Marriage is also a topic that seems really interesting. Austen mentions it in the first sentence of the book and, in my opinion, it is the most important theme. What does it represent to each character? Whose side is Austen on? It is probable that the author of a book includes his alter ego. In this case it might be Jane or Elizabeth. All of these questions interest me and would be a good paper topic.
Throughout Pride and Prejudice, Austen constantly gives the reader the opportunity to juxtapose being and seeming. We did a little bit of work about this topic in class and it interested me. The only problem is that it can be too extended. I might be able to focus on the being and seeming of a specific character.
These are some quotes I found that might help me with some of my paper ideas:
“You are determined to ruin him in the opinion of all his friends, and make him the contempt of the world" (268)
"For what do we live, but to make sport of our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?" (272)
" With a strong prejudice against everything he might say, she began his account on what happened at Netherfield" (152)
“Ah! Jane, I take your place now, and you must go lower, because I am a married woman”(235).
" But vanity, not love, has been my folly" (156)
“All that I required of you to assure you daughter, by settlement, for equal share of five thousand pounds…. To enter into and engagement of allowing her during your life one hundred pounds per annum” (224).
"As a child I was taught what was right, but I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit" (276)
So far, I have come up with a list of topics that might be a good idea for my paper. I hope writing about it will be more tolerable than reading it:
Relationships between men and women
Social class
Importance of Marriage
Changes in characters
Pride and Prejudice is all about the beauty. Reading a novel that is not only tender and nice to the reader but also slow has been somewhat hard. Austen uses a lot of words to say very little and it is starting to get on my nerves. The reader is given very nice descriptions of each character and is then introduced to a word of slow confusion. Mr. Bingley is described as “good looking and gentlemanlike; he had a pleasant countenance, and easy unaffected manners” (6) which an excellent description. It tells people what he is like, his manners, and his appearance. Probably the most important things in the book. Because Austen focuses on these silly, superficial details the book is incredibly slow. It is true that you get a good idea of what is going on and what everybody thinks about it, but the rate at which events take place bores the reader. I am not a person that enjoys very detailed books where not much happens and Pride and Prejudice is just the case.
I have come to the conclusion that, as Mr. Tangen suggested, after I find something I like in the book it has to become my primary focus. At this point it is probably the rate at which it moves. It is entertaining to see how Austen writes. I am not insinuating that it is not good, because it clearly is; I am only saying that I have laughed at the characters interpretations of each other. After all, it is a ladies book.
I am surprised that most of the conversations in the book have been rather superficial. This is probably because the characters are interested and are worried about simple things. Women are usually criticizing everyone and are preoccupied with finding the right husband for their daughters. By right I mean wealthy. Men on the other hand talk about women and money. They are comparing each other’s wallets and luxuries. Even though most of the conversations are rather simple and dull, some catch my attention. When characters start to talk about marriage they usually offer good insight: “Without thinking highly either of men or matrimony, marriage had always been her object” (Austen, 136) It becomes clear to the reader after the first fifty pages that the way two people get together is the main theme. Everything revolves around marriage and wealth. Preferably both.The book also offers a clear depiction the time period. Austen is able to offer her view of high class England. Apart from the parties and the dialect the reader can also learn about the past by viewing the characters customs. Not only do they consider money the driving force behind life but the will do anything to get it. Statements such as: “it was the only provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantness preservative from want.” (Austen, 136) The reader is, with no doubt, convinced that wealthy men look for beautiful woman and that beautiful woman look for wealthy men. This is clear since the very beginning and is not so different from what we do today.
It is interesting to see how films portray the different character in a book. I personally form a certain image in my head about each character. In this case, I see Mr. Bingley as a determined and handsome man. As a matter of fact, most of the men that are part of the Pride and Prejudice cast appear to be incredible in every aspect. So far, the movie has portrayed Mr. Bingley as a stupid, dorky, and shallow man. He laughs at a hint of a joke and is very annoying. Wealth is clear for the director of the movie and he does appear to have a lot of money. What is surprising about his wealth is that he does seem like a man who has earned all of his money and who can brag about it. Men in general have a certain disposition that makes them seem disoriented and weak. The book has given me a feeling of women superiority that can be expected from Jane Austen.
