This superb parody of medieval romantic tales based on legend, chivalric love, and adventure. Don Quixote’s madness lies in his credulity. For him the chivalric tales are histories not fictions. The comedy lies in the Don’s bravado and rhetoric, matched at every turn by failure, which usually amounts to a good hiding.

Cervantes great gift, among others, is modulation of the narrative. The text is always good-naturedly winking at the reader. It seems at times to be a novel of soliloquies, long monologues, a device from the stage.

I’m comparing J.M. Cohen’s translation (this book) with Edith Grossman’s newer translation. (I’ve read both.) And so far Cohen prevails. Cohen has this slightly more formal diction, which, when it comes to Don Quixote‘s dialogue, is simply funnier than the same line in Grossman.

This book is crazy and it's about madness. What a mess. I think it's supposed to be about catholocism, but no thank you.

This book is about 1,000 pages. I enjoyed the beginning and some of the ending, but the middle just goes bananas. It was long and dragging. I'm told it has a lot of analogy with the catholic church, which was huge in Spain. I must admit that I kept losing the story and wondering what was going on in the middle. I mean it just dragged on.

I love the Windmill scene and the whole thing with Dulcinea, but man, so much of this story could be cut out. It's hard for me to see why this is such a classic. The scenes that have been made famous are the best parts, but seriously, the middle is bonkers and hard to read.

Don Quixote is a massive, complex work. At its centre is the familiar comical farce of a delusional hidalgo and his squire, from which foundation Cervantes finds room for a multitude of philosophical and psychological digressions, uncovering themes and implications so wide-ranging as to defy concise encapsulation.

Foremost is the likable character of Don Quixote himself, whose blend of intellect and delusion is something familiar to us. Don Quixote speaks to the power of fantasy, and we are sympathetic towards his desire to do good and to strive for something greater than himself. But his character also hints at the potentially damaging capacity of self-deception as an isolating container for ideology, and an engine for misguided action. There is something of David Foster Wallace in Cervantes' conflicted esteem and criticism of this double-edged potential of entertainment (the analogy of chivalry romances being the TV of their time being hopefully not too much of a stretch).

I was surprised at how quickly I was drawn into Don Quixote, though after the first few episodes I was skeptical that the simple premise would be able to sustain such a lengthy work without becoming tiresome or repetitive. But I believe maintaining the engagement of the reader was at the forefront of Cervantes's mind, as he is constantly playful and inventive, moving first in the direction of more complex and involved plots, then to deeper explorations of his characters, and to wider societal and philosophical considerations. Surprisingly, through much of the latter half of the First Part, Don Quixote himself is largely absent from or tangential to the plot.

But perhaps the most striking and unexpectedly progressive element of the novel is its meta-fictional aspect: the way it plays with perspective and authorship, and blends and contrasts fact and fiction. Don Quixote, which depicts a fictional world, is acknowledged also as an artifact of the real world, which is then inserted back into the fictional world - all of which has strange implications for those living in both. As described within the novel, authorship is split between the narrator (presumably Cervantes) and at least three other authors, in addition to a fifth author of an alternative, "unauthorised" version of the Second Part of Don Quixote. Though the first three are understood as fictional, the last is in fact real, and the alternative Second Part was actually published in Cervantes' lifetime, and is likely to have motivated him to write the "official" version. The implications of "true" and "false" versions of fictional narratives is brilliantly and humourously explored throughout the Second Part. The novel itself never relinquishes its own veracity.

However in my opinion, the Second Part's preoccupation with meta-fiction detracted from its storytelling. While the plot of the First Part had moved progressively towards a "novelistic" structure containing an overarching narrative with subplots, the Second Part regressed to a more traditional, episodic format. Additionally, the plot of the Second Part relied heavily on deceptions created by other characters who were, like the reader, "in on the joke", in order to provoke amusing responses from Quixote and Sancho. I felt something was lost of the purity and authenticity of their adventures through these contrived manipulations. The consistency and realism also suffered in the Second Part, as certain actions of characters became noticeably incongruous to their personalities. Sancho's wisdom in governance, for example, is amusing in its irony when contrasted with his ordinary foolishness, but it is out of place with his character and undermines any serious analysis of his development.

