Quixote doesn’t say he’s on the moon. He doesn’t walk around pointing at trees and laughing at the toothpick men. In some cases, when he believes something to be something it isn’t, it becomes something else. Literally. It gains properties and abilities greater than what it was in the first place. It saves him, in some cases, from instant death.

And there’s no deification, or apotheosis, in my argument. I’m giving credence to the philosophy and (possibly unexpected) intelligence of the character. I began by stating Quixote is a powerful literary character, dynamic and quite round, and that someone reminds me of him in the ways he acts, and you came in with the opposite: because you don’t agree with how this person acts, therefore Quixote must be in denial. You furthermore pursued opinions that verified your own while not caring to develop it, and instead of using any kind of actual study on the subject, the character, or the topic matter, you reinforced your need to villify the character by hiding behind others’ words.

I’m saying Wiki’s opinion isn’t your own informed opinion. Someone telling me the Sears Tower is made of cheese and me seeing it so is the difference between firsthand account and, of course, the filtered and less accurate secondhand account. I can go about reading how Freud was the most developed psychoanalyst in the world, and then turn and spew whatever I read at someone else for an “informed” effect, but it doesn’t make it correct, true, or properly argued/theorized. Your opinion is your opinion, and your researched opinion is certainly warranted. But I’m not going to argue against a “Stephanie” style where you’re only throwing out the parts of an unsubstantiated, unprofessional article you please. I’m saying get your own opinion after reading it instead of half-cocking a russian-roulette loaded gun and pointing it at me.

You aren’t too good to read the book, no matter how many opinions you find to develop your own. I’m not looking to hear what the Wiki writers have to say about the book, or about the character.

I’m not arguing both sides because I give credence to what you say is happening. I’m only arguing my side because how I see the motivations behind what the character does as opposite to what you see.

Now, using Rand’s “objective viewpoint,” or Quixote’s happiness as the main focus of his existence, your argument is still underdeveloped and poorly discussed. You aren’t pursuing the argument of how Quixote’s happiness is the focus, or anything around that perspective. In fact, as far as I can see, you’re trying to extend your personal experience into the sphere of what the character was: an unredeemable, delusional man in denial of reality. It furthers your own personal argument (and perhaps vendetta) while negating any intelligent development of the topic by either of us.

The questions you ask concerning the windmills is the focus of the entire book, and the climax of an otherwise meandering, parable-filled storyline. It is the culmination of an entire two thousand pages of storytelling, and to take a morally sterile, unbiased and context-free view to the final major act of Quixote is to blatantly ignore the rest of the book, and ignore the complexities of this character.

It’s like looking at the Lord of the Rings trilogy and say, “Gandalf killed the Balrog? How does this create a language for Tolkien to write about? Or, why didn’t Aragorn kill the Balrog if he was the representation of humanity as a whole that was so specific and important to the remainder of the series?” To remove the rest of the story from around a single event is downright ridiculous, pointless, and once more underdeveloped.

If you want the answer to your question about him fighting a windmill, perhaps you should read the book. Since it is (obviously) the most memorable scene of the book, I can assure you the rest of the book sheds some light on why he did what he did.

I don’t see how his confidence could be false to him, when he saw it as true. He didn’t fake it ’till he made it. He persevered over his lesser peers because of his so-called “emotional perception.” Finally, the projection you’re making about him is about as emotional as you can get. The evidence is as followed: judging based on gut reaction on what the character is about, extending personal experience to argue against the redeemability of a literary character, and finally seeking information that only upholds your particular perspective while eschewing the opposition because it’s not objective enough (which I assume you mean as ‘emotion-free’).

Finally, did you look at any of those citations? Other than http://www.bookrags.com/notes/dq/ and its skeleton of information concerning the use of certain imagery in the writing, most of those links are editions of the book, pictures about Quixote, and Spanish, untranslated texts. In fact, after looking through, there is absolutely no literary criticism that lends credence to your argument (except, possibly, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yousufh/donquixote.html, which after reading would more give credence to what I’m saying than what you are). English 101 – if you want to sound smart, and want to convince anyone your article is of any kind of value, read where they get the information. Again, I’ve been through all this. I’ve done actual research. In fact, that’s one of the things I excelled at while in college.

And I know I’m not giving sources, except for my own opinion from my own reading of the book. Which is what I’m looking for. From others.

I think this version of a blog will give you a lot more flexibility.

Sometimes when I read your blog it makes me want to do more than post interesting photographs and really write my thoughts out and share them. I have a lot of thoughts about a variety of subjects, but I always end up doubting whether people or interested. Also, I think I always want to make my little creations perfect, which is difficult. I do need to create more. But I digress…

In any case, good luck with all of these projects. Glad I can finally comment (publicly) on one of your blogs.