At my Catholic confirmation class, my teacher is constantly telling me to be more optimistic about religion. My mother, who is not very religious, got the spontaneous idea that it would be a good idea for me to get it out of the way. Knowing that I have to take the class makes it easier for me to enjoy it. What I am getting to is the rules established by Pride and Prejudice. Austen not only mentions societies rules and norms but is explicit when telling the audience that there is an established pecking order. Charlotte mentions that "happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance" (Austen, 16) which suggests that you do not have much chance when picking your husband. It is simple luck if you like him. Knowing that this is still true today, maybe not as it was before, makes me think of the importance of making with what you’ve got. It sounds as a cliché but it appears to be the best solution when there is no option in the matter.
Society has established a set of rules or norms that dictate the way we live and act. Every person must abide to these rules and obey or they will be punished. These ideas range from killing another person to the role of a housewife. Austen makes her own rules for a woman: “A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, all the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved” (Austen, 29). These rules she create go hand in hand with the ones she makes men follow. Austen does not leave much room for interpretation and is clear when stating what every person should do.
Since the first sentence in the book Austen is already telling the reader what to do: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." (Austen, 1). This statement makes it very clear that if you have a good fortune you must what a wife. The novel is based on this and other facts that make it clear that people are greedy and have money as their priority. Austen is a forceful writer that represents an imposing novel. When you read it you feel as if the author were giving out orders and you had to follow them.
In order to enjoy a new book I must begin by using the tips that we learned about a good reader. The one that got to me the cost was being a positive reader. Before the video I used to foolishly think that some authors just wrote something good out of luck. In other words, I believed that Shakespeare did not write so many great pieces but that people over studied him. I now realize that it is stupid to question authors because the point is that they did it. If it was luck a reader should not be bake to know or care.
Pride and Prejudice is definitely a classic. It is because of this simple reason that I must read it as an optimistic reader. It is hard for me to take it seriously since it appears to be a simple novel. It might have been revolutionary at the time but it is somewhat standard now. All of this goes back to the idea that it is very hard to write something original today. The first thing I analyzed was the title. I noticed that the importance was the difference between connotation and denotation. What we might consider the meaning of pride today is very different from what Austen meant it to be. In my search I found a definition inside the book: "Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us."" (Austen, 21). It is not as different as we consider it today. Austen then relates to a theory we have come to in Spanish class. A series of great authors are considered extraordinary today because they were able to see what was going to happen after their time.
When Hamlets death grows near, the text starts reflecting upon the impact and the transcendence of life. The gravedigger scene expresses Hamlets ideas about what everyone becomes. He uses Alexander to represent how someone so great was reduced to something so basic: “Do you think Alexander looked o’ this / fashion i’ th’ earth?” (V.i.204-205). It then becomes clear that your body will always rot and that the only way you will be remembered is because of your actions. Alexander was remembered and so was Hamlet. The inclusion of real people into the play makes it believable and gives it a feeling of sophistication.
Like many Shakespeare tragedies most of the main characters, if not all, die at the end. The play was concluded in a short scene. Kings, Queens, Princes, and lovers perished in a rather small period of time. I was intrigued at the rate that the characters were slain. Maybe it goes hand in hand with the idea that the death of your body is only important if your actions will not be remembered. Because they all died so quickly, Shakespeare might be trying to prove that their story will live on even after death.
After watching Branagh’s Discovering Hamlet I felt intrigued at the analysis that was conducted towards Claudius. The actor that was chosen to represent him describes him a s the “antagonist”, which is the obvious, and common interpretation. He then goes on o mention that Hamlet describes Claudius as a fat, and despicable man. Interpretation varies between each production and this one decided that Claudius was a “charming, sexy, easy man”. It proves that Hamlets real beauty lies in the different interpretations. The play gave the world a great starting point from whereto build on. All of these interpretations are very interesting, and most importantly, very different.
