摘要
本篇論文旨在應用混沌理論來解讀《唐吉柯德》。混沌理論強調無序中的有序亦或秩序可由混亂的狀態自我產生。無論秩序的型式為何，混沌理論強調的是一個複雜的結構狀態。這種複雜的特質正是連接科學與文學跨領域研究的楔子。雖然文學作品並非必然為混沌系統，但每一部作品必然有其複雜的特質是讀者無法藉由尋常的語言或文法概念可以解釋的。本篇論文主要是應用渾沌理論所闡釋的複雜概念來分析《唐吉柯德》以試圖建構另一種新的秩序或新的閱讀方式。
第一章旨在介紹混沌理論與後現代文化的密切關係。混沌理論雖源於科學理論，但近年來隨著後現代文化的興起也逐漸被運用在社會科學或文化領域。事實上，不論科學或文學皆隸屬於文化範疇。混沌理論的產生正好是後現代文化盛行之時。後現代文化反對一元概念，強調在地性與突破疆域的研究。因此以科學的理論來解讀文學作品不再是遙不可及的天方夜譚。
第二章與第三章則由混沌理論的模型—秩序可由系統自我組織而成--來分析《唐吉柯德》。一個系統若受到噪訊的干擾會變的紊亂。但紊亂的另一面其實是複雜的結構。且就另一方面而言，噪訊能刺激一個有機系統經歷自我重組的過程而變的更精密。本篇論文以《唐吉柯德》為例，認為作者塞萬提斯經由對中古傳奇文類的諷喻造成《唐吉柯德》的複雜結構。對中古傳奇的諷喻因此就是噪訊，干擾原有文類既定的秩序，使得作品充滿許多不可知的變數，也賦予作者更多空間發揮想像力跨越文類的疆域，融入其他許多元素。《唐吉柯德》的渾沌結構可分兩方面探討，一個是中古傳奇中作者—讀者—文本的關係被過度強化，形成類似混沌系統中所表現的奇異吸子與不可逆的特質。另一個則是中古傳奇插曲似的手法被大量應用，造成自我模仿、非線性結構、分歧與文類的融合等混沌系統所有的特性。簡而言之，塞萬提斯的諷刺手法在於過度表現中古傳奇的既定形式，裸露其內在空洞並加以推翻既有形式，進而進行重新創造。文本的結構雖然看似紊亂毫無規律，實則為精密的複雜結構。
第三章則試圖由讀者的閱讀活動來解釋《唐吉柯德》的自我重組過程。塞萬提斯注入諷喻的噪訊，造成作品的複雜，但同時也造成文本的解放。文本擺脫中古傳奇的文類束縛，鼓勵讀者重新塑造一個屬於自己的秩序。這種新的秩序即由閱讀產生。《唐吉柯德》一書描繪當時許多讀者的閱讀心態。藉由對當時閱讀風氣的了解，塞萬提斯將當的文化環境拉入了文本的世界。文本與外在世界因而產生一種對話式的互動。文類的疆界既破，新秩序則由讀者的閱讀過程源源不絕而生。這種新的秩序隨著每個讀者的解讀而有所不同，一元概念被打破，所有元素因此能互動，文本成為一個活潑的動態系統。
藉由混沌理論對《唐吉柯德》的解讀，本篇論文試圖闡釋文學作品也能營造一個環境讓科學的思考方式成為可能。

Abstract
The main aim of this thesis is to show how a scientific model can be applicable to the literary interpretation.
Chaos theory, the twentieth-century science, marks a revolution in how we think of the universe and the objects at human scale. The rise of chaos theory comes from the study of systems that can not be solved by simple mathematical or physical formulations. These complex systems are called chaos.
Chaos is actually everywhere: “A rising column of cigarette smoke breaks into wild swirls. A flag snaps back and forth in the wind. A dripping faucet goes from a steady pattern to a random one. Chaos appears in the behavior of the weather, the behavior of cars clustering on an expressway, the behavior of oil flowing in underground pipes” (Gleick 5). Science of chaos is therefore an inquiry into the irregularities of everyday phenomenon that have been neglected by scientists for a long time. In other words, it studies what has long been discarded.
Since chaos exists in our everyday world, there is no boundary between scientific disciplines. Scientists from diverse fields do research on “the universal behavior of complexity” (Gleick 5). It is also the notion of complexity that bridges the gap between science and literature. Though literary works may not necessarily exhibit characteristics of a chaotic system, it also has its own complex aspects, the “uncoded diversity”, which makes the scientific interpretation possible.
