I’d like to further examine this debate between fiction and lying because I also think it’s a morality debate. Is the Pardoner such a bad guy that we shouldn’t listen to his story? So what if he’s lying just to further advance his monetary gain? One of the most frustrating things I’ve found so far about The Canterbury Tales is the fact that everything is so open to interpretation. Being an English major, I’m used to not having answers and not having things set in stone. Usually I’m able to form my own opinions and convictions. However, I think this is the first thing I’ve come across that has completely stumped me. I guess this is my attempt at fleshing this all out, so bear with me.
I
like to think that the difference between fiction and lying is the fact that
you lie and present it as a truth, whereas in fiction you’re accepting the fact
that this may not be a true story. If
you know that going in, all sense of morality is still intact. So the pardoner tells this awesome story with
an awesome lesson—it probably changes a few people’s lives. (I know when I read
it, it really made me think.) It’s not earth-shattering, but it really makes
you think about greed.
I
think the thing I’m most frustrated with is the fact that I can’t make sense of
right and wrong in this case. It’s
driving me crazy!
I really like what you brought up about lying and presenting it as truth and then going on to say fiction being known as a non-truth, therefore being more morally just. My favorite quote is “It’s not a lie if you believe it too.” Which makes me think of the slight rationalizations that the Pardoner goes through to be able to steal money from the poor, but cloak it in his own mind as a deed to save the sinners. He never says this, but maybe he does it in his head?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I think you hit in interesting cord with morality with the three men stealing what’s under the tree. I am sure they also had to internally rationalize with themselves about trying to kill each other and justify that being okay to do for money.
I said it earlier, but I think that the majority of people in the story are bad people. Or at least that's how Chaucer presents it. Whether they're actually bad, or Chaucer describes them as bad is up to interpretation, but I think Chaucer wants us to see that when you take a random handful of human beings on an outing, they're generally horrible or evil down to the root. It reminds me of LOST. All these different people with all different backgrounds and stories to tell. You can lie and create a new persona or you can tell the truth. Maybe that truth is bad. Maybe the pardoner tells the truth because he's done lying about himself to others but he gets so caught up in his story that he forgets he's told everyone the truth and tries to go on with the lie. Are these people lying to impress or telling the truth to gain trust?
ReplyDelete