Though Don Quixote is generally recognised as the first "great novel", I'm not convinced it is correct to call it a novel (the precise definition of which I am finding difficult to pin down). It certainly does not feel like a modern novel. Character development is not its driving force so much as humour and satire, and despite some moves towards a narrative arc, it retains a meandering, episodic structure which does not seek resolution. These elements seem to align Don Quixote more with literature's past than its future, though it is clearly a work which strives to free itself from tradition, and succeeds in breaking a lot of new ground.

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”



Renowned the world over for its portrayal of a delusional knight-errant, Don Quixote, and his squire, Sancho Panza, Cervantes’ masterpiece is funny, tragic and way too relatable. The line between wisdom and madness is flipped on its head over and over. Published in 1605 and 1615, Don Quixote still amazes! I’d read the first part of Don Quixote several times, but never read the complete novel before now. While reading the first part gets the reader most of the iconic scenes from this work (most will recognize Don Quixote battling windmills, or mistaking a peasant for a lady, for instance), a complete read turns Don Quixote and Sancho into old friends that is consequently enjoyable and satisfying.

Don Quixote is unable to revive the age of chivalry in 16th century Spain. Already, living according to these codes is antiquated. However, because the first part of the Don Quixote’s ‘history’ was published during his lifetime, when he takes up knight-errantry again he finds that he and his squire are famous for their many adventures. It is a dubious fame for which he and Sancho are continuously pranked. The message is clear (for me) in this part: Is it better to believe in something and see life as an adventure or not be fooled? What would be lost if Don Quixote’s sanity were restored? So much could be said. Don Quixote is admittedly a long read, but very worthwhile!

n  n    Book Reviewn  n
4 out of 5 stars to Don Quixote, written around 1605 by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. A few interesting facts: (1) The book was originally written in Spanish, (2) I read an English translation as when I attempted to read the Spanish, between the changes in language over 400 years and my own limitations of the language at the time I read it, (3) this is considered one of the first "modern" novels and (4) all the great writers in the 19th century looked to this novel and author as the person whose footsteps they should be following in... that's how good it was and how famous it was years ago. So many forget about it now, think of it as just some non-American book, a romance story or a play or film they watched. WRONG! It started as a great Spanish novel -- I'm only being funny with my little attitude here -- that influenced the entire world. If you haven't read it, you should definitely give it a chance. From romance to solid friendships, to travels and cultural experiences, this book tells of life's greatest pleasures and all the emotions that come with it.

n  n    About Men  n
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

n  “I know who I am,” replied don Quijote, “and I know who I can be...”n

I bought this book under the sway of a caprice which, if it were not too hackneyed to say so, I would call quixotic. This was two years ago. I was in the royal palace in La Granja de San Ildefonso, near Segovia. I had just toured the palace—one of the finest in Spain—and was about to explore the French gardens, modeled after those in Versailles, when I encountered the gift shop. Normally I do not buy anything in gift shops, since half of it is rubbish and all of it is overpriced. But this book, this particular volume, called out to me and I obeyed.

It was a foolish purchase—not only because I paid gift-shop prices, but because my Spanish was not anywhere near the level I needed to read it. And at the time, I had no idea I would be staying in Spain for so long. There was a very good chance, in other words, that I would never be able to tackle this overpriced brick with Bible-thin pages. At least I left myself some hope. For this is not the original El ingenioso caballero don Quijote de la Mancha—written in Spanish contemporaneous with Shakespeare’s English—but a bastardization: its style diligently modernized by the writer Andrés Trapiello. Even with this crutch, and even with an additional two years of living in Spain, this book was a serious challenge.

Before charging headlong into the thickets of criticism, I want to say a word in praise of Trapiello’s edition. Cervantes’s Spanish is not as difficult as Shakespeare’s English, but it still foreign enough to prove an obstacle even to native speakers. I know many Spaniards, even well-read ones, who have never successfully made it through El Quijote for this very reason (or so they allege). Trapiello has done the Spanish-speaking world a great service, then, since he has successfully made El Quijote as accessible as it would have been to its first readers, while preserving the instantly recognizable Cervantine style. And while I can see why purists would object to this defacement of hallowed beauty, I would counter that, if ever there were a book to painlessly enjoy, it is El Quijote.

