Lysistrata and the Wife of Bath

So there is this Greek play called Lysistrata, written about 400 BC by Aristophanes. The play is about a strong female character, named Lysistrata who is so upset by the Peloponnesian War she tries to find a way for the women of Greece to end the war since the men seem unable. And what do men love more than anything else??? SEX, of course. Lysistrata convinces the Greek women to withhold sex from their husbands until the war has ended. This is a comedy, so of course hilarity ensues. The one thing Lysistrata fails to realize is that women crave and need sex just as bad as their husbands.

This play has been critically thought of as a feminist war, a first of its kind for that time period, since like Chaucer’s era women were things and not really people to have any kind of influence.  

So is Aristophanes just making fun of woman? Is Chaucer just making fun of women with his tale of the Wife of Bath? Are these authors’ pioneers of women’s rights by writing about strong, influential, and smart female characters?

Personally, I feel both authors wrote their respective strong willed female characters to amp up the hilarity of their writings. Unintentionally, I feel they also pioneered feminist thoughts. I’m sure educated females heard about these characters and realized the strength women can have, even when all she has is her body.  

Lysistrata: http://www.lysistrataunleashed.com/LysistrataSilhouette2sm.jpg

Wife of Bath: http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/wife.gif

Strong Females in the Middle Ages

Alright, not that any of you are surprised, but I am still on my Wife of Bath kick. I kinda got the idea for this blog after reading Jordan's blog, so hat's off to Jordan for getting my ball rolling!

Anyways, I wanted to talk about the struggles of writing a strong female character. It really is a difficult thing to find, even in this day and age. But just imagine how hard it would've been to write one in Chaucer's time! I mean, in Beowulf the women weren't even mentioned on the family tree. It was as if they were just some weird machine that once  man inserted his "seed" (I hate using the proper term for it) into it, then heirs or other little machines popped out. I cringe even just thinking about that.

Maybe Chaucer was sitting down at his little writing desk and thinking "You know what'll blow the pants off these guys; if I were to write the WOMAN in charge instead of the man. Yeah, that'll be super cool and edgy." or maybe he even actually viewed women as people (shocker, I know). But, whatever the reason, the Wife of Bath was born!

Now, since strong female characters were completely unheard of at the time, Chaucer had to write his character using what was common for that age. Yeah, that means the Wife has to bascially use sex as a weapon, but even modern women do that. She also has to deal with a bit of domestic abuse (it's wrong, wrong, WRONG), but so does the women Tyler Perry often portrays in his films and they come out strong on the other side....for the most part.

Maybe Chaucer was trying to be the Miley Cyrus of the Middle Ages and maybe he was trying to help his male readers see women as people, rather than creepy baby making machines (personally, I prefer the second option....I mean can you imagine a red-lipped, twerking, Chaucer just licking everything that is within a one foot radius of him? Gross.).

All I'm trying to say is that a) Strong female characters were difficult to write back then,  b) I really needed to write a blog, but was having issues coming up with a suitable topic so I just wrote down a bunch of thoughts that came into my head about something I read, and c) I wanted people to enjoy this meme I found that is clearly the Wife of Bath and Jankin and not any comic book characters.

The Wife of Awesomeness

I really enjoyed "The Wife of Bath's Prologue" simply because I find her character impressive. I love that she is able to use her sex appeal along with her mind to make men do what she wants them to. She does manipulate them, but I say kudos to her. Usually when someone takes advantage of their looks or mind, they lack the other. However, the Wife of Bath manages to use both to get what she wants. Sure, she uses her body more than her mind, but it is still in use. You have to be clever in order to do and say some of the things she does.
The leverage she has over men is evident when the pardoner says to her, "Telle forth youre tale, spareth for no man/And teche us yonge men of youre praktike" (Chaucer, 106, 186-187). The pardoner knows that the Wife of Bath has a way with men, and he wants to know all of her tricks because he wants to be prepared when he gets married. However, this implies that all women are as manipulative as the Wife of Bath is. During this time period, it is very unlikely that there are a lot of women as domineering as she is.