The complexity shown in a chaotic system is either orderly disorder or self-organization of order. Orderly disorder means that there is a hidden order within a chaotic system. Recursive symmetry, of which an image of swirls inside swirls is an example, marks this kind of complexity—there is “predictability that lies hidden within their unpredictable evolutions” (Hayles 10). On the other hand, self-organization of order emphasizes the dynamics of a system. Conscience intelligence is an example. Once the command is entered, the computer will autonomously generate more information or patterns. It seems that the computer has a mind of its own. Organic bodies are another example which shows the ability to reorganize itself. Organisms take in the external elements and transform them into useful information to keep their function. Some of these external elements are noise in the sense that they don’t belong to the system and may cause the perturbation. But the organic body can still convert it into information and during the process the organism experiences reorganization.
This model of self-organization from noise constitutes the basis of my interpretation of Don Quixote. If an organic body can reorganize itself after the disturbance of noise, can the same model be applicable to a literary text? Can we assume that a literary work, as if it has a mind of its own, can reorganize itself? My interpretation of Don Quixote traces the trajectory of this reorganizing process. I intend to show how the text experiences the process of complication and subsequent self-organization.
Chapter I is an introduction to chaos theory and how it is related to the postmodern culture. Chaos theory, with its pronouncement of irregularity, unpredictability, local determinants, irreversibility, nonlinearity, and interdisciplinarity, echoes the postmodern turn toward fragmentation, rupture, discontinuity and the suspicion of globalization. The interdisciplinary study of science and literature, therefore, has a cultural basis. As Paulson remarks, “ Yet if today there can be a study of literature and science, if such a study can be theorized or practiced, this can only be because literature has a particular cultural status that relates it to science in particular ways” (Paulson, Literature, Complexity, Interdisciplinarity 38). Implicated in this statement is the possibility of the interdisciplinarity of science and literature.
From chapter II to chapter III will be an endeavor to apply the model of self-organization from noise to Don Quixote. In chapter II, I propose that there is noise within the text and the noise plunges the structure of the text into a chaotic and complex state. This noise is the parody of romance. What defines parody of romance as noise is its dialectical function. Noise disrupts the system and makes the system complex. Likewise, parody disrupts the original balance of a literary genre, a text or style. It works by imitation with difference, usually with an ironic twist. In Don Quixote, parody of romance disrupts the system by laying bare the system of romance. Narrative techniques of romance are overused and strained to the utmost degree to highlight the emptiness of the form.
Cervantes reworks narrative techniques of romance in two aspects. First of all, he appropriates the traditional author’s claim on historicity of the book, exaggerating it so that the boundary between history and poetry is transgressed. The text is unreliable. It is written by Cide Hamete, who gathers his sources from heresy. Besides, Cide Hamete’s Moorish identity makes the narrator question if he could honestly portray Don Quixote as he heard. There is also a Moorish translator who was asked by the narrator to translate it from Cide Hamet’s manuscript to Spanish. The translated version was later edited and revised by the narrator, who claims himself to be the second author of the text. Judged by the unreliability of textual sources, the text obviously contradicts the claim on historical facts. As for readers, they can never trace back from a text’s local detail to its comprehensive meaning. Irreversibility postulated by Stengers and Prigogine therefore exhibits itself on the formation of the text. With multiple voices and textuality colliding with each other, the text also exhibits the feature of a strange attractor whose phase space is marked by infinite but never-intersecting paths crammed into a finite space. Besides authorship, Cervantes stretches the interlacing technique and creates recursive symmetry of a chaotic system. Episodes reflect one another, which in turn mirror the main narrative, as if there is a swirl within a larger swirl within an even larger swirl. The effect of prism-like mirrors also signals that reality is crossed level by level. There is actually no distinction between reality and fantasy. All is built on the fact of art as artifice. Multiple layers of fictionality can therefore be created from the interlacing technique and be crossed by the symmetry among these stories, as it is shown in the Sierra Morena episode. This episode shows not only recursive symmetry but also the characteristic of a bifurcation diagram. With Don Quixote’s intermittent interruptions, the storyline keeps bifurcating into unpredictable directions, disrupting the linear narrative of traditional romance. This non-linear narrative implies unpredictability because conventions of traditional romance can’t be relied on to interpret the text. Non-linearity of the chaotic system means that small causes can lead to large-scale effects. In terms of the text of Don Quixote, it is exhibited in using the ways of iteration and recursion (self-reflecting effects) to destabilize the system, making it unpredictable and complex. As a result, chaos is not the stylistic feature of Don Quixote but is in fact patterned in the structure of the whole text.
