I Couldn't Not Talk About Harry Potter the One Time It's Appropriate in College...

For starters, learning that J.K. Rowling was inspired by the Pardoner’s Tale made the Canterbury Tales extremely more exciting. Even though I couldn't wait to sit and read the tale, I was exceedingly distracted during the whole text. But, it had its benefits because my distractions had their benefits because I was thorough in analyzing the texts… just, focusing on Harry Potter at least fifty percent of the time.

            Though the two tales (Tale of Three Bothers and Pardoners Tale) are very different, it is easy to see what they have in common. Both themes show the consequences of living in excess. The Pardoner’s Tale possess this excess in terms of gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, and swearing. In The Tale of Three Brothers, Rowling keeps with the idea of excess but focuses on the greedy men who fashion a bridge to avoid their deaths and their insistence to trick Death out of taking them. These men have a greedy sense about them, in such a way that they think they are better, or possibly able to outsmart, Death and the concept of death itself.

            The Pardoner premises his tale by announcing that his theme is “Radix malorum est Cupiditas” (ll. 334). The text defines this as Avarice, or the love of money—essentially, greed—is the root of all evil. By trying to best on another, the characters of the Pardoners Tale  who find gold underneath the tree—presumably placed there by Death—ultimately cause their own demise which is similar to the Tale of Three Brothers who try to best Death by being granted tools which cause them to live forever. Neither set of characters are able to best Death, though, seeing as those in both tales meet Death on their own terms or on his.

            I found interest in the way the story is told in the film adaptation of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, when Hermione is speaking of the first brother who killed the wizard who he has quarreled with before. The brother brags about how invincible he is because of the power which the Elder Wand gives him. The movie emphasizes the word “drunk” when speaking of how he was intoxicated with power and boasted to those around him. Because drunkenness is a major theme in the tale, I found it interesting that the producers of the film saw it necessary to have put emphasis on this word. Perhaps, it is close listening… instead of close reading? I am not sure. But, I could go on forever about how cool I found all these common themes…

And it won't let me keep typing but can I please hang out with the Wife of Bath?

     I don't know why, but for some reason The Canterbury Tales made so much more sense to me over the past week than the last time I read it. Maybe it's because I paid more attention, or care more, or simply have the first experience under my belt, what ever it is, I am very much okay with it.
     That being said I still haven't quite gotten a handle on Chaucer's tone. I can't always tell when he's being sarcastic or satirical from when he's being totally serious. There are sections when I'm pretty sure I know what's going on and I turn out to be correct and there are sections when I may as well be reading a different book.
     When we were reading the section on the Knight and the Squire I definitely saw the Squire as a no-good dandy, when others saw him as the picture of innocence. And I have no idea who is closer to the truth (even any of us even are close).
      The new readings (at least parts) are a little easier to tell. The Parson is the good guy, no questions  asked. It's easy to tell that Chaucer respects this guy (figment of Chaucer's own imagination though he may be). I didn't really pick up on any sass in his description, only heartfelt belief in his goodness and kindness. I may be totally missing the boat with this one (and wouldn't that be embarrassing) but that's where I stand with the Parson.
      The Wife of Bath is probably my favorite character thus far. I don't know if Chaucer is a huge fan of her or thinks she's a nut but I've always kind of liked the lady. She's not pretty, Chaucer makes that fairly clear, but she is wealthy. Which is almost more important. I don't know if he means to shame her while mentioning her five husbands (and other companions in her youth) but I've got nothing but respect for a lady who can talk five guys into marrying her. (Albeit some of them were probably in it for the money).

My Realization of Our Uncivilized Society

            My biggest problem with the General Prologue in The Canterbury Tales is the fact that I can’t discern which characters are good, and which are painted in a bad light.  During last week’s discussion, my group found the interpretations between the knight and his son to be much different than some of the others in the class. (Whether that’s because it’s up to interpretation or I’m simply getting it wrong, I don’t know.) The general consensus was that the son’s excerpt was very satirical.  But how am I supposed to know that? Even when translated into Modern English, the tone is hard to understand.  I’m really starting to hold Chaucer in contempt for showing off his fancy schmancy writing skills, and not focusing on understanding what the heck he’s saying.  I like poetic things, but this seems a bit excessive. 

            What I’m confused about is the contrasting things we discussed in class.  One day, I think we discussed that a clean-cut, nice looking dude with shiny armor and nice-looking hair was considered a good thing—the guy could be recognized as a hero.  Then another day, a guy with a nicely groomed, forked beard, or a squire with nice hair and the ability to write songs is bad.  This is extremely confusing! Then I remembered that these two discussions occurred while we were discussing two different stories.  So maybe this presents the evolution from Old English times and Middle English times—which again brings me to the topic of heroism. 

            In Beowulf, the hero is dressed in shiny, extravagant armor, and he is loved by the people.  Of course, his accomplishments and reputations are also considered in his heroism, but a lot of emphasis is placed on his outer appearance—which is quite impressive.  This idea isn’t unlike today’s society, where we place emphasis on looks in, not heroes, but celebrities.  We see the opposite in The Canterbury Tales, though.  Their hero (in this case the knight) is humbly dressed, and shows that looks are not at the forefront of their judgments.  Like Beowulf, this knight has many proud accomplishments to display—yet, they look entirely different.  What’s funny to me is the fact that we think of these times as uncivilized now—but really, Chaucer and his counterparts had the right way of thinking.  So who’s really uncivilized? Beowulf  is one of the earliest works we have on record, while Chaucer wrote this a hundreds of years later.  So really, we’ve come full circle.