quoteshub.org 

The way her character is with men is what makes me like her so much. I think she uses her sex appeal as a way to be on a level playing field with the men. At this time, women had very little influence in anything, and I think she uses sex as a way to be in control of something.
Some people in class said that they do not like her character because they have a hard time looking at her from the time period the tale is set. I, however, enjoy her no matter what the time period is. I understand that women have more power in modern society and there are so many ways to get what you want without using your body, but in the end she still has results. If her body is what she has to use it, why not take advantage of it? She was not cheating on her husbands, all of her sexual activity involved the men she married.
I hate that there is a double standard regarding the Wife of Bath in modern society and men in modern society. Most people would look down on her today because of that fact that she has had so many husbands and her current one is twenty years younger than her. However, if her character were a man, things would most likely be different. Men tend to get praised for being with multiple women -- especially if those women are younger than they are.
The only problem I have with her character is that she stayed with Jankin when he beat. I understand that during the time period, men were allowed by law to beat their wives, but her character seems so head-strong that I thought she would find a way to leave him. The one part I did enjoy regarding this was when she hit him back. She explains that she rips his book and makes him fall in the fire, and after he hits her, she "hitte him on the cheke" (Chaucer, 120, 808). Yes, he does hit her, but she fights back and I appreciate that very much.

Absolon the Creepy Cat Man

People have posted about The Miller's Tale and Nicholas, but I wanted to write about Absolon. Am I the only one who thinks he is kind of crazy?
First of all, he fell in love with Alisoun at first sight. We all know this is in fairy tales, which makes sense because this story is fictional, but it is still crazy. I personally believe he just thinks she is really pretty and he longs to kiss her, or have sex with her...probably both. Chaucer writes that Absolon looked at the carpenter's wife and "thoughte a mery lyf" (77, 3344). How can he picture a happy life with her when he knows absolutely nothing about her but her looks?
The second thing that made me wary of Absolon were these two lines: "I dar wel seyn, if she had been a mous/And he a cat, he wolde hire hente anon" (77, 3346-47). If I'm not mistaken, cats catch mice in order to kill them. Sure, some cats like to catch mice so they can play with them, but that mostly ends with a happy cat playing with a dead mouse. This is the metaphor Chaucer came up with? Two things that do not like each other? Then again, if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Absolon is the cat and he really wants to be with Alisoun, the mouse. Cats love catching mice. Mice are terrified of cats, and Alisoun wants nothing to do with Absolon. However, this explanation just further proves that Absolon is creepy.

tvtropes.org 

 

I think that is an accurate depiction of what the cat version of Absolon would look like.

The third and final thing that made me question Absolon's sanity is when he burns Nicholas' butt. HE BURNS HIS ASS. Can we all take a moment to appreciate how much that would hurt? Yes, I know Alisoun tricked him into kissing "hir naked ers/Ful savourly" (85, 3734-35), but did he really have to resort to burning Nicholas' butt? Could he not just realize that Alisoun does not like him and move on? Or perhaps he could have punched Nicholas in the face. That would be preferable to burning him. I bet Nicholas is going to have fun sitting down for a while. Oh, Absolon. you crazy cat man, you.

www.pixton.com

 

Thinking about "The Miller's Tale"

I was re-reading "The Miller's Tale" because I wanted to, I don't know, try to understand it more? I guess I really just wanted to re-read it to decide if I really as appalled by it as I originally thought, since not a lot of other students were. I thought maybe I was missing something.