Chapter III is an endeavor to seek how the order is self-organized out of the complex pattern. As it has already been shown in chapter II, Cervantes stretches the narrative techniques of romance to expose the underlying void. In this way, he can play with the form, making it complex. With this kind of parody, he also achieves frame-breaking. The frame of romance is broken because of the self-consciousness of the form. Self-consciousness results from the laying bare of the system. When the system approaches self-consciousness, it also represents the moment of frame-breaking. The liberating potential of self-consciousness can be illustrated from the example of human psychology. When people have self-consciousness or self-understanding, it means that they can break away from the established mode they have been accustomed to and start making a new change. Likewise, self-consciousness of the form can also lead to the effect of frame-breaking. In the case of Don Quixote, Cervantes stretches romance conventions that the structure used to maintain the fixed relationship between form and content can no longer hold. The literary system, because of the breaking of the frame, can undergo the process of reorganization. To describe this process in another way, we can say that the whole process from destruction to reconstruction is like a Big Bang. The concept of Big Bang is put forth by Prigogine and Stengers. Traditionally, scientists believe that the universe, according to the Second Law, will end up in “heat death” because the heat will dissipate gradually and will never be recovered. This kind of entropy , however, is positively viewed by Prigogine and Stengers as playing a constructive role in creating the universe. Their argument is based on the supposition that “before the Big Bang there was a quantum vacuum, and that fluctuations in it brought into existence the aboriginal matter of the universe” (Hayles 14). The void pessimistically viewed by traditional scientists thus becomes the creative void in Prigoginian vision.
The text of Don Quixote experiences the process similar to Big Bang. Cervantes keeps exhausting the narrative techniques of romance conventions to reveal the void within. In other words, the structure is consumed so much that nothing is left but emptiness. But this void is brought to life and order when seen from another perspective. With the breakdown of the form, new order can be self-organized. This new order is constructed reality. It is established through the mapping of diverse reading practices within the text. By inscribing the reader response into the text, Cervantes triggers self-organization. He brings microscopic world of the text into interaction with the macroscopic society of the sixteenth-century Spain. The text is dynamic in the sense that the meaning is decided neither by the author nor by the conventions of romance, but depends on everyone’s reading. Everyone’s reading also implies multiple perspectives. Rather than a comprehensive and unified meaning, Cervantes presents lateral and local meanings, subject to constant revision. Therefore, whether or not Cervantes holds a negative attitude toward romance and tries to criticize it by means of Don Quixote is not important any more. What counts in the book is the presentation of how people at that time read romance and what points of view they had toward romance. Through this presentation, Cervantes can broaden the scope of the text, bringing social and cultural issues into the text. In this way, he also demonstrates that the text is self-generative, depending on the context in which it is read. This new order, therefore, is subjective and is always under reconstruction. From destruction of the form to reconstruction of meanings, Don Quixote experiences the same process of the Big Bang. In other words, the void laid bare through parody is creative void, a kind of reality that is always under deconstruction and reconstruction.
Out of the void comes a reconstituted world…”honeycombed with nothingness,” in which disorder and order, negation and creation, come together in a fruitful dialectic. This reconstitution makes clear that the world as humans experience it is a collaboration between reality and social construction. (Hayles 14)
All in all, my chaotic reading of Don Quixote is an attempt to show how a literary work can be set within a context in which scientific thoughts are thinkable. Chaos theory now becomes a popular tool in interpreting postmodern fictions because of synchronicity. My choosing Don Quixote as an emblematic text for the application of this theory is in the hope of breaking across time and demonstrating the possibility of interdisciplinary study of science and literature.

Allen, John J. Don Quixote: Hero or Fool? Florida: University Presses of Florida, 1979.
Armas, Diana de, ed. Don Quixote. By Miguel de Cervantes. Trans. Burton Raffel. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999.
Auerbach, Erich. “The Enchanted Dulcinea.” Mimesis. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. 334-58.
Barth, John. “The Literature of Exhaustion.” Narrative Theory. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: Longman Publishers USA, 1996. 79-87.
Barthes, Roland. The Pleasure of the Text. Trans. Richard Miller. New York: Noonday Press, 1989.
Bateson, Gregory. “Redundancy and Coding.” Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972. 416-32.
