I just finished reading Salmon Rushdie's Quichotte. It became a struggle for me to continue through to the end. As the name suggests, the main character is a sort of modern day Don Quixote. From the get-go it was a challenge because it is a story within a story. The main character, Quichotte, is a character in a book being written by another character, Brother. The two stories evolve in parallel and we learn of Brother's background and family and also Quichotte's 'fictional' family. Another key player is Salma, the Dulcinea del Toboso of the inner story. Quichotte's quest. All the character's backgrounds are similar and as they are presented interspersed it was hard for me to recall who was who as the stories went along. Quichotte's story ends as a science fiction that seems contrived. Still Ruchdie's prose and the day-to-day action kept me engaged and going along in anticipation of how it might all end but then when it finally came the ending left me disappointed. I have the feeling that Rushdie himself got lost and just wanted to bring the book to a conclusion. Anyone else have a similar take, or did I miss something? If so, what did I miss?
by JohnP112358
1 Comment
I don’t think he got confused. I will say that the ending wasn’t something I’d consider satisfying- just kind of drawing a connection between the two worlds as one falls apart.
Agreed that the prose is what makes to book worth reading.
Edit: I should add that I am generally not impressed when authors make major characters writers themselves as was the case here. Lots of surface symbolism of an imagined being taking on a life of its own and entering the “real” world and how this Herculean quest is in reality only a small part of our world and might not even get the oxygen it needs to survive once it’s birthed. I get it, it’s a book about writing. But in that sense it did feel a bit like an artist creating art for other artists, and for that reason the ending felt disconnected from any themes I was really invested in.