A Final Note

We talked in class about what are good introduction stories out of this text for a Introduction to British Literature Class. If I were going to pick two, I would hands down pick "The Wife of Bath's Tale" and "The Pardoner's Tale".

"The Wife of Bath's Tale" is an ideal story for what someone imagines when thinking of Medieval British Literature, in my opinion. The time and setting of the tale, in the mix of King Arthur and other character fulfills this basic idea of what Medieval Britain represents. There is fantasy, and quest, with a moral lesson that alters the character of a man, and he is impacted by love.  To me, this just fits perfectly in the idea of an introduction class because it meets so many expectations, but at the same time, when comparing it to the "Wife of Bath's Prologue" there are other factors, like gender roles, that someone new to this time period never would have considered.

"The Pardoner's Tale" would be the other one.  To start, I loved it, and it was my favorite tale of the semester. I thought the story was very entertaining, and moved easily. Next, I was really surprised at the connections I made throughout the semester with this tale. When our Magic Class read Grimm's Fairy Tales this semester, I read "Godfather Death".  As I was reading that story, I could help, but feel like in some ways "The Pardoner's Tale" was a foundation for stories that came later. Then I took into account the story of the "Three Brother's" in Harry Potter, and felt like lesson come from these stories was that Death is not scary, but an equalizer. He can't be cheated, and he can't allow the world to be unbalanced. It not scary or evil, but actually the most strict form of fairness. Anyway, I really enjoyed this particular story in The Canterbury Tales, and i think it has a darkness to it that's appealing, but can be relatable to modern text allowing students to see where some ideas might have come from.

vimeo.com

Superlative

Our last class together we put a Canterbury Tales superlative together, and got me thinking about all the different characters and text we read this semester. So, I made a list of different rankings I had for some of the characters and text. I'm only going to do a few since this could be a really long post other wise.

My Favorite Tales

3.) The Nun's Priest's Tale - I originally hated this story, but this was one where class discussion helped it come along way, and for me that means it became my top three favorite tales this semester. This was surprising to me because I generally do not like stories about animals, but the complexity and the layers to this tale with being able to relate it to political stations, and comparing the tale to the actual book, made tho particular tale fascinating for me.

2.) The Wife of Bath's Tale - Interestingly enough, I was not as amazed by her as I think many people were (especially in my Brit Lit class), but I did love her story, and I thought it was a great representation of her. I thought her story was well told, and interesting, and include elements like quests and magic, with a moral lesson for the knight. I believe this represents the Wife Bath well because she wan;t looking for power in her marriages, but equality, and that is what the old woman got from her husband the knight before she turned into a beautiful maiden.

1.) My Top Favorite Tale: The Pardoner's Tale - I loved this tale. One idea, I stumbled on between this class and my Magic in the Middle Ages class, is death cannot be cheated and there is a balance to life. For this class reading a Pardoner's Tale reminds me of that, and seems to be the tale that lays the framework down for other fairytales and folklore.

Characters

The Most Disliked:
There were many villains in The Canterbury Tales, in fact one tale just list demons, but when I think of who I dislike most, I cannot help it. It is still the Knight from "the Wife of Bath's Tale". I tried after the classroom discussion, to like him, but I just can't. There was not no consequence from any behavior, and he only had a brief moment of revelation. His action would need to prove himself as a worthy person.

Influential Female Characters

2.) Alison - from "The Miller's Tale"- this girl is extremely influential, much like a puppet master in my opinion. She is the only one in her tale that came out without any serious consequences for her part.

1.) The Wife of Bath is the most influential female character, and possibly the most important in the story. She knows how to be in control of her life and her situation, and use the law to her benefit.

The Most Virtuous Character
2.) Custaunce - from "the Man of Law's Tale" - This girl is shipped place to place, and faces picture perfect definitions of "Monster-In-Laws", and she still remains patient.

1.) Griselda - from "The Clerk's Tale"- She is clearly he winner for the model of virtue, even though she's patient to a fault. Walter tries to mentally torture her to prove her loyalty, and she remains virtuous through all being obedient to her husband even though his behavior towards her is terrible.


My least favorite tales…..
They're tied; "The Canon's Yeman's Tale" and "The Tale of Melibee". Both of these tales just took a long time to move forward. In "The Canon's Yeman's Tale", it felt like the narrator was explaining how  the processes didn't work. I understand the significance to the process, it was just difficult to read. And as discussed in class "The Tale of Melibee"was difficult to read because of all the scripture to read.

The Caged Wife

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs15/f/2007/111/a/c/
Why_The_Caged_Bird_Sings_by_jesidangerously.jpg

While there were a few lessons/ morals in "The Manciple's Tale", the one that stood out the most to me was that a person's nature, like an animal's, is a powerful influence. Men cannot control what is someone's primal nature. The Manciple tells the group, "God it woot, ther may no man embrace/ As to destreine a thing which that nature/ Hath naturally set in a creature" (160-162).