Having been educated since I was very young, never have a heard such a believable source criticize Hamlet. It is ironic to see how authors criticize each other, when they know how hard it is to write. When I look closely I noticed that the criticism is not towards the author but towards the play: “So far from being Shakespeare's masterpiece, the play is most certainly an artistic failure. In several ways the play is puzzling, and disquieting as is none of the others.” Everybody has the right to express his or her opinion but it is curious to see how nothing about Hamlet seems appealing to T.S. Elliot.
He also mentions the Ur-Hamlet. It is impossible to be completely original and you can always find a predecessor to a work of art. If it is not a previous invention it is something that inspired the author. What becomes important is not being original but interesting. You can have a typical story that motivates the reader. He is intrigued and enjoys the reading. What happened to me with Hamlet is association. If I am able to associate with the characters I will look forward to their reactions and interpretations. If you are able to place yourself in Hamlets shoes and think about what you would do in his situation, the play will become enjoyable, and at the least, bearable. I find it obvious that “We should have to understand things which Shakespeare did not understand himself.” The time periods are different and we have perspective.
When I read about the assignment this week I immediately thought of “To be, or not to be, that is the question” as the most intellectually admired piece in Hamlet. Not only have I heard this famous saying since I was very young but I have made reference to it in several occasions. These moments range from a silly mocking of the phrase to a feeling of knowledge. Shakespeare has always been considered hard to read and I believe a close reading of this part will make a lot of doubts clear.
In order for me to understand what Hamlet means in this soliloquy I have to look beyond the play. It is necessary to look at the context in order to understand the meaning but what I am getting at is about the generalization that was made. It is almost impossible for a phrase to become so famous if it had no relevance outside the play. Hamlets tone is one of sadness. He does not appear angry but he is lost. Despair has driven him to question existence and whether or not he should act or not. If you know what he is referring to when saying, “to be” then the rest is a little easier. Shakespeare has made it possible for a great number of people to draw conclusions on his question. The greatest thing about the sentence is the mystery. It makes me question things that might seem obvious to someone else.
After watching the King’s reaction to the play Hamlet has a discussion with Guildenstern in act 3 scene 2. He expresses a feeling of treason publicly that was not seen before.
“Why, look you know, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?” (Act 3, Scene 2)
The comparison between hamlet and a pipe leads the audience to believe and understand what hamlet is going through. His supposed friends are trying to play him, and it is obvious. What separates this discussion with the others in the play is the anger in Hamlets voice. He can’t understand why his friends would treat him in such a way made treason obvious. The rage is somewhat controlled when speaking about the pipe but he explodes when asking, “do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?” It is as if he was insulted in the face. It is hard to determine what angered him more, the fact that he was betrayed, or the lack of decency his comrades use when talking to him.
Act 3 scene 4 is of vital importance to the play. Not only are the main characters intentions revealed but also, the death of Polonius marks the beginning of the end. Hamlet is enraged about the treason he believes deserves revenge and the ghost is constantly reminding him that something must be done. This leads me to believe that he is merely a figment of his imagination. Hamlets mother, is talking to Polonius when hamlet enters the room. In a very quick act of violence hamlet kills Polonius who exclaims, “O, I am slain” (Act 3, scene 4). The need to inform the audience of his own death intrigued me. Is it not obvious that Hamlet has killed him? These small pieces of text, which might not seem necessary, are what give the play a sense of action and violence.
