I have no idea how to rate this. Each adventure was fun to read, but the whole thing was a bit of a slog for me, and I am not quite sure what to think. Several of the blurbs refer to it as the first modern novel; I guess I don't know enough to see why that's the case. I feel like I need to read a few pieces that discuss it in order to be able to process what it's supposed to mean.

[later]

OK, having slept on it, I think I understand better. Part of my problem is the paucity of reading I have done of stuff older than this, not least the chivalric tales that Cervantes is lampooning. DQ is presented as a state-change, a qualitative departure from that older stuff - what is this difference?

I think I am coming to see that it's something like realism.

The older stuff was something like pure fantasy, the knights errant not errant at all, love always true and pure, people either good or evil, no bodily needs like eating or eliminating nor any of the other real and true (if small) parts of life sketched in.

In DQ, Cervantes gives us a big old dose of the real human condition. DQ's mad obsession with knight errantry and books of chivalry lay them bare for what they are, pure fantasy. And his own tale replaces pure fantasy with all kinds of reality, starting with Sancho --who could be more earthy than simple, sagacious, paunchy Sancho?-- petty people (like the ones who go to great pains to play tricks on the Knight with the Sorrowful Face), simple human tenderness, the irrefutable pleasures of a good sleep or a good Manchego (cheese), etc. etc.

I didn't need it to be 940 pages, though, as with Moby Dick or Anna Karenina, I was willing to be OK with it if it served the narrative purpose (MD) or just allowed me to drink in more prosaic amazingness (AK). Cervantes's humor delighted me, and the tales were fun, but it still felt like he needed a good editor. (How modern of me, I know.)

Anyway, with a good sleep and piping hot cup of coffee, I think I have gained new clarity and deeper appreciation for Don Quixote.