charles lamb was right about don quixote

The end of Don Quixote is not quite right; he has three options in light of his vanquishment: to carry on regardless as before, to give up the chivalry idea but switch to a pastoral setting (to become a shepherd) or to renounce the whole business and embrace 'normality'. He chooses the latter; an outcome that Dostoevsky considers the saddest imaginable. Certainly the choice he makes is a let down and supports Lamb's idea that Cervantes planned to end the book after Part One adding Part Two before another writer got there first. At the conclusion of the first part his chivalric narrative is working well and as the idea of multiple narratives is now commonplace each of the above three options has equal weight. Dostoevsky's notion of self deception or compounding lies with further lies is off target; Quixote is not a liar; he describes things as he sees them. We need a frame of reference within which to capture his immortality. Consider Munoz' Double Bind; here a lift goes up and down; it is nearly a real lift but not quite; more an alternative or possible lift; one of many possible lifts none of which being in any sense privileged; looking down are mysterious figures a bit like us but not quite. This is a preferred locus for Quixote; he is one of the figures up in the lift looking down on us-forever.