It is very interesting to see how Shakespeare is helpful to everyone. Murder inmates are not usually considered people with a high level of education. One could assume that they do not care for Hamlet or any other type of old play. What the directors of the prison are trying to do is make the prisoners reflect on their actions and sort of correct themselves. It is part of the discussion of whether jails should be correctional institutes or only places where you hold the people that have done harm to others. By acting out Hamlet they are, hopefully, led to reflection, forgetting the differences between each other. The inmates will have a chance to forget about their troublesome past and play as someone they can laugh at.
The two, very different, interpretations of Hamlet prove that the way you look at a certain situation determines its outcome. Both directors and the different sets of actors read Hamlet and felt as if the best way to represent it was theirs.
In the second image we can see how the director made hamlet appear as if he was in a future time period. His clothes are those that you would find while walking in the street. The background, however, is similar to what I imagine an old English castle looks like. The camera at the beginning proves that he is in the 21st century.
The first image represents a much older Hamlet. Not only is the actor an older man but the clothes and background is that of old England. He appears calm and sad. The other interpretation is much more aggressive. Not only do the clothes change the time period but the furniture is very different. Colors are brighter and ceilings are higher. The interpretation suggests that Hamlet is ashamed and sad at what is going on.
Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape is the story of a man who looks back at his life as if he can’t remember. There would be no point in retelling a story that the audience already knows. What the play does is show the viewer what the reaction of the character is to his own memories. The way one reacts towards the past can tell you a lot about your current situation. If the reaction is nostalgic you can deduce that things were better in the past, if it is anger someone might have hurt you, and so on. The tape torments Krapp, as if he denies the past. There is no real explanation of what Krapp’s life used to be and what it is now. The audience must reach a unique and different conclusion after watching the play. Each person is left on their own, and they must create a life for the character. What this does is capture the audience in a way that no other play can.
When the tape states, “Perhaps my best years are gone. When there was a chance of happiness. But I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No, I wouldn't want them back.” You can assume that the life Krapp has now is worst than the one he had before. Fire appears to be a recurring symbol in different forms of art. The Road uses the fire to describe the power of hope. Krapp uses the fire to describe rage. Because his life was better before and he now carries the fire you could assume that it is not something good. Krapp repeats that he does not want his previous years back, this could symbolize uncertainty. Because he is not sure about wanting his years back he has to repeat it, as if convincing himself.
Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape is one of the most unique plays I have ever experienced. Not only is it very short but it appears to be a monologue. It is one’s reaction to your own recording. After the introductory scene with the banana I noticed that most of the play is filmed with close-up shots. Even though the tape is of a younger Krapp it appears to be another character. The reactions that the older version has to the newer one represent his feelings towards the other character or himself. I sometimes criticize my previous self, claiming to have improved. The reactions to the tape range from anger to laughter: “Hard to believe I was ever that young whelp. The voice! Jesus! And the aspirations! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.) And the resolutions! (Brief laugh in which Krapp joins.)” I cannot understand why Krapp laughs at what he said in the tape. There is a feeling as if, when he talks about “the voice”, he laughs at the voice he is hearing. In that case the tape could be considered another character and Krapp could have recorded it knowing he would criticize his previous self.
After watching the introduction to Hamlet I felt interested. Trailers are designed to capture the viewer’s attention and create an irresistible urge to see the movie that is being announced. More often than not I find myself not wanting to watch movies based on plays. It is a better idea to simply watch the play, maybe on video. After watching this preview I immediately wanted to watch the movie. Not only does it look like the producers and actors have been working on this for a long time but also the story seems intriguing. I shouldn’t be surprised that Shakespeare writes good plays, but I am. Even though I do not know that much about the play I am curious about Hamlets death. The preview was clear when his burial was taking place and it would be safe to assume he was killed. I guess I will soon find out.
Oprah: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. There is no doubt that my guest today is one of the most talented diplomats, writers, poets, and philosophers that have ever been on the Oprah show. He is the author of the renowned Canterbury Tales and is called the Father of English literature. His use of vernacular Middle English rather than French or Latin distinguishes him from other writers of his time. It is my honor to present, Geoffrey Chaucer.
