first and second half of the book was very unique to me, because it seemed to solidify the many layers of narration that Don Quixote’s story exists within. I want to focus on this, because even as I continued to be entertained by the story, this rumination remained in the back of my mind.
Reading now, we know that the second half was written years after the first half of the book was published. However, for our dearest Knight D.Q and Sancho, there have been mere moments since their journey concluded and they sought to recover. When Sancho proceeds to recount the thoughts of readers about their character and decisions, there is pushback from the both of them regarding the opinions of others of them. In fact, Quixote pushes back against the opinons of others, trying to correct and justify all that has happened thus far. Moreover, he insists that there is a misrepresentation of him, that the readers are not properly understanding what they are reading.
Hm.
Now I feel bad. Is Quixote really that deluded? Or are we simply being led to believe that because of the way his story is being told?
There is great power in who tells a story. Think about it: if Quixote himself had told this story, would we not be led to believe that Dulcinea is indeed a princess, that he is indeed enchanted, and that he is conquering giants?
There are several complications when it comes to understanding this, but first and foremost, this was to me, the moment when I began to question the accuracy with which the narrator of the story is recounting the journey. The repetive assertation that the story we are reading is as truthful as it possibly can be begins to feel ingenuine –as in, what are we being deceived about?
It is also intetesting that this is what kickstarts the second half of the story. Why would the narrator allow us to know that Quixote and Sancho are wary about his retelling of the story? Is this supposed to strengthen our view that he is indeed deluded, or is this the part where we lock in and start to question the ‘truths’ we are being told?
This contention is further explored in Quixote’s inner wonderings, where he questions how his story is told:
“no truth [is] to be looked for from moors, as they are all imposters, cheats, and schemers”
And then the story continued, and we read about their third journey. But then Avellaneda shows up –and is critiqued for misrepresenting the story of Quixote. OH so this is who the schemer is, this is who is misrepresenting Don Quixote!
….or is it?
So not only was this first written by a different author in Arabic, it was then picked up by another narrator, and then an imposter wrote the first half of the book, but D.Q disagrees with everything.
Seriously, WTF is happening, and what is real here?
Question: Who is really telling this story? What is truth and what is fiction in Quixote’s story?