After re-reading it and with the help of the discussion we had in class, I realise that I wasn't so offended by the story as I was the character of Nicholas. His character just disgusted me, honestly. And perhaps I had the same issue with this as I did "The Wife of Bath" where I just couldn't get myself to read the story in the mindset of Chaucer's time period. Maybe then Nicholas could go around being disgusting and...a groper because women basically had no rights, but it's hard to read that as a 21st century woman where that's, well, harassment, I'm pretty sure. And the fact that Nicholas's actions and really cheesy pick-up lines are rewarded? That just doesn't really sit right with me. That coupled with Chaucer's nonchalant use of "Queynte" just kind of makes me want to shy away and groan in disgust, because personally I just really can't stand that word, especially the modern, derogatory use of it. Which of course brings up full circle to my inability to read this without my modern-day and 21-century bias.

I guess I didn't really have a problem with the parodied version of Noah's story because I mean, we have parodies of Bible stories everywhere these days (Including the story of Noah. Just look at Evan Almighty). And trying to visualise John just hanging out on a roof in a bathtub is pretty hilarious.

And sure, Nicholas deserved some form of punishment for, I don't know, grabbing vaginas and helping Alison commit adultery, and while his unfortunate meeting with a hot poker wasn't offensive, it's not like it was tasteful, either.

But let's be honest, who doesn't enjoy a good fart joke every once in awhile, even if it shows up in the form of a clerk's very strange fear?

The Wife of Bath in Today's Media

In ye olden middle English times, of course it would make sense for the Wife of Bath to manipulate her husbands with sex and a quick-silver tongue. As a woman of that time frame, those are the only tools at her disposal, and she makes use of them very, very well. It's almost terrifying to imagine what she might have been capable of our modern times.

It's here that I bring up a point that was made in class (by Jordan, if I remember correctly). The point was that, while the wife's method of getting what she wanted seems perfectly acceptable considering her limited resources, in today's society she'd simply be regarded as someone much less credible. Women these days have so many opportunities to draw upon, almost as much as men, so they have no reason to devolve into petty promiscuous activities in order to get what they want.

But isn't this kind of behavior something that we see in female characters a lot these days?

(taken from www.telegraph.co.uk)

The most obvious example that I can think of is Irene Adler from the BBC adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, and it just so happens that she shares a number of traits with the wife. She manipulates men with her body, to the point of even working as an S&M escort. She baffles Sherlock with seduction and blatantly uses both him and others in order to get what she needs. She has access to an innumerable amount of classified government secrets and possesses amazing intelligent as well.

Despite using many of the same tactics and holding a similar mindset to the wife (you know, excluding the whole line of husbands and acceptance of physical abuse thing), Irene is often regarded as an atypical strong female character, and certainly not a whore. 

It makes me wonder: if you were to take away the cultural acceptance of domestic abuse, would the wife's character be as positively regarded as a 'well-developed character' by our media standards set today? 

The Greek Pantheon in Medieval Christendom

I love Middle English. It is fun to read, tickles the ears and is novel to the tongue. (I can't help it!) Something that has stuck out to me while reading Chaucer is the liberal sprinkling of Greek mythology throughout this medieval text. Written during a time known for its intolerance of pagan religions, I found this fascinating and confusing. The Knight's tale features Greek gods, the main characters all praying to their respective patrons and being granted a sign. The wife of Bath refers to the gods nearly as frequently as she does  Christian saints and Christ. (She was clearly well read) and Chaucer was not the only author of the age to mingle Christianity with polytheism, Shakespeare was fond of lacing his work with the ancient conquerors as well. Furthermore, while earlier works such as Beowulf continue to spark lively debate about its inclusion of old pagan customs nary a word can be found disputing the inclusion of the Greek pantheon. My best guess is the influence of early Roman conquest combined with the continued use of Latin in the written word allowed for a kindness toward the religion that Christianity toppled. Also noted, is of the selected sections we have read, only those portrayed as somewhat learned and traveled, the knight and wife of Bath, reference mythology in their tales. It is notably absent in the Miller's tale. Hmmmmm.

Wife of Bath, Smart Lady or Mafia Boss?

