In that paper I will summarize my three chosen websites and finally I will provide my own conclusion.

The first article chosen is Under the Influence of Cervantes: Trapiello’s Al morir don Quijote by the Dr. Isidoro Arén Janeiro.

It deals about the importance of Trapiello’s book Al morir don Quijote. It begins saying that there is a before and and an after the first publication of the Primera parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha (1605) it also sets the tone for the process of narrative production in Spain. We have to say also that there’s a relationship between the Primera parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha (1605), the “original,”and the Segunda Parte del Ingenioso Caballero Don Quijote de la Mancha (1615).

Trapiello says that the adventure continues through the secondary characters.

Trapiello’s novel takes as a departing point an event, the death of Don Quixote, and the final renouncing of his fantastical voyage. It is the awakening moment for the reader who has been a witness to the death of a genre, since as we know Primera parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha is the novel of transition between Renacimiento and Barroco in Spain.

He had to write a second part to complete the deconstruction of the first part, and, at the same time, to refute the apocryphal Quixote. On one hand on the first part parodies the novels of chivalry, on the other hand, the second part of Cervantes’ masterpiece, Segunda Parte del Ingenioso Caballero don Quijote de la Mancha (1615), relies on two fictional worlds: the first one is his own creation, Primera Parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote (1605), and the other fictional world, that is explicit in the second part of Cervantes, is Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda in his novel El Ingenioso Don Quijote de la Mancha (1614).

The success of Cervantes’ second part had to depend on his ability to deconstruct these two worlds. It’s important that to fully comprehend second part, either Cervante’s, the reader must comprehend the genesis, their aim, which lies within the pages of the first part. Also to comprehend the second part, the reader has to take into account the events that happened on the first part, constantly revised by Quixote and Sancho, and Avellaneda’s second part.

We must take into account also those defining lines that divide the world of Don Quixote and Alonso Quijano, and the numerous characters that form the complexity of the novel in itself.

Cervantes plays with the reader, he makes him/her accept the fictitious reality that he constructed.

The objective is to force the reader to reach an understanding of his self awareness, and obtain a new knowledge of the world that conditions him.

The choice of characters and action are not arbitrary. It is a new reading, a deconstruction of the characters that left everyone with a sensation of being betrayed by Alonso Quijano.

It is Cervantes’ practical capacity to arrange images the thing that question our senses, forcing us to negotiate the meanings within Don Quixote’s textual sites, which creates a dichotomy defying our ‘sense experience’ and ‘sense perception’ of reality.

In the first part, our senses are in constant attack, the limitation of the reality that is perceived challenges the reality of our own experience.

We are aware of the burlesque nature of the narrative, but the danger arises when the

imitation of the textual world becomes the real world.

It speaks about the themes of the first and second part and on page 65 it concludes: “It is, in a way, Cervantes’ deconstruction of the first part, so that his second one can stand side by side as a unique work on its own. Both serve as examples of how corrupting a

misreading of textual signs can be for the reader”.

It speaks about Quixote and Sancho, who is credulous enough to believe in Don Quixote’s stories. In the second part we find a more rational Don Quixote and Sancho: both are engaged in a world based in the first part of the novel, it is a broken continuity because they are aware of the contradictions of the realities that they try to emulate. But, in a way, it is the final realization that their view on the world is wrong: both of them know this, and are perfectly aware of their particular predicament.

They gain knowledge through their own evasiveness of the true reality, which at the very end, Don Quixote admits in his dying bed. He has been deceived by his false sense of reality:

“Yo tengo juicio ya libre y claro, sin las sombras caliginosas de la ignorancia que sobre él me pusieron mi amarga y continua leyenda de los detestables libros de las caballerías. Ya conozco sus disparates y sus embelecos, y no me pesa sin que este desengaño ha llegado tan tarde, que no me deja tiempo para hacer alguna recompensa leyendo otros que sean luz del alma”. (1217)

In Al morir Don Quijote, the reader will be forced to choose between these constructions of reality: on one hand, Don Quixote’s, on the other Alonso Quijano’s. The reader will be caught up in a reality where the secondary characters are left off to fend for themselves, and they become aware that the fantastical voyage was, in essence, a negation of their own reality that they so desperately wanted to avoid.