Not that it needs to be said, but I do not condone the wife cheating on Phebus, but I think that it is interesting that the Manciple compared her desires to an animal's. After the discussion we had on "The Nun's Priest's Tale" the other week about how in medieval times animals were thought to have no soul, it was interesting to me that this tale made the implication that humans have no more control over their behavior than animals. The Manciple describes Phebus' wife like being a caged bird or a house cat, owned and living outside of her nature.

Comparing wives to a caged bird or house cat is statement that says when men control the wives, the women are no different than a kept animal, and eventually they will act out their true nature no matter how well they are loved or treated, like the cat who drinks milk, but then sees a mouse (175-177). The control does not stop the act, the wife will just look for another way. We have seen this in "The Miller's Tale" with John and Alison's marriage and "The Merchant's Wife" like January and May. The wives in these stories like Phebus' wife find ways to have their affairs regardless of the control and jealousy the husband had.

The Feast

I thought a lot about the Feast when writing the reflection paper. One of the final points I made in my paper was about the customs and behaviors that we tried to practice during the meal. I was with my mom and my husband, and it was funny to try o figure out how to eat certain foods without a fork, and still look refined while doing so. It was interesting to see how much our ideas of civility and good manners have changed out of a basic task like using a fork.

The other aspect of the feast that I felt people struggle with the most was waiting until everyone served before eating. Perhaps this was difficult since how we entertain at parties have changed as well. Today, with a large gathering, people might expect a buffet table with finger foods available when someone gets hungry. Something easy, quick, and light to eat so that socializing is still the primary purpose of a party. It was difficult for some people to wait until everyone was served because of the large number of people eating. It was a challenge to adjust to different behaviors and customs to accommodate the medieval feast.

The Nun's Priest's Tale

When I originally read this tale, I did not like the story at all. I found it really hard to get into the idea of a philosophical rooster. When I read the story the first time, I interpreted the tale like a fable, but the characteristics of the rooster and the chickens distracted me from seeing any deeper meaning to the text.

The classroom discussion we had really helped me with this story. The discussion helped me see the different layers of the story, and look into the reason that animals were used instead of using human characters. Through our groups discussion we talked a lot about the meaning of the animals. Our group began looking at the farm as a Kingdom where the Rooster, Chanticleer, was behaving like the King, and the fox was an outside intruder destroying the home of the farm animals. So, this story seemed to be a statement on the hierarchal system in Medieval times in relation to royalty and the people.

After about class discussion, I actually like the story. There are so many different elements and symbolism to this story that the story is much more complicated than I initially gave the tale credit for.

The link that is attached is a children's story about the Rooster and the Fox.

Chanticleer and the Fox

By Geoffrey Chaucer

Adapted and Illustrated by Barbara Cooney

Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1958

http://theartofchildrenspicturebooks.blogspot.com/2012/04/chanticleer-and-fox-barbara-cooney.html

Storytelling

My favorite class that we had so far was the day when we all went around and told stories. I loath public speaking. My eyes cross, my voice shakes, and I feel like at any moment I will just drop to the ground, however, I found that particular activity to be more freeing than terrifying.

I agree with Dr. Mitchell-Buck, where telling stories out loud is a rarity, and forced this behavior out of us as class. It was interesting to actually feel the stress in the room when we all walked in, but as people went on and the atmosphere physically felt looser, and we seemed to have a good time listening to one another.

It was interesting to see the approaches to story telling that people used as well from Diane’s story that she wrote out and brought visual aids, to Suzanna’s story from her childhood, to those of us who just freely spoke about an experience we had.  My personal favorite of the day, was Suzanna’s story because my family is from Peru, and my grandmother used to tell me a very similar story when I was little, so it was neat to connect and remember something like that.

But I thought it was a great classroom experience (especially with the size), and liked the different perspective we got as class in communicating with each other.

Rosanne's Hero

 For some reason when I picture the Wife of Bath, I picture Rosanne Connor from the old television show Rosanne. They both are these strong, dominant women. They are not dainty or fragile, but forces to watch for. They both seem unconventional through their outspoken styles that demand attention from those around them.

The Wife of Bath, is definitely unconventional for her time. She’s loud and very comfortable with her own sexuality, and desires control over her life. After her hit her, she does not lie on the floor or become submissive to him. She hits him back (810). Her behavior is clearly stepping outside the norms of society, considering she was technically her husband’s property to do with what she seemed fit. I’m curious then as to where her courage came from? Where did she feel that it was ok to hit her husband back? Don’t get me wrong, I am not on her husband side or think she crossed a line, I’m just curious of where that strength came from?

The strange unexpected thing for me that came out of the wife of bath prologue was that in actuality she did not seem to want control over her husband. She did not want to be his ruler, but rather his partner. When she said “God help me so, I was to him as kinde/ As any wif from Denmark unto Inde/ And also trewe, and so was he to me.” (823-825). I found this statement to be amazingly gentle in comparison to what I expected out of her. I though she was the type who would rejoice in being the boss of her own home, but she mainly just wanted to be seen.