Chaucer:
Good evening to you all, my eager friends
A special time I am certain portends
Oprah: Mr. Chaucer, reading your works is certainly confusing. Would you care to tell us why you chose to write in Middle English?
Chaucer:
A foolish woman, you should already know,
The times I live in require it to be so.
Oprah: You’ve embarrassed me Mr. Chaucer. Your work has inspired many writers through the years. Please tell us what would you advise a young writer?
Chaucer:
I know I’ve inspired others to the quill,
But to suggest what others must and will,
Would be untoward and may cause to ponder,
All who feel there should forever be wonder.
The knight I based upon myself to be morose,
A character above all must be grandiose.
A single fellow against the evil sword,
All those who fight accept the sworn word of the lord.
Oprah: Thank you for your insight. I am happy to announce that Michael Jackson has gifted you his house, full of furniture and Mickey Mouse.
(Screams)
Chaucer:
Oh my kindest lady what shall I say to you?
To receive such a gift would set me askew.
For no more would I need to believe and see,
All else would fall short, ring false and disagree.
Oprah:
Mr. Chaucer, it has been a pleasure to have you here with us today. We hope you enjoy your new house and continue to write great literature.
As the reader continues The Road a change in the father and in the son becomes clear. They both want to stay alive but there is the question of what being alive means. The father follows a survival theory where he will do anything in order to continue his journey. As a father it might seem like the best decision, but the son constantly reminds the reader that maintaining the “fire” is very important. Children are always credited for their ability to stay alive morally and spiritually, in this case the boy was alive in a certain way and the father was alive in another. When the man steals the food from their camp the father does not hesitate to, probably, kill him. His son does not understand why that was necessary.
On his deathbed, the father realizes the importance of staying alive not only physically but also emotionally. It is what happened to his wife. She could live for longer period of time if she were not emotionally destroyed. When the end is near the adult realized that living unhappily is not worth the effort and emphasizes the importance of the heart: “You cant. You have to carry the fire. I don’t know how to. Yes you do. Is it real? The fire? Yes it is. Where is it? I don’t know where it is. Yes you do. It’s inside you. It was always there. I can see it.” (McCarthy, 3474) The happy ending might be proof that the boy’s good actions bring forth more help. Who knows if the father might have helped some of the people they encountered, what they might have received in return.
I am always surprised at the people who reread books on a regular basis. It is a skill, which requires a certain discipline that I have not acquired. When you watch a complicated movie for a second time you begin to understand a lot of the small details that make the piece great. This rule also applies to poems and short stories, when going over them wont take you a long period of time. Chung shares this same respect for re-readers when she mentions, “I admire people who reread books over and over again.” (Chung) We often focus on the literal side of a book the first time we read it, which is probably why the second time is so important. I ask myself the question of whether it is better to reread a book or read an entirely different piece of literature. Because I have never reread an entire book the answer to that question is obvious.
As we have studied, The Great Gatsby is full of symbolism. A very common element is the yellow car. The blog touches upon the importance of reaching you own conclusions. What you hear about a book will never be what the text is for you. Every different perspective will transform author into a classic. Chung has a specific idea of what the yellow car means: “The yellow car/mistaken identify device, upon which the story’s climax and resolution hinge, feels almost Hitchcockian in its nod to the murder-mystery mixup. Who’s driving which car and why convincingly fuels (literally) Gatsby’s inevitable demise, Tom and Daisy’s flight, and Nick’s final revulsion towards the excesses of Eastern privilege.” (Chung) After reading this interpretation I agree the teacher, although the car meant different things for me. What ends up happening is that everyone’s interpretation gets mixed together and every individual has to accept some and decline some.
The novel is constantly expressing how selfish human beings are. The death of the boy’s mother is a pure act of altruism. She was not thinking of those she was leaving behind and the damage that her death would cause. McCarthy uses the strangers in the novel to represent the evil behind the human race. It is what makes humans the most dangerous species. People have such a large survival instinct that they will do anything to perpetuate their lives. The father and son are constantly mentioning, “This is what the good guys do. They keep trying. They don’t give up.” (McCarthy, 1690) which shows the reader what he believes to be the heroes behind the story.