To get a taste of the change, here is Trapiello’s opening lines:

n  En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, vivía no hace mucho un hidalgo de los de lanza ya olvidada, escudo antiguo, rocín flaco y galgo corredor. Consumían tres partes de su hacienda una olla con algo más de vaca que carnero, ropa vieja casi todas las noches, huevos con torreznos los sábados, lentejas los viernes y algún palomino de añadidura los domingos.n

And here is the original:

n  En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, no ha mucho tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en astillero, adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor. Una olla de algo más vaca que carnero, salpicón las más noches, duelos y quebrantos los sábados, lentejas los viernes, algún palomino de añadidura los domingos, consumían tres partes de su hacienda.n

Now, undeniably something is lost in the transition. Cervantes’s “duelos y quebrantos” (lit. “aches and pains”), for example, is undeniably more evocative than Trapiello’s “huevos con torreznos” (eggs with bacon); but without Trapiello I would have no idea what Cervantes meant. It is also worth noting how similar the two are; Trapiello has taken care to change only what he must.

Onward to the book itself. But I hesitate. The more I contemplate this book, the more I think that a critic must be as daft as the don and as simple as his squire to think he can get to the bottom of it. Cervantes was either extremely muddle-headed or fantastically subtle, since this book resists any definite conclusions you may try to wring from its pages. Perhaps, like many great books, it simply got out of the author’s control. Just as Tolstoy set out to write the parable of a fallen woman and gave us Anna Karenina, and as Mark Twain set out to write a boys’ book and invented American literature, it seems Cervantes set out to write a satire of chivalric romances and produced one of the great works of universal art. It is as if a New Yorker cartoonist accidentally doodled Guernica.

The key to the book’s enduring beauty, I think, is Cervantes’s special brand of irony. He is the only author I know who can produce scorn and admiration in the same sentence. He is able to ruthlessly make fun of everything under the sun, while in the same moment praising them to the heavens. The book itself embodies this paradox: for it is at once the greatest rejection of chivalric romance and its greatest embodiment—an adventure tale that laughs at adventure tales. There is no question that Cervantes finds the old don ridiculous, and he makes us agree with him; yet by the end, Quijote is more heroic than Sir Galahad himself.

The central question the book asks is whether idealism is noble or silly. The Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance is an undeniably hilarious figure. But do we laugh at his expense, or at our own? Is his idealism pathetic, or is it our realism? The book resists both horns of this dilemma, until finally we must conclude that we are all—dreamers and realists alike—equally ridiculous. For we all reside in a social world whose rules only exist in our beliefs and in our actions, a world which we create but do not design. It is only Quijote who seems to realize (however unconsciously) that, by changing the script, we can recreate the world. And he does. By the time we get to Part Two, everyone is playing along with Quijote.

Even so, I am not able to go so far as Miguel de Unamuno, and consider Quijote a sort of messiah. I do not think Cervantes’s irony permits this. For Quijote truly is out of touch, and frequently gets pummeled for it. And even when his fantasy inspires others to play along, and to help him create his new world, they never do so for disinterested reasons. Some, including Sancho, play along for gain; others do so to control or to help Quijote; and most do it just to have some fun at his expense. This is the dilemma faced by all revolutionaries: they have the vision to see a better world, the courage to usher it in with their actions, and the charisma to inspire others to follow them; but most worldlings chose to play along for ulterior motives, not for ideals; and so the new world becomes as corrupt as the old one. To put this another way, Quijote’s problem is not that he is out of touch with the social order, but that he is out of touch with the human heart.

Much of the greatness of this book lays in the relationship between the don and his squire. Few friendships in literature are so heartwarming. Sancho, in his simplicity, is the only one who can even partially meet Quijote in his new world—as a genuine participant in Quijote’s make-believe. Of course, Sancho is not free from ulterior motives, either. There is the island he is to rule over. But the longer the story goes on, the more Sancho believes in his master, and the less he pursues material gain. We are relieved to see that, when finally offered his island, the squire comes running back to the don in a matter of days. As the only two inhabitants of their new world, as the only two actors in their play, they are homeless without one another.