The action in Trapiello’s novel begins in the deathbed of Alonso Quijano, where everyone that knew Don Quixote have to pay their last respects. It is a setting that allows the reader to reconnect with Cervantes’ novel.

The good point there is that once he is dead, there is an empty void that has to be filled, and it is during this interlude that Trapiello sets the reader for what is about to happen next.

The plot moves around the figure of Antonia Quijano who has been left with a world on shambles, she must take over where Don Quixote failed, and restore the image of the Quijano homestead. Nevertheless, she is confronted with people who want to take advantage of her precarious situation. There are characters who want to marry her with different intentions, as the servant Cebandón, the accountant De Mal and the young student Sansón Carrasco. The other protagonist of the story is Quiteira, the maid, who is left without a master; and after so many years of servitude and sacrifice she is repudiated by the niece. It is, in a way, the only time in her life that she had to face the world on her own. She went to her town to visit her relatives, but she realized that she did not belong. Her quest is to find out where she exactly belonged.

There is a clear theme, when Don Quixote was alive, these characters knew exactly who they were, but now, who are they?

Al morir Don Quijote is in the latest sequel to Cervantes’ masterpiece where this idea of betrayal is best explored. The betrayal of Alonso Quijano is a topic that has not received much attention until the most recent novel by Trapiello.

The death of Alonso Quijano leaves its mark on the people closest to him, and those who were standing to see what would happen next, which for their own selfish reasons chose to sit by, and wait until the last sight of air. But, Trapiello presents a new story, one where the bitter reality comes crushing into the lives of those who for whichever reason acclaimed Alonso Quijano as Don Quixote, and those like his niece and maid who were left in despair, and without any hope for their immediate future.

These characters, as I have said three paragraphs above, that played a secondary part in the adventures of Don Quixote, become the main characters in Trapiello’s novel. It is a reading of what happened after Alonso Quijano died. Al morir don Quijote answers some questions that many readers might have had about what happened to Sancho, the niece, the maid, the priest, or the barber, etc, etc.

It answers to a very interesting question, what happened after the death of Don Quixote? And, also, it steers the reader into another direction where Trapiello constructs the lives of the characters, it completes their past, as to present an explanation of their present situation, one that would allow them to escape from the hold of Don Quixote’s influence.

Nevertheless, at the last stage of distancing himself from the original, there is a brief moment where Al morir Don Quijote is, again, overshadowed by Cervantes’ masterpiece.

Finally, by giving answers to a series of questions that were ignored by Cervantes, Trapiello sets the tone to reread Cervantes’ Don Quijote on the shadow of his creation.

He makes the reader reconsider the original under a new interpretation.

In conclusion, as argued before, the idea to continue Cervantes’ creation has been one that caused Avellaneda’s to be repudiated. The reader of Cervantes did not accept this version because it failed to convince the reader that this could be the second

part of Don Quixote’s adventures. So, one must ask, how has Al morir don Quijote become so well received by a community of readers that hold Cervantes’ masterpiece as sacred? The answer lies in how Trapiello treats the characters; he gave them a voice that

allowed them to present their point of view, and their inner thoughts. An aspect that in Cervantes’ novel was denied. The reader of Trapiello connects with these new protagonists, their trauma of loosing Alonso Quijano is juxtaposed by his betrayal. They

were all betrayed because Don Quixote’s journey did not help them escape their own sordid world, it did not help them face the challenges set upon them, but it made them

realize that in itself life is cruel, and Alonso Quijano escaped from his responsibilities.