I really liked today's discussion on "The Wife of Bath Prologue". It was interesting to see how the majority of the class seemed to agree when it came to liking the story. Everyone seemed to have their distinct views on the wife and how she lived her life. One thing that I liked in particular was Jordan’s point about as a woman; the wife shouldn't feel the need to use her sexuality to get what she wants. There are other ways to achieve this. When I read the prologue I was thinking the same thing, it appears that throughout The Canterbury Tales, the woman will use their bodies in ways that today we would see as characteristics of a whore. In some way and maybe this is just me, but the Wife of Bath slightly reminds me of a Mafia boss. Similar to a Mafia boss, the wife knows her way with words so as to make people think what she has to say is correct. Which can be seen when she and her fourth husband, Jankin, settle on the agreement that she may do what she like with her money and land so long as she doesn't forget about him. Like we said in class, she knows how to play the game and by doing so she has benefited herself. Aside from her multiple marriages, she has possessions of money and land as well as being a skilled cloth maker. Perhaps this is Chaucer’s way of showing us that we don’t give medieval women enough credit.  I actually like the story much more than I thought I would, I guess Middle English and I get along better than I thought.

What a Girl Wants, According to Chaucer

Ok, here I am shamelessly writing about the Wife of Bath again, but after today's discussion in class can you really blame me?

Throughout our discussion of whether or not Chaucer meant for the Wife of Bath to be feared by men and admired by women, I couldn't help, but think about if Chaucer actually meant to portray what women really wanted out of a relationship.

Let's consider the facts, the Wife of Bath was married five times, but she only really loved her most recent husband, Jankin. Jankin was really the only man to ever stand up against the Wife of Bath's tyranny, even for just a brief moment through some pretty intense domestic violence. In addition to rising up against her, he also makes her see that he's cool with her doing whatever, just as long as she doesn't forget about him in the process.

"He yaf me al the brydel in myn hond,
To han the governance of hous and lond,
And of his tonge and of his hond also;
And whan that I hadde geten unto me,
By maistrie, al the soveraynetee..."

(Lines 813-818, The Canterbury Tales)

This passage in particular makes me think that the Wife of Bath and Jankin had a very radically progressive relationship. And by radically progressive, I mean basically modern by today's standards. I don't know about you guys, but in my house my mom and dad basically do whatever (as long as it's legal and not going against their marriage vows), but when it comes down to it, my mother has the final say.

That's just point one.

Point two is that their marriage actually seems to improve after this dispute. I mean, she even states:

"After that day we hadden never debaat.
God help me so, I was to him as kinde
As any wyf from Denmark unto Inde,
And also trewe, and so was he to me.
I prey to God that sit in magestee,
So blesse his soule for his mercy dere!"

(Lines 819-827, The Canterbury Tales)

After they have their dispute, the Wife of Bath is basically given control over everything that is rightfully hers, while Jankins is just along for the ride. I think this speaks to so many women, and even men on a certain standpoint, because who doesn't want a relationship where everything is equal? Isn't that the point of even being in one?

Anyways, I love the Wife of Bath and see no flaw in her; minus her tolerance with domestic violence: NOT COOL! But for the time this was written, I suppose that was pretty normal. Anyways, I feel weird for not having any fun pictures or videos, so here's a picture of Betty White; who I can totally see as playing the Wife of Bath if they ever made The Canterbury Tales  into a movie.

