While doing an assignment for another class I ran across something that may help to explain why the use of animals in stories is NOT as affected of animals.
The excerpt comes from E.M. Forster's Aspects of the Novel. While at the moment I can not come across the exact quote it sums up to say that animals are not as effective as people because the reader is not able to connect with an animal. The animals make-up is only understood to a certain point.
To me this means that the use of animals in stories, including The Nun's Priest Tale, satirizes the actual characters the portray. It makes the story seem almost childish. Is this story meant to be funny. Although, in class, this was much discussion about the animal aspect of the novel I am still unsure as to why Chaucer chose to use an animal in this tale.
Again, I did not really care for the story. The most important part I took from the tale was the discussion between Chauntecleer and Pertelote. I think this discussion holds a lot of meaning. Pertelote is so adamant about the lack of importance of dreams. She says
Nothing, God woot, but vaintee in swevene is.
Swevenes engendren of replexions,
And ofte of fume and complexions,
Whan humours ben to habundant in a wight. (2922)-2925)
She finds the idea of dreaming weak and makes Chauntecleer less of a man. This is the opposite of what I thought how his dream would be perceived.
I've always taken dreams as something to take serioulsyy when it is closely connected to ones life. Even in the bible dreams are taken seriously. Ironically, Pertelote confirms her point by saying "God woot".
WHat do you guys take from this dream?
I am so glad you posted this! I was thinking this through, as well. Why use animals to tell a very human story? Is Chaucer holding up the mirror so man can see his own vanity, but disguising it slightly so it doesn't come off as didactic? I believe so. Could be Humans can be as vain as a rooster- and it can lead to all kinds of humiliations. The story is also entertaining. The story is also offensive, as has been discussed. It is everything all at once. And I, for one, would not want to give a laxative to a rooster.
ReplyDeleteI'm also really glad you posted this, Yasmine! I was also very intrigued by thinking about why Chaucer may have chosen to use animals for this particular story but I really do agree with what you had to say. I think since we (or at least I) were unable to make a complete and total connection with the animals in the story that this is what really helped to make their actions and choices stand out. I instantly recognized that a animal character with human characteristics was meant to make an example of something and for me this drew me into the story even more. I was actually surprised to hear you say that you didn't like the tale as much because for me the use of the animals made it more enjoyable. Overall though, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
ReplyDelete