At the end, they must resort to their own perception of reality, and start a journey of selfdiscovery. In Al morir Don Quijote the reader will witness a metamorphosis of these voiceless characters. It does not only present their present condition, that of the post-traumatic effects of loosing a loved one, but also it will fashion their past, one that has to be understood to determine the result of the novel. In essence, Trapiello takes into account the past events that shaped the personalities of their characters, aspect that Cervantes purposely avoided. It is the journey of the hero that must face its past, and once having done so, face the future as a new man or woman. Al morir don Quijote is the latest attempt to deconstruct the myth of Don Quixote’s idealism.

 

The second article is  The Three Deaths of Don Quixote: Comments in Favor of the Romantic Critical Approach by A.G. Loré.

The article is about the three deaths of Don Quixote, as it is put on the page 24 “Don Quixote's death is mentioned three times in the novel: the first at the end of Part I, Chapter 52; the second after the episode of the Cave of Montesinos, II, 24; the last, of course, the explicit final death scene at the end of II, 74. Each described circumstance differs from the others, revealing important changes in the author's plans, changes which give us clues to his developing attitudes toward his protagonist. My quotations are from the eight volume Clásicos Castellanos ninth edition of Don Quijote de la Mancha by Francisco Rodríguez Marín (Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1969). For the reader who may not possess this edition all quotations will be given simply by part and chapter.”

Cervantes tells us in lines which begin in Chapter 74 of Part II, “Como las cosas humanas no sean eternas . . . llegó su fin y acabamiento cuando él (Don Quixote) menos lo pensaba; porque, ó ya fuese de la melancolía que le causaba el verse vencido, ó ya por la disposición del cielo, que así lo ordenaba, se le arraigó una calentura, que le tuvo seis días en la cama . . .” Don Quixote's friends then visit him. “Estos, creyendo que la pesadumbre de verse vencido y de no ver cumplido su deseo en la libertad y desencanto de Dulcinea le tenía de aquella suerte.” They try to cheer him with talk of becoming shepherds. “Pero no por esto dejaba Don Quijote sus tristezas.” A doctor is called in. “Fué el parecer del médico que melancolías y desabrimientos le acababan.” Don Quixote sleeps; then awakens declaring himself cured of his madness and now an enemy of Amadís de Gaula and his brood. Dictating his will and turning to Sancho, he says: “Perdóname, amigo, de la ocasión que te he dado de parecer loco como yo, haciéndote caer en el error en que yo he caído, de que hubo y hay caballeros andantes en el mundo.”

Don Quixote’s death was caused either by the will of heaven or because of his melancholy. Don Quixote is taken by fever and dies. Cervantes remains, as ever, innocently, or perhaps deliberately, ambiguous. But since the fever has been brought about and stayed by melancholy, with some logic we can insist that he dies of sadness and melancholy, as suggested by his doctor and friends. Cervantes's vagueness, allow for such an assumption. This conclusion, which the author believes is justly sustained, is one of the premises of the study presented.
Don Quixote provides the physical reason for the actual, dignified death while Alonso Quixano allows for deserved spiritual salvation. Cervantes succeeds in having it both ways. Alonso Quixano the Sane dies of the bitter disappointment, sadness and despair that is suffered by his counterpart. Don Quixote the Mad commonly interpreted as the expression of regret for his error —taken in another way, can still reveal him to be as much a dreamer and idealist as his mad equivalent.

As the novel ends, that schizophrenic part of Don Quixote still overwhelms that of Alonso Quixano. Cervantes himself writes (II, 74) even after Alonso insists he is no longer Don Quixote de la Mancha, “En fin, llegó el último de don Quijote . . .” and the clerk who has written the testament adds, a few lines later, “que nunca había leído en ningún libro de caballerías que algún caballero andante hubiese muerto en su lecho tan sosegadamente y tan cristiano como don Quijote.”