The Summoner and the Pardoner

When I read the Canterbury Tales in high school, my English teacher brought up a rather interesting part of the General Prologue. When Chaucer describes these inseparable pilgrims, the Summoner and the Pardoner, he says they are the most corrupt of any of the other travelers. They are both officers of the Church, yet neither follow the "guidelines", or beliefs, that come with the job. The Summoner, being the man who brings in the accused to the ecclesiastical court, is one scary man. He has a face so scarred that it frightens children and a drinking habit so bad that makes him very irritable. I would say we could find a better guy for the job. Then there is the Pardoner. This beardless, long haired fellow is a high figure within the Church. This guy is very much a fraud, especially with his "holy" veil. He also loves to keep those charitable "donations" for himself. So yes, we have two horrible men picked to do civic, god-like duties. I think the lady down the street,baking cookies would do a better job than either of these men.
HOWEVER.
Despite their flaws of not understanding what the Church stood for, there are suggestions that these men could have actually loved each other. My teacher pointed out how the narrator describes the Pardoner has a gelding or a mare. Could this be suggesting he is a homosexual or eunuch? At line 673, another mention of his homosexuality could be suggested. It says that he would harmonize (The Pardoner loved to sing. What gay man doesn't love singing!?! I love to sing :P) with the Summoner's "stif burdoun" (sturdy bass). These two men loved to sing to and with each other. Plus they're both really shitty people; what a beautiful love story!
Overall, I find this VERY VERY interesting. We all know that homosexuals have made great contributions to literature throughout the ages, but it's interesting that it was actually "talked"about within a story. Chaucer simply describes the possible lifestyle of both the Summoner and Pardoner, yet he doesn't judge it or ridicule it.

words, words, words

(this is a shameless re-post - with a few changes - from my Chaucer class' blog...apologies to those of you who may be seeing it for the second time!)

One of the privileges of my job is that I get to spend so much time revisiting the texts and issues that I care about.

I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that every time I teach a text, even if I have taught it multiple times before, I always go back and reread it. And I always discover something new!

I have now taught "The Miller's Tale" twice in as many weeks. I'll be honest, I was surprised by how many of you guys struggled to find the humor in this story because you were put off by its offensive content. In the past, most of my students have jumped at the chance to dig into this one, so I was a bit thrown!

I want to be clear that what I am IN NO WAY questioning the validity of anyone's reading experience. Chaucer, after all, anticipated this reaction. He expected folks to be perturbed by his language and his subject matter, and with good reason.

But what I have discovered in my most recent readings of this tale is more about today's world than Chaucer's. I am reminded of the ways that our society encourages self-censorship (despite simultaneously encouraging self-promotion) and discourages healthy discomfort - the kind of discomfort that makes us question who we are and why we live the way that we do.

Words have power - some more obviously so than others. Certain words elicit a strong reaction, and many of them appear in this tale (Queynte. Pisse. Toute.) But we shouldn't shy away from that power and refuse to use those words (well, obviously there are times and places ... and of course I would never advocate using hurtful language about someone else). Rather, we should consider why those words have that power. Why do they make us uncomfortable? And we must remember that those words don't have power over us, but are instead within our own power to catalog our world.

The Miller, either because his drunkenness has lowered his inhibitions or because it's just the kind of "cherl" he is, certainly is unafraid of using those words. Are we going to let ourselves be bested by him? I say no. Because his words are a sign of his willingness to tell it like it is: the world isn't a courtly romance. Emelye in the Knight's tale isn't necessarily thrilled with the giant tournament to determine her fate. People may commend a "noble tale," but they also can (and should!) enjoy a hearty laugh at a fart joke - especially one as well-wrought and intricately told as this one.

http://houseoffame.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-can-hath-cheezburger.html

Chaucer's Programmed Thinkers?

     Sitting in class this afternoon as we discussed the potential lessons to be learned from “The Miller's Tale,” I began to ponder what in the world could be gathered from such a vulgar tale where all the characters were horrid role models. All I could visualize were four characters that exemplified precisely how not to live your life!  But then I realized perhaps (amidst his other many messages I'm sure are discretely placed within the lines of the text :) Chaucer was hinting at the value and great need for each and every individual to think for his or herself rather than blindly going with the grain or accepting authority without placing value and import in the realization of one's autonomy.