Borges, Jorge Luis. “The Library of Babel.” Ficciones. Ed. Anthony Kerrigan. New York: Grove Press, 1962. 79-89.
Baudrillard, Jean. Selected Writings. Ed. Mark Poster. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.
Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner. Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991.
Bjornhson, Richard, ed. Approaches to Teaching Cervantes’ “Don Quixote”. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1984.
Brink, Andre. “The Wrong Side of the Tapestry.” The Novel: Language and Narrative from Cervantes to Calvino. Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998. 20-45.
Brownlee, Marina S. “Romance at the Crossroads: Medieval Spanish Paradigms and Cervantine Revisions.” The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Ed. Robert L. Krueger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 253-67.
Bruckner, Matilda Tomaryn. “The Shape of Romance in Medieval France.” The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Ed. Robert L. Krueger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 13-29.
Close, Anthony. The Romantic Approach to “Don Quixote”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Close, Anthony. Cervantes and the Comic Mind of His Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Conte, Joseph M. “Being in Uncertainties: Orderly Disorder in Postmodern American Fiction.” Design and Debris: A Chaotics of Postmodern American Fiction. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2002. 1-33.
Cruickshank, D.W. ‘ “Literature and the Book Trade in Golden-Age Spain”’. 73 (1978): 799-824.
Currie, Mark. “Introduction”. Metafiction. Ed. Mark Currie. London: Longman, 1995. 1-20.
De Man, Paul. “Semiology and Rhetoric.” Critical Theory Since Plato. Ed. Hazard Adams. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1971. 1174-83.
Docherty, Thomas. Introduction. Postmodernism: A Reader. Ed. Thomas Docherty. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1-33.
Dudley, Edward. The Endless Text: Don Quixote and the Hermeneutics of Romance. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Black Publishers Ltd., 1983.
Entwistle, William J. Cervantes. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1940.
Fajardo, Salvador Jimenez. “The Sierra Morena as Labyrinth in Don Quixote I.” MLN 99 (1984): 214-34.
Farness, Jay. “Festive Theater, Restive Narrative in Don Quixote, Part I” PMLA 107. 1 (1992): 105-19.
Flores, Robert. “A Portrait of Don Quixote from the Palette of Chaos Theory.” Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America 22.1 (2002): 43-70.
Fraizer, Harriet C. A Babble of Ancestral Voices: Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Theobald. The Hague: Mouton, 1974’
Friedman, Edward H. “Reading Redressed; or, The Media Circuits of Don Quixote.” Confluencia-Revista Hispanica de Cultura y Literatura. 9.2 (1994): 38-51.
---. “Trials of Discourse: Narrative Space in Quevedo’s Buscon”. The Picaresque Tradition and Displacement. Ed. Giancarlo Maiorino. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. 183-226.
Gaunt, Simon. “Romance and Other Genres.” The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Ed. Robert L. Krueger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 45-60.
Geyh, Paula, and Fred G. Leebron and Andrew Levy. “Postmodern American Fiction: A Norton Anthology”. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998.
Gerli, Michael. Refiguring Authority: Reading, Writing, and Rewriting in Cervantes. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1995.
Gibson, Andrew. “Don Quixote.” Reading Narrative Discourse: Studies in the Novel from Cervantes to Beckett. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990. 27-40.
Gilman, Stephen. The Novel According to Cervantes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1947.
Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking, 1987.
Hayles, Katherine N. Introduction. Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Ed. N. Katherine Hayles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. 1-37.
Harari Josue V., and David F. Bell. Introduction. Hermes: Literature, Science, and Philosophy. By Michael Serres. Ed. Josue V. Harari and David F. Bell. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. ix-xl.
Hoy, David Couzens. The Critical Circle: Literature, History, and Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Parody. London: Metheun, 1985.
Ife, B.W. Reading and Fiction in Golden-Age Spain: A Platonist Critique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Iffland, James. “On the Social Destiny of Don Quixote: Literature and Ideological Interpellation Part I.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association. 20. 2 (1987): 17-36.
Iser, Wolfgang. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach.” Reader-Response Criticism. Ed. Jane P. Tompkins. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. 50-70.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Iventosch, Herman. “Cervantes and Courtly Love: The Grisostomo-Marcela Episode of Don Quixote”. PMLA 89:1 (1975): 67-76.
Jameson, Frederic. Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London : Verso, 1991.
---. “The Realist Floor-Plan.” Narrative Theory. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: Longman Publishers USA, 1996. 313-25.