As a second preliminary his exposition, the autor starts from these two premises: Don Quixote, whether considered as Don Quixote or Alonso Quixano, 1) dies of melancholy, and 2) dies repentant, but still an idealist. If these two premises are valid, we can think that if Don Quixote's story is simply funny or something more than that, leading us back to Romantic views that have suffered such an intimidating relieve of criticism in the last three decades.
In this paper the author’s attempt is to show how the conclusions posed can be supported, by commenting on the death —the three deaths, as he is putting it— of Don Quixote, which deaths become a major part of the controversy and a key to the determination of Cervantes's thoughts as he finished his work.
Don Quixote's death, as I have explained on my first paragraph, is mentioned three times in the novel.

This first passing mention of the death of Don Quixote cannot be more appropriate to the ending of Part I which, has been a funny tale about a gentleman who has gone off pretending to be a knight-errant. Don Quixote at some time in the past is reported to have died, apparently still a madman.

Part II opens with a visit by Don Quixote's two friends, who find he is still mad and still believes in his mission. Sancho appears and tells what the townspeople are saying about the other two. At one point Sancho makes this relevant comment: ‘‘En lo que toca á la valentía, cortesía, hazañas y asumpto de vuesa merced, hay diferentes opiniones: Unos dicen: ‘Loco pero gracioso’; otros, ‘Valiente, pero desgraciado’; otros, ‘Cortés, pero impertinente . . . (II, 2).’’

Don Quixote's death, may have been next planned to come about, would then take place. This death, one can suppose, would have been less vague and less comic than the first, but less dramatic than the last, probably leading to an ending still appropriate to the parody being written. A notable feature of this supposed second plan is that Don Quixote's admission to pretense would have rung false.

Cervantes, has just had his first real look at Avellaneda's work and is truly horrified and hurt. His protagonist has not only been plagiarized, but transformed and distorted. Angrily he must determine to terminate his novel as soon as possible, and to make certain changes. The most important of these will be the protagonist's death, prompted now by Avellaneda, “a death which cannot be that of a buffoon as in Part I nor that of a gentleman who admits to having merely played the role of knight-errant.” Cervantes will ponder this decision carefully.
The story now leads to Barcelona, instead of Saragossa. The humor is still lively, but Don Quixote becomes more and more a sorry and sorrowful figure. II, 64: On the beach Don Quixote is brought down in defeat by Sampson, just as the author had planned, in a brief but very powerful, climactic scene, a scene probably more dramatic now than Cervantes had originally imagined.
Sampson cries: “Vencido sois, caballero, y aun muerto, si no confesáis las condiciones de nuestro desafío.”

Since the mention of Avellaneda's Don Quixote —as indicated in Chapter 59, but known by the author at least by Chapter 57— Cervantes's attitude toward his protagonist has changed greatly. With a new appreciation of his character, Cervantes is allowing him a measure of authenticity in recognition of the admirable and even noble qualities he really has, qualities now recognized clearly as they are compared to those of Avellaneda's character. The remarks of all those critics who have stated that Cervantes in his Part II learns to appreciate, admire, and even love his character prove at this point to be well taken.

We should be reminded of Don Quixote's speech on liberty mentioned above, which certainly must have been prompted by Cervantes's Algerian experience. The “ánimo” shown by the author as a young man is surely comparable to that of his madman.

“¡Aquí fué Troya! ¡Aquí mi desdicha, y no mi cobardía, se llevó mis alcanzadas glorias; aquí usó la fortuna conmigo de sus vueltas y revueltas; aquí se escurecieron mis hazañas; aquí, finalmente, cayó mi ventura para jamás levantarse!” These portentous lines are no doubt still meant to be funny. What glory has Don Quixote won? What exploits have been eclipsed? However, if we allow ourselves to take his part in the drama developing quite apart from the parody, we see that sadness and despair are now growing logically and inevitably within him, an awareness of his coming demise, already being planned by the creator of his “history” and sensed by him, the character created. Don Quixote is now truly sad. Sancho attempts to cheer him. Don Quixote then speaks of Fortune and the saying that every man is the architect of his own destiny. “Yo lo he sido de la mía; pero no con la prudencia necesaria, y así me han salido al gallarín mis presunciones . . .’’