It is useful to compare Shakespeare’s and Cervantes’s method of characterization. As Harold Bloom points out, Shakespeare’s characters are most truly themselves when they are alone, soliloquizing. When together, on the other hand, even close friends and lovers never seem to communicate perfectly, but talk past each other, or talk for their own benefit, or simply show off. But don Quijote and Sancho Panza are most truly themselves when they are with each other; they draw one another out and spur one another on; they ceaselessly bicker while remaining absolutely loyal; they quibble and squabble while understanding one another perfectly. When they are separated during Sancho’s sojourn on the island, the reader feels that each has lost more than half of himself. For my part, though I am not sure it is more “realistic,” I find Cervantes’s friendship more heartening than the bard’s. Though they begin as polar opposites, the squire and the knight influence one another as the story progresses, eventually coming to resemble one another. This beats Romeo and Juliet by a league.

What strikes most contemporary readers of this ur-novel is its modernity. Formally, Cervantes is far more daring than his Victorian successors. This is admittedly more apparent in Part Two, when Cervantes has his characters travel around a world where Part One has already been published and read widely, and where the spurious Part Two by Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda (a pseudonym) has just been released. This leads to self-referential tricks worthy of the coolest postmodernist: the duo encountering readers of the prequels and commenting on their own portrayal. Another daring touch was Cervantes’s use of the Arabic historian Cide Hamete Berengeli—whose book, found on the streets of Toledo, he is merely transcribing into Castilian—which allows him to comment on the text he is writing: praising the historian’s scrupulous attention to detail and skipping over boring sections in the “original.”

All this is done, not merely to be clever, but to reinforce the sense of infinite irony that pervades the text. The gap opened up by these tricks is what gives Cervantes room to be so delightfully ambiguous. As the authorship is called into question, and as the characters—who are imaginative actors to begin with—become aware of themselves as characters, the sense of a guiding intelligence crafting the story becomes ever more tenuous. The final irony, then, is that this self-referential irony does not undermine the reality of the story, but only reinforces it. In Part Two, especially, the characters leap from the book into reality, becoming both readers and writers of themselves—so real, indeed, that we risk repeating the don’s error of mistaking the book with reality.

Having said all this in praise of El Quijote, I should mention some of the book’s flaws. These are mostly confined to Part One, wherein Cervantes inserts several short novelas that have, for the most part, aged poorly. At the time there was, apparently, a craze for pastoral love stories involving shepherds and shepherdesses, which nowadays is soppy sentimental trash. One must also admit that Cervantes was a very mediocre poet, so the verse scattered throughout these pages can safely be skipped. On the whole, though the book’s most iconic moments are in Part One, Part Two is much superior and more innovative.

Part Two is also far sadder. And this is the last ambiguity: the reader can never fully decide whether to laugh or cry. Tragedy and comedy are blended so deeply together that no emotional response seems adequate. I still have not decided with any certainty how I feel or what I think about this book. All I know is that I wish it could go on forever—that I could read another chapter of don Quijote’s and Sancho Panza’s adventures for the rest of my life. To reach the end is unbearable. Don Quijote should live eternal life. And he will.

One star means, here at GR, that the reader did not like the book. No, I do not like this book. IF I cannot bear to listen to it to the very end how can I even say it was OK? I have listened to seven of thirty-six hours of the unabridged audiobook version translated by Tobias Smollett and narrated by the talented Robert Whitfield/Simon Vance. I cannot continue. I have given this enough of my time. My good friends know that I often will struggle through a book that is displeasing me. Why? To give it a fair chance; some books do turn around. My patience is tested to the limit with this book. In addition, let it be noted that even a superb narrator cannot save a book if you don't like how it is written. Robert Whitfield does a fantastic job.