The truth is that everyone is his or her own good guy. All the survivors are trying to stay alive and will resort to different methods in order to succeed. There is no right or wrong way of surviving and the people who live on decide what is moral or immoral. Darwin mentions this with the “survival of the fittest” theory. Unfortunately that theory means that being nice will not count. All that matters is staying alive. What the child and the man are doing is staying alive while maintaining what little humanity they have within them.
The novel is constantly expressing how selfish human beings are. The death of the boy’s mother is a pure act of altruism. She was not thinking of those she was leaving behind and the damage that her death would cause. McCarthy uses the strangers in the novel to represent the evil behind the human race. It is what makes humans the most dangerous species. People have such a large survival instinct that they will do anything to perpetuate their lives. The father and son are constantly mentioning, “This is what the good guys do. They keep trying. They don’t give up.” (McCarthy, 1690) which shows the reader what he believes to be the heroes behind the story.
The truth is that everyone is his or her own good guy. All the survivors are trying to stay alive and will resort to different methods in order to succeed. There is no right or wrong way of surviving and the people who live on decide what is moral or immoral. Darwin mentions this with the “survival of the fittest” theory. Unfortunately that theory means that being nice will not count. All that matters is staying alive. What the child and the man are doing is staying alive while maintaining what little humanity they have within them.
McCarthy is able to sum up what being a human means. About a week ago I was asked, in my Catholic Confirmation class, what being a person meant. The question seems broad subjective to each persons opinion. After reading another section of The Road I feel as if I have been shown a good definition. The boy is constantly asking the father whether or no they are the “good guys” this question is similar to the one I received in class. Every person will have a different impression of what being good means. In movies, being good usually means being beautiful, strong, and full of moral accuracy. The father is clear when answering:
“Because we’re the good guys.
Yes.
And we’re carrying the fire. Yes.
Okay.” (McCarthy, 1588)
The image depicted by McCarthy of the good guys is very different from the ones you would normally find.
Most books represent the author’s point of view about a certain topic. In this case we can see McCarthy’s impression of the world when he mentions: “By day the dead impaled on spikes along the road. What had they done? He thought that in the history of the world it might even be that there was more punishment than crime but he took small comfort from it.” (McCarthy, 383) The gray and sad world that the reader travels through might be an exaggeration of human greed. Every man has resorted to cannibalism and the few that haven’t appear to be the good guys. Everything else does not matter. It proves that perspective determines your way of life.
The Road, which reminds me of The Book of Elli (movie), is a typical story of a nuclear holocaust. The Book of Elli is extremely similar to the book. Not only are the survivors fighting against each other for food but the characters in both stories live as scavengers. Elli is the owner of the last bible on earth and it becomes his mission to keep it safe. The importance that this gives the church can also be seen in the way the father talks to God: “He raised his face to the paling day. Are you there? He whispered. Will I see you at the last? Have you a neck by which to throttle you? Have you a heart? Damn you eternally have you a soul? Oh god, he whispered. Oh God.” (McCarthy, 113) This almighty being is always there for you in the good times and in the bad. It appears as if most people call him and hate him when they are not doing well. Elli tells the viewer that the importance of the Bible is not God himself but the power it gives people. Hope is gained from the church and in a world where humans have annihilated each other hope is very valuable.
As I read on and take a journey with the father and Child I realized that the narration is not always linear. Dreams are very important not only to the character but to the reader. The past is what keeps the man alive “And the dreams so rich in color. How else would death call you?” (McCarthy, 231) it appears as if when there is a good dream it means death is coming. The dreams “so rich in color” might be referring to the light that shined before the destruction and the mood of the dream. It is a good dream and it means death calls you. The past is what he is looking for and brief glimpses of it can only mean death.