“Camina, pues, amigo Sancho, y vamos a tener en nuestra tierra el año del noviciado, con cuyo encerramiento cobraremos virtud nueva para volver al nunca de mí olvidado ejercicio de las armas.” Don Quixote is clearly not confessing any errors here, no self-discovery has taken place. He is telling us, indirectly, that the next time he charges a “Knight of the White Moon” he may not be mounted on a Rocinante, but hopefully on a Bucephalus or a Babieca. He has apparently at this point not given up any of his ideals. The knight is still madly determined and constant to his lady, and Cervantes is still attempting to write within the bounds of his parody.
“Déjalos estar, amigo; que esta afrenta es pena de mi pecado, y justo castigo del cielo es que á un caballero andante vencido le coman adivas, y le piquen avispas, y le hollen puercos.” Note that Don Quixote's “sin” is that he has been conquered, not that he has been presumptuous. Again he is not confessing to errors. He then sings a madrigal, and the author, still writing his funny book, tells us “Cada verso déstos acompañaba con muchos suspiros y no pocas lágrimas, bien como aquel cuyo corazón gemía traspasado con el dolor del vencimiento y con la ausencia de Dulcinea.’’

There is, in reality, no epiphany at this point. Don Quixote recognizes no error he has committed as his ideals are concerned, and his love for Dulcinea remains as constant as it was when he responded to the threat of the Knight of the White Moon: “Aprieta, caballero, la lanza y quítame la vida . . .”

The strength of Don Quixote's beliefs and his desire to return to the profession he can never forget is evidently so powerful that it carries him through what I consider to be weak and unconvincing attempts to show he is regaining his senses, that is, in preparation for his rejection of the chivalric romances and his death. The strength of his beliefs is to make one think that Cervantes himself, who has come to admire and defend his character —perhaps now even identify with him— is formulating an ending that now may be against his own inclinations.

Don Quixote, who has, particularly since Chapter 58, gradually become a different person, steps outside of the parody transformed from buffoon to credible, disillusioned idealist, by virtue of his genuine grief over his failures. Cervantes has noted and accepted the humanity and worth of his mad knight, and in the end he is no longer asking us to laugh at him, for he himself has stopped doing so. As already suggested, it is probable that, on the occasion just noted, as he prompted us to laughter (Don Quixote's singing of the madrigal), he himself had already stopped laughing.

A Don Quixote finally, as in the beginning, acknowledged as mad prompted the turning seen in Death III, the return to sanity by the rejection of those books which had brought on madness.
Don Quixote, now looking to the salvation of his soul, refuses to listen to his friends who urge him “Calle, por su vida, vuelva en sí, y déjese de cuentos.”
“Los de hasta aquí,” replicó don Quijote, “que han sido verdaderos en mi daño, los ha de volver mi muerte, con ayuda del cielo, en mi provecho (II, 74).” Repenting of his errors, his “sins” —here we must suppose he refers to his madcap adventures as well as the ordinary sins of man— he avows his death now will bring salvation.

The mockery and parody would seem to end here with the ideals —the aims— of chivalry now become, I submit, a real and accepted part of the dying Alonso's being, since they are still a part of the dying Don Quixote's being. One need not be convinced, in any case, that this interpretation is acceptable. In the end, whether we are dealing with a mad Don Quixote or a sane Alonso Quixano, the sadness is equally great and significant, and in either case, as suggested in this study, this sadness leads to death by melancholy. Cervantes has acquiesced in and ratified the grief shared by these two half characters and so thus ceased at this point to ridicule their aims, their ideals.