---. Foreword. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. By Jean-Francois Lyotard. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979. vii-xxi.
Jehenson, Myriam Yvonne. “The Dorotra-Fernando/Luscinda-Cardenio Episode in Don Quixote: A Postmodernist Play.” MLN 107 (1992): 205-19.
Jewers, Caroline A. Chivalric Fiction and the History of the Novel. Orlando: University Press of Florida, 2000.
Johnson, Carroll B. Don Quixote: The Quest for Modern Fiction. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990.
Kidd, Michael. “Laughing Matters: Reading, Gusto, and Narrative Entrapment in Don Quixote”. Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America. 14.2 (1994): 27-39.
Kundera, Milan. “The Depreciated Legacy of Cervantes.” The Art of the Novel. Trans. Linda Asher. London: faber and faber, 1988. 3-20.
Lash, Scott. Another Modernity: A Different Rationality. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.
Markley, Robert. “Representing Order: Natural Philosophy, Mathematics, and Theology in the Newtonian Revolution.” Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Ed. N. Katherine Hayles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. 125-49.
Martinez-Bonati, Felix. “Don Quixote” and the Poetics of the Novel. Trans. Dian Fox and Felix Martinez-Bonati. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.
Mariscal, George. Contradictory Subjects: Quevedo, Cervantes, and seventeenth-century Spanish Culture. Ithaca : Cornell Univeristy Press, 1991.
Medina, Jeremy T. “A Note on Narrative Structure: Don Quixote, Part II”. Critica Hispanica 12.1-2 (1990): 27-31.
Miller, Hillis J.. “Ariadne’s Thread: repetition and the Narrative Line.” Critical Inquiry 3.1 (1976): 57-77.
Nelson, Lowry, ed. Cervantes: A Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
Paulson, William. “Literature, Complexity, Interdisciplinarity.” Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Ed. N. Katherine Hayles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. 37-54.
---. The Noise of Culture: Literary Texts in a World of Information. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.
Porush, David. “Fictions as Dissipative Structures: Prigogine’s Theory and Postmodernism’s Roadshow.” Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Ed. N. Katherine Hayles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. 54-84.
Presberg, Charles D. Adventures in Paradox: Don Quixote and the Western Tradition. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.
Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam, 1984.
Quint, David. “Narrative Interlace and Narrative Genres in Don Quixote and the Orlando Furioso.” Modern Language Quarterly 58.3 (1997): 241-68.
Reed, Cory A. “Chaotic Quixote: Complexity, Nonlinearity, and Perspectivism.” Hispania 77.4 (1994): 739-49.
Rose, Margaret A. Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Russell P.E. Cervantes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. London: Prentice Hall, 1985.
Serres, Michael. Hermes: Literature, Science, and Philosophy. Ed. Josue V. Harari and David F. Bell. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Spadaccini, Nicholas, and Jenaro Talens. Through the Shattering Glass: Cervantes and the Self-Made World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
Spiller, Elizabeth A. “Cervantes avant la Lettre: The Material Transformation of Romance Reading Culture in Don Quixote.” Modern Language Quarterly 60.3 (1999): 295-319.
Stoicheff, Peter. “The Chaos of Metafiction.” Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Ed. N. Katherine Hayles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. 85-100.
Sturman, Marianne. Don Quixote : Notes. Lincoln, Nebraska : Cliff's Notes, 1964.
Sweeney, Michelle. Magic in Medieval Romance from Chretien de Troyes to Geoffrey Chaucer. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000.
Ullman, Pierre L. “Romanticism and Irony in Don Quixote: A continuing Controversy.” Papers on Language and Literature 17.3 (1981): 321-33.
Wasserman, Dale. “Don Quixote as Theater”. Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America. 19.1 (1999): 125-30.
Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965.
Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction. New York: Routledge. 1984.
White, Eric Charles. “Negentropy, Noise, and Emancipatory Thought.” Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Ed. N. Katherine Hayles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991. 263-78.
Weiger, John G. “Don Quixote: The Comedy in spite of Itself.” The Substance of Cervantes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 1-41.
Wicks, Ulrich. “Metafiction in Don Quixote: What is the Author Up To?” Approaches to Teaching Cervantes’s Don Quixote. Ed. Richard Bjornson. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1984.
Williamson, Edwin. The Half-Way House of Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
---. “Romance and Realism in the Interpolated Stories of the Quixote”. Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America 2.1 (1982): 43-67.