Explore the vast range of titles available.

El que goza de una obra de arte es porque la crea en sí, la re-crea y se re-crea con ella. El epígrafe puesto a nuestro escrito enuncia una curiosa y discutible manera de aproximarse a la obra de arte literario. El proceso de la lectura origina una transformación ontológica en ambos miembros del proceso. El lector al 'gozar' la obra la crea. Como ésta es ya una creación, la actividad del sujeto significa una 're-creación' de ella. Por una parte, el lector no permanece impasible ni inmutable por cuanto, a medida que 're-crea' la obra literaria, se 're-crea' a sí mismo. Como él es un ser ya creado, o por lo menos existente, esta acción implica también una 're-creación'. La lectura de una obra literaria constituye entonces, según Unamuno, una experiencia existencial en la que tanto el sujeto como el objeto se enriquecen por la re-creación de su ser. Comprender el proceso descrito significa destacar que la 'recreación' de la obra literaria está determinada por la problemática que el lector proyecta en ella. Por lo tanto, interpretar la 'obra recreada' no sólo ilumina con nuevos matices la obra misma sino que revela, indirectamente, la problemática interior del 're-creador'.

This book is a unique scholarly attempt to examine Don Quixote from multiple angles to see how the re-accentuation of the world's greatest literary hero takes place in film, theater, and literature. To accomplish this task, eighteen scholars from the USA, Canada, Spain, and Great Britain have come together, and each of them has brought his/her unique perspective to the subject.

Similarities between process of Don Quixote's drift towards prudence and the emblems of Alciati

The interpolated story of El curioso impertinente has been the crux interpretum of the Quijote ever since its original publication. Evidently Cervantes himself was aware of this fact, for whereas in his discussion of the inserted tales in Part II he praises their aesthetic value, he nonetheless omits them in the sequel, admitting that in doing so he is yielding to the adverse opinions of his reading public. He knew that the average reader simply ignored these episodios sueltos in order to follow the main plot of the novel. As for the educated reader we note the opinion of the bachiller, who finds El curioso impertinente quite out of place, though he is willing to admit that in spite of its irrelevance it possesses an aesthetic artificio of its own, 'el cual se mostrara bien al descubierto, cuando por sí solas, sin arrimarse a las locuras de Don Quijote, ni a las sandeces de Sancho, [las novelas] salieran a luz.' To Cervantes these opinions seemed surprisingly critical of his intention, for he meant to include El curioso impertinente for the artistic diversion of himself as well as for the public's. But it was an evident miscalculation, because his intention did not match the expectations of his readers, with the result that he was not understood. Who was to blame for this? We may of course criticize Cervantes for not having revealed his intentions sufficiently or even cite him for deliberate obfuscation, which would be equivalent to saying that he was an incompetent judge of the psychology and the artistic comprehension of the reading public. Yet the immediate acclaim which the Quijote as a whole received proves that for the most part Cervantes was well aware of his reader's interests. Are we to assume that he misjudged their reaction with respect to El curioso impertinente? Is it not possible that the fault lies with an inadequate contribution of effort and sympathy in the interpretation of the work?