This is the underlying cause of the final, inevitable transformation which is merely triggered by the plagiarist.

The best conclusion is the one put by the author at the end of the article: “The third and final death he devises for Don Quixote is, aside from all the other things suggested, at once an apology and a tribute. He is atoning for having mistreated him, used him for “coin”. Just as Don Quixote turns to Sancho to say “Pardon me, friend, that I have caused you to appear mad like me, making you fall into the same sort of error as myself, the belief that there were and still are knights-errant in the world,” one can easily imagine Miguel de Cervantes turning to his creation to say: “Pardon me, dear friend, that I made you appear mad, for if there ever were knights-errant in this world, you had the soul to have been one of them.” The author's deliberate, final accolade bestowed after the novel has ended and his dedication and prologue written, is his new title to Part II in which the word “Hidalgo” is dropped and another put in its place: El Ingenioso “Caballero” Don Quixote de la Mancha”.


The third article is The democracy of Don Quixote by Jonathan Rée.

In that article it is said that a new kind of writing was born when Don Quixote set off to save the world.

The novelty of the novel is of course connected with the rise of printing, and the growth of a literate public with time and money to spare. As the article says in its third paragraph, “These neglected spaces were redeemed for literature, according to Kundera, at the moment when Cervantes got his readers to imagine Don Quixote as he lay dying while his niece went on eating, the housekeeper went on drinking and Sancho Panza went on being "of good cheer." By inventing a narrator through whose consciousness such dumb events could be worked up into an affecting "scene," Cervantes created a form of literature that could do justice to "modest sentiments"; and so a new kind of beauty—Kundera calls it "prosaic beauty"—was born”.

Then it quotes Kafka, Kundera and Jim Coetzee. With the two first speaks about the Manicheism that deformed Czechoslovakia, nowadays known as Czech Republic and Slovakia. Speaking about Coetzee, he says that his political attitudes may be connected with the difficulties of being a liberal white South African, but they have their intellectual origins in his prodigious work as a novelist. His latest collection of essays, Inner Workings (Harvill Secker), keeps returning to the question of "the novel form," and how Cervantes created it in order to demonstrate the power of the imagination.

Then the article deals about the politics and the literature, and quotes Benjamin and his Marxism, Susan Sontag and Hamish Hamilton. Finally it speaks about Mario Vargas Llosa, who has on at least one occasion, gone out of his way to achieve political power.

He won literary fame in the early 1960s and pursued a charmed career as a writer not only in his native Peru, but also in Britain, Spain and the US. But in 1990 he took a vacation from literature in order to campaign for the presidency of Peru. But after his defeat with Alberto Fujimori, he returned with relief to his old preoccupations, and in Touchstones, his new collection of miscellaneous writings, he elaborates on the case for the political relevance of the novel. Touchstones is a piece of reportage rather than an essay: an account by Vargas Llosa of an extended visit to Iraq in 2003, chronicling his reluctant conversion from visceral opposition to the western invasion to firm if wary support. Vargas Llosa's optimism about Iraq may seem excessive, but it is bound up with a subtle understanding of the political responsibility of the novelist.

As it is said in the penultimate paragraph speaking about Vargas Llosa:  “He traces the same kind of practical fertility in a vast range of 20th-century novelists, from Conrad, Mann, Woolf, Orwell and Hemingway to Henry Miller, Camus, Grass, Nabokov and Borges. A society that ignores imaginative literature, he argues, is liable to succumb to the bovine complacencies and populist idiocies of nationalism, and so to degenerate into "something like a sectarian cult". “

Finally, the conclusion of the article is that the history of democracy began not in politics but in literature, when Cervantes first tackled "the problem of the narrator," or the question of who gets to tell the story. As it puts in the end of the article: No doubt about it: Don Quixote is "a 21st-century novel."

That website has also other interesting articles, they don’t have connexion with our paper, but I recommend it to you.

 Now I will provide my own conclusion of the three articles.