The Pardoner’s Tale is a depiction of what Chaucer felt for the Church. The Pardoner who is supposed to be everything but a sinner is explicit and proud of the fact that he is able to fool everyone. In the prologue you get a feel of how corrupt the pardoner is. On the other hand the Tale is a criticism of those who sin. There is no doubt that the pardoner criticizes the men that were drunk and suffered from gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, and bad words.
It is ironic how a man that is supposed to be part of the church and is so proud of the fact that he is a sinner. Not only is this irony funny, but it is a criticism of the Church’s supposed messengers.
The Raven, like many other poems and books, has been turned into an entertaining children’s film. The Simpsons educates the viewer by including such poems. This case is not isolated, many children’s movies have started basing scenes on classic literature or art. Adults might get the hints, but children still love the movies. A children’s movie can become entertaining and appealing to a wide range of age groups. The BBC article: How do you make children's films appeal to adults? talks about specific examples.
In The Wife of Bath's Tale, the reader is shown and taught about a great rule: The way you approach things determines how they appear. When the knight accepted his wife’s appearance he was able to see her true beauty. A happy ending concluded the tale, which proves how important it is to look at the glass half full. The reappearance of a knight and his marriage to the old lady might be a union between Chaucer’s depiction of low class and high class. It might be the combination of the Knights tale and the Millers tale.
After I finished reading the prologue I could only think of two things. The first was how “This is a long preamble of a tale!"” (The Wife of Bath’s Prologue, 831). The prologue is a tale in its self and makes me wonder why Chaucer decided to call this a prologue and not a tale. I was also impressed at how Chaucer gave women such an important role in this section. During the time period women who acted in such an unfaithful way were not respected. The prologue gives women the power over men with a certain ambiguity. As I mentioned in my previous blog the reason why Chaucer might have done this is to attract readers. Because he creates a controversial text people will feel attracted to reading it. He also relates to a set of audiences that includes gender and class.
The way Chaucer juxtaposes the knights tale with the millers tale might be part of his plan to capture a wide set of audiences. Because he is representing two very different social classes, his text will appeal to a wide range of readers. The Millers tale is made up of characters that, unlike a knight, are fat and rude. As this excerpt proves the folk that make up this tale are part of a lower social class. The effect this has on the reader is either laughter or indignation. In order to prevent this king of reaction Chaucer is clear when expressing that readers who are offended easily should skip to the next tale.
“3120 The Millere, that for dronken was al pale,
The Miller, who for drunkenness was all pale,
3121 So that unnethe upon his hors he sat,
So that he hardly sat upon his horse,
3122 He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat,
He would not doff neither hood nor hat,
3123 Ne abyde no man for his curteisie,
Nor give preference to any man out of courtesy,
3124 But in Pilates voys he gan to crie,
But in Pilate's voice he began to cry,
3125 And swoor, "By armes, and by blood and bones,
And swore, "By (Christ's) arms, and by blood and bones,
3126 I kan a noble tale for the nones,
I know a noble tale for this occasion,
3127 With which I wol now quite the Knyghtes tale."
With which I will now requite the Knight's tale."
3128 Oure Hooste saugh that he was dronke of ale,
Our Host saw that he was drunk on ale,
3129 And seyde, "Abyd, Robyn, my leeve brother;
And said, "Wait, Robin, my dear brother;
3130 Som bettre man shal telle us first another.
Some better man shall first tell us another.
3131 Abyd, and lat us werken thriftily."
Wait, and let us act properly."” (The Millers Tale)
I have come to the conclusion that Chaucer is merely trying to make a profit when writing these two very different stories. The knight’s tale appeals to the high-class reader that enjoys the typical, censored, writing. On the other hand, the Millers tale appeals to those who act like the Miller and feel as part of his class. There has not been a clear depiction of Chaucer’s favorite story, which leads me to the conclusion that each story is made in order to sell.
