Recommended

Okay, I confess I cheated; I decided to read only the First Part of Don Quixote.  This part, at 459 pages, is technically a complete book in its own right.  It was published in 1605, 10 years before the second part that makes up the other half of the copy you see depicted to the left.  I will get around to the rest of it eventually but, honestly, I just needed a break.

I feel bad saying I needed a break because I really enjoyed Don Quixote.  If you read my First Line post on Don Quixote you know I was having a blast halfway through the first part.  It was funny, intelligent, modern, and creative.

At about 300 pages in, however, Cervantes decides to interrupt what could have easily been the most interesting and entertaining part of the book with two complete novellas.  Seriously, he interrupts the action to tell two complete stories that deal with characters and plot that are entirely unrelated to Don Quixote.  To be fair, these stories are good, but at this point in the main novel I’m reading, I honestly just don’t care what happens to these other characters.  I want to get back to Sancho and Don Quixote, not read about The Man Who Was Recklessly Curious.

This post sounds a little negative, but only because I said so many positive things previously.  Fortunately, all of those positives are still true and, as a result, Don Quixote is still a recommended read.  However, I can completely understand why an abridged version would remove the two novellas that come so late in the work.  In fact, I would go so far as to say, if you do decide to read Don Quixote, skip the novellas and finish the main story.  Then, because they are good enough in their own right to warrant it, go back and read each novella.  I know it’s a little vain to think that I can suggest a better way to enjoy a book than the author, but I really think your experience will be far superior if you separate the actual Don Quixote story from the two novellas.

“That’s the way,” said Sancho, “I’ve heard it said in sermons, we should love Our Lord: for Himself alone, not because we hope for glory or are afraid of punishment.  But I’d rather love and serve Him for what He can do” (263).

Full database entry on Don Quixote.  Beware spoilers.

It is clear from Dubliners why James Joyce is so highly regarded.  The most impressive thing, for me, was his ability to capture so much emotion, so realistically, in so few pages.  Without feeling forced, or cliched, he would perfectly express anger, jealousy, fear, or love.  I also enjoyed how these short stories each had their own unique voice.  It wasn’t one narrator telling 15 different tales, but 15 different narrators, each telling their own story in a style perfectly suited for their respective themes, characters, and plot.

All of this becomes even more impressive when we consider Joyce was only 25 when these stories were first published.  If you enjoy short stories, I would definitely recommend this collection.  For the rest of us, though, I think there is still a lot to like about these tales.  Plus, what with them being so short, you don’t have to read them all at once and, taken individually, there’s no reason not to give each of these stories the mere 10 to 30 minutes that they require.

“He watched the scene and thought of life; and (as always happened when he thought of life) he became sad. A gentle melancholy took possession of him. He felt how useless it was to struggle against fortune, this being the burden of wisdom which the ages had bequeathed to him” (66).

Full database entry on Dubliners.  Beware spoilers.

The rest of this post is a more general discussion on short stories and reading for depth, so if all you were interested in was Dubliners, no need to keep reading.  Otherwise….

I’m not sure if I “get” short stories.  Granted, my experience with them is limited (all I can remember right now is a few Poe stories and Philip K. Dick’s The Minority Report and Other Classic Stories), but there is a certain rhythm to them that doesn’t come naturally to me.  I think this is a combination of not giving each story the same consideration I would a full novel (I will typically move on to the next story without meditating on the first) and the fact that many short stories end without the sense of resolution or satisfaction that you get from a full novel (and this doesn’t even consider the tendency many short stories have towards the “gotcha” ending).

In spite of all this, however, I chose to read Dubliners for two reasons:  I knew that, being written by Joyce, there was going to be a lot of depth to the writing, and I felt that short stories would offer a smaller, more manageable opportunity to put to use the tools I discovered in How to Read Literature.  On the whole, I think the endeavor was mildly successful.  I say only mildly because, while I was able to read in a slightly more professorial manner, I also find myself not always wanting to.

For me reading is a pleasurable hobby, and I don’t want that to change.  However, the more I considered the multiple layers of meaning that may be present within the text, the less I found myself enjoying the experience of reading.  With all that said I’ve decided that, going forward, my main concern will be enjoying what I’m reading, with or without the tools of professorial reading.  Then, if I loved what I read, I can take the time to meditate further upon the text and pursue essays and literary criticisms on specific subjects that interest me.   This combination, I think, will allow me to still enjoy reading, while also improving my ability to read at a deeper level.  In theory, at least.