I found the book tedious, extremely wordy and repetitive. It is a composite of many stories relating the escapades of the knight errant, Don Quixote, and his faithful squire, Sancho Panza. Don Quixote is always, in every story depicted, the idealist, a worthy knight bent on fighting for good and honor, fighting for women and men who are unfairly treated. He is fighting against all injustice, in whatever form it may be. That is all fine and dandy; but he is delusional and sees injustice, inequity and dishonor where it does not exist. He is an honorable man fighting against problems that in fact do not exist. In contrast, Sancho Panza offers us the realist's interpretation of events. (That they see the world differently does make their friendship all the more wonderful!) Each story/episode introduces the reader to new characters, new events, but there is a huge similarity in what is to be drawn from the separate stories.

I do not enjoy short stories so I am not the ideal reader for this book! If you do enjoy short stories it may be enjoyable to listen to one, laugh at the humor depicted in the events and the naivety of Don Quixote and smile at the wonderful friendship one sees between the knight errant and his squire. Then put the book aside for a later time when you feel like listening to another story. However do keep in mind that the message imparted is to all extent and purposes the same in all the related stories.

The stories are cute, the lines are humorous and the book well depicts Spanish society and ways of thinking in the early 17th Century. It was published in two volumes, the first in 1605 and the second in 1615. To quote from Wiki: "Don Quixote is considered the most influential work of literature from the Spanish Golden Age and the entire Spanish literary canon. As a founding work of modern Western literature, and one of the earliest canonical novels, it regularly appears high on lists of the greatest works of fiction ever published."

But I personally have had enough. This is in fact the second time I have tried to read the book. My grandmother had a wonderful hardback with great illustrations. It attracted me, I tried to like it, but failed that time too. That was a good fifty years ago.

I am NOT judging the book. I am telling you merely how I personally react to this book. Yes, it can be seen as amazing, as a break-through piece of writing, but it is not with this criterion I rate books.

Is Don Quixote one of the most impressive, mind shattering, extraordinary works of Spanish Golden Age? Yes, hundred percent it is! Is it worth to get lost in nearly 1050 full pages of adventure? Again yes it is absolutely worth it!

There so many critics defined this unconventional classic as depressive, dark and as for the second part of the book which is written after 10 years takes darker, more serious turn!

In my opinion this is one the saddest stories I’ve ever had. This story is mostly about journey matters more than the destination as you have a delusional mind and see what’s not out there! It is sad to see Don Quixote interpret everything from his own distorted perceptive which makes him vulnerable and gives people enough opportunity to take advantage of him. Yes, he’s living in a different world and reading forbidden works about knights direct him to his own escape route.

The dynamics between him and his loyal squire Sancho Panza and their noble adventures, the people they meet through their way who tell their own vivid stories including damsels, peasants in love pick your interest and finally you realize you don’t want to skip any of those chapters because the writing structure resembling Arabic Nights and Canterbury Tales keeps you allured.

Overall: this is one of my favorite classics I enjoy to reread which helps me to enjoy something different and learn to see things from Quixote’s creative and vulnerable mind!
Here are my favorite quotes:

“Take my advice and live for a long, long time. Because the maddest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die.”

“The wounds received in battle bestow honor, they do not take it away.”

“The fault lies not with the mob, who demands nonsense, but with those who do not know how to produce anything else.”

“Perhaps to be too practical is madness.”

“Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies?”

“The truth may be stretched thin, but it never breaks, and it always surfaces above lies, as oil floats on water”

And here’s my all time favorite quote of the book:
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”( definitely resonates with me)

Cervantes, Don Quixote. "In a certain corner of la Mancha, the name of which I do not choose to remember, there lately lived one of those country gentleman, who adorn their halls with rusty lace and worm-eaten target, and ride forth on the skeleton of a horse, to course with a sort of a starved greyhound."

Don Quixote is one of my favorite comedies of all time. This opening phrase is steeped with irony and sarcasm. We are introduced to the loser town which the author is obviously embarrassed to have known and an out of date (rusty) and poor (worm-eaten) country gentleman (read "redneck") and given a less than a complimentary portrait of his magnificent steed, Rocinante (starved greyhound). Cervantes chooses to reveal himself from the get-go ("I") and stays with us during the entire two volumes of time-enduring text that is his literary legacy to us. This is also evident from the long and rambling sentence form. There is gallantry (ride forth) and pretention (adorn their halls) and yet a sort of hopelessness (skeleton of a horse) that infuses this sentence with a life of its own. And, the rest only gets better.