In a way, I think the Wife of Bath is a sad character (although she would probably hate for anyone to feel that way about her). She almost needs to put on this persona of a loud boisterous woman, who is commanding and demanding. She wants to be noticed, she wants to be acknowledged. She wants to be recognized for being as learned as she is. She makes me wonder if more women were actually like her character? Was there a desire for women of the time to be educated, and considered in decision about their life, home, and family? Or would she have terrified the majority of women if she actually existed?

Regardless of how the actual world would feel about her. She is necessary to the Canterbury Tales by giving a model of a strong capable among the travelers. All the travelers seem to be a little scandalous or tell stories that are, allowing the Wife of Bath to fit write in.

http://dunderbrain.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/dan-and-roseanne-conner’s-floor-plan/

This Means War

This Means War…..

My favorite characters have been the friar and the summoner, which might sound weird. I think that their interaction is pretty normal and relatable even today.

I can picture them so clearly….

All the pilgrims are sitting around a table at a pub telling stories that entered their heads. I can see the friar and the summoner sitting across the table, unable to conceal the loathing they have for each other (probably because of the differences in their roles in the church), and they just continue to glare at each other.

Then it becomes the Friar’s turn to speak. Unable to hide his hatred, he throws out this store about a summoner who is traveling down to Hell. When the devil says, “it is nat his entente, truste thow me wel” (1556). He is telling the summoner that a person’s intentions matter, and that the summoner should know that the devil can be trusted in determining intentions. The friar gives the devil a human characteristic to be understanding of others, which the summoner in the tale does not have. This is an insult that the friar delivers to the summoner by saying, “even the devil is more human than you”.

At the beginning of the story, I can imagine the Host, warning off the friar from continuing the story, but I can hear the summoner dismiss the host, and let the friar continue, in the back of his mind thinking, “once your story is done, it’s my turn”. In my mind he is getting angry at the story, but is searching for a way to out do the Friar’s tale, and the idea of the summoner’s path into Hell.

Once the Friar, finishes the story, the summoner has a chance to tell his own story about the friar. How does he respond to the friar’s tales about his descent to Hell? He has the friar farted on, and tells the story of how a fart can be equally divided.

I can see the friar in his chair seething with hatred towards the summoner, and over the ridiculous story he told. His story was more serious and eloquently expressed how the summoner was a bad person, while the summoner just made a mockery out of him.

I can picture the tension, but the question that was presented is who won their fight? Or the battle of the Tales?

In my own opinion, the summoner won. The friar told a story that the foundation was built on his hatred for the summoner, and became mean when the friar sent the summoner to Hell. His story seems to be rooted in the hate that he has for summoners. The summoner, on the other hand, seems to have a story that would come across to some as stupid, but really is the smarter of the two. He is making a mockery of the friar. His story is simple, and seems to be making fun of the friar, but not meanly. His tale is deceptively innocent and playful. He made a story, that doesn’t solely express his dislike for the friar, but he made a story where others will laugh at the friar as well. That seems more powerful tool to express dislike, and he comes across as the better of the two by not openly expressing hatred

I Still don't Like Him....

 The knight in “the Wife of Bath’s Tale” has been one of the characters that I have found to be the hardest one for me to even imagine liking.

The quote that was discussed in class to show that the knight very well could have learned his lesson is,

            But ate laste he seide in this manere;/

            ‘My lady and my love, and wif so deere,/

I putte me in youre wise governaunce/

Cheseth yourself which maybe moost plesaunce,/

And moost honour to yow and me also./

I do no fors the weither of the two,/

For as yow liketh, it suffiseth me.’ (1228-1235)

I understand how this could show his redemption. The way he describes his wife on different levels as “lady”, “love”, and “wif” shows her in different roles in his life (1229). I understand that it is a change for him to tell her to decide what she wants first, and he will follow. I understand that he is finally, putting her first, above him, in his speech, and has reflected on his response (1228) rather that just responding. It is clear that there is an emotional and moral growth that takes place. However, I do not like him.

To begin with the knight committed a terrible crime, when he raped the woman (889). His crime is terrible, but I believe that the punishment that the queen sentences him to is almost crueler in a way, than being executed, and it is well deserved. He has to search out women to learn about them, a punishment he would find demeaning. I say good. The knight’s actions were monstrous and demeaning to women, shouldn’t he be put in position where he feel humiliated?

When he finally gets the answer to the queen’s question, and the old womea asks that she marries him, he behaves horribly towards her. This woman just saved his life, and he’s going to behave by saying, “‘My love!’ quod he, ‘nay my dampnacioun!’ (1067). What this also makes me think is that everything the knight learned on his quest meant nothing to him. He was going through the motions, to get the answer, but had no interest from learning from the experience.

To wrap up, on why I do not like the knight, his resolution seemed to happen too easily for his actions and behavior. Because he made this statement to her about how he will put her first, she then is willing to become beautiful. How do we know that he means that long term? His behavior and views towards women were demeaning and abusive, but he gets to have a happy ending. I find it hard to find the justice for the girl he raped or the way he treated his wife because in the end, his wife changed for him, and he gets to live with a beautiful spouse, who is a reflection of a short declaration of granting power.