I think my favorite moment - and one of the more existential moments which make this truly a modern book - was when Don Quixote is suspended in air at Dolcinea's window, Riconante having wandered off eating grass. The entire work is full of comedy and humor. And don't miss the second part which he wrote because after publishing Part 1, life dealt him some harsh cards (soldiering wounds, prison, bankruptcy, exile...) during which a grifter wrote a sequel using his name and his characters. He was so insensed that he wrote a sequel and killed off Quixote so that there could be no more imitators. Incredible stuff.

Whatever else Don Quixote may be, I never found it boring. Parts of it were very funny, others had wonderful similarities with Shakespeare, some bits were more serious: it's like a mini library in a single volume. Wonderful.

Overall, it has quite a Shakespearean feel - more in the plotting and tales within tales (eg The Man Who was Recklessly Curious, stolen by Mozart for Cosi fan Tutte) than the language. In fact, the story of Cardenio is thought to be the basis for Shakespeare's lost play of the same name.

Humour

Very funny - slapstick, toilet and more subtle humour, with lots of factual historical and chivalric detail as well, but it doesn't feel especially Spanish to me. Certainly long, but I don't understand why, supposedly, so few people manage to finish it. Some of DQ's delusions hurt only himself (tilting at windmills), but others lead to suffering for his "squire" Sancho Panza (tossed in a blanket) or reluctant beneficiaries of his salvation (the beaten servant, beaten even more once DQ departs) and bemuse people (mistaking inns for castles, sheep for enemy armies and ordinary women as princesses) and are used to justify theft (the golden "helmet"/bowl) and non-payment to inn-keepers. His resolute optimism in the face of severe pain and disaster is extraordinary. Meanwhile, Sancho wavers between credulity (wishfully thinking the promise of an island for him to rule will come true) and pragmatism.

Two Parts

Part II starts with Cervantes' response to the unknown writer of an unofficial sequel to part 1, though DQ, Sancho and others also critique it in early chapters. The following story presumes that part 1 is true, and shows how DQ's resulting fame affects his subsequent adventures. A very modern mix of "fact" and fiction. Some characters doubt his exploits, others pander to them, especially the duke and duchess who go to great lengths to treat him in knightly/chivalric manner, and provide new adventures (for their amusement, at the painful expense of DQ and Sancho). Sancho gets rather more scope for lengthy meanderings of jumbled and largely irrelevant proverbs. Less slapstick and more pontificating than part I - both DQ's advice to Sancho on how to govern his promised insula and when Sancho has intriguing disputes to resolve.

A Third, courtesy of Borges?

Borges wrote the short story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" (published in The Garden of Forking Paths ). Menard is an imaginary writer, described as if he's real, who “did not want to compose another Quixote” but “the Quixote” by combining the don and Sancho into a single character and by, in some sense, becoming Cervantes.

What Don Q Means to Me

I was wary of this book for many years; I feared it was too heavy in ounces and themes/plot/language, but only the former is true, and that can be obviated by a comfy chair (or an ebook).

I plucked up the courage to read it shortly after joining GR, partly through encouragement from others. It was a revelation, both in terms of the power of GR friends to enrich my life and my own confidence as a reader.

My enjoyment was heightened by reading it whilst my kid and their friend who was staying (both aged ~10) repeatedly watched and quoted Monty Python's Holy Grail - very appropriate!

Don Quixote is truly a literary treasure. With such vivid characters, and an incredibly witty, and modern feeling sense of humor, Don Quixote is so easy to read, and flows like any modern novel. A beautiful work.

IN THE END we chose Rutherford for our buddy read. But my buddy was slain by Quixote a couple of hundred pages in. I managed to complete the first novel of Quixote published 1605. The second novel was published 1615.

**The longer review is posted with Don Quixote Part 1 translated by Rutherford**

——————-//////


Doing a buddy read on this baby bambino bebé