    For example, through Alison we see a female character who is clearly stifled by a patriarchal household – one that is headed by a jealous and constrictive husband who never allows her to do what she wants and one that never enables her to be her own person. As a little side note, in all fairness, her much older husband has some justifications for being jealous and concerned about her faithfulness. His very young and beautiful wife is flirty and being actively pursued by other men despite her marital status. But even still, Alison’s husband acts as a dictator of sorts that squelches out any possibility of Alison’s being her own person and thinking for herself in any way until. . .

     Nicholas gives her a reason to rebel.  I'm sure many of us have heard stories about overly sheltered children who go a bit wild when they are finally given a little taste of “freedom.”  I feel like Alison is a Middle Age example of such a case.  To a large extent, Alison is likely drawn to Nicholas for his autonomy, his freedom and his ability to be a “thinker.”  Nicholas is a scholar, who though accomplishes/attains what he wants in a self-serving manner, he still achieves his goal: Alison – how? through his scholarly allowance & accepted ability to think for himself.

     Even as Alison rebels against her husband's inhibitions, she never achieves “her own mind,” rather it is Nicholas who plays her. She falls into his clasp and is further drug along my patriarchy, essentially being used for her body – because no, I do not believe that Nicholas loved her, but rather lusted after her and she's just being played the fool like her husband.  But that is just my take on things and a whole separate argument, so I digress.

     Carpenter John, in his staunch religiousness, seems a bit brainwashed.  His fear of knowledge, as illustrated by his prejudice against Nicholas for his studies, is a scary thing because it means he avoids - you guessed it – thinking for himself! Furthermore, the fact that he is so gullible that he falls for Nicholas' ridiculous scheme is frightening as it makes him appear as though he is programmed to live solely by what he is told, rather than what he “researches” or finds to be true for himself. In my opinion, he is no better off in a lot of ways than Alison herself.

     Freedom is in one's own autonomy. And with that autonomy comes discerning our own truths about the world and who we are - then making our own decisions accordingly. It is our own right, one that should neither be denied or failed to be “tapped into.”  In the end, whether or not this little life lesson was deliberately placed within the realms of this text by Chaucer, I think that it is a tenable moral of the story that we can all consider as we think about the fundamental themes in the workings of this piece. 

323east.com

What Makes a Man??

Ok, so I’m still on the Beowulf kick, I can’t help it. The Canterbury Tales may have their moments, but my mind is more intensely drawn to fighting and monsters and dragons…I can’t help it. Beowulf is just way cooler than any of the Canter-characters, it’s a fact.  

My last blog post was about what made a monster. After dwelling on that idea for a while, I realized we never really discussed what made a man. Surely the natural assumption is that a man is the opposite of a monster (or at least one should hope). But men can be monsters, can’t they?

The trusty ol’ Oxford English Dictionary (OED) describes a man as:

Man 1: A human being; to have or assume human nature

Man 2: Wickedness; a lie

Man 4: An ostentatiously virile or manly man; a man engaged in or excelling in activities considered to be typically masculine.

These definitions, for lack of a better term, are extremely bland. Is it that difficult to define what makes a man? Is there no real definition because it is not a term, but a label generated by society? In Beowulf’s society, a man fears nothing; he fights his demons to their death or his own. No fear is allowed. A man he boasts his accomplishments. Other men follow a real man. But, even in Beowulf’s society men are allowed their faults it seems. King Hrothgar is still considered a great king even though he fails to kill Grendel himself.

Given today’s time, I feel there are probably different expectations of what makes a man, or a woman for that matter. Each of us in this class probably has varying ideals on what a true man/woman is. Maybe that’s what makes it so difficult to define. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/David_von_Michelangelo.jpg

Sculpture David by Michelangelo

Ok, I simply couldn't resist

As the title of this blog states, I honestly could not resist being the first to post something about my favorite character in all of the Canterbury Tales: The Wife of Bath.

Here she is, ladies and gentlemen! The beautiful Wife of Bath in all of her audacious and provocative beauty! Tremble all who behold her gap tooth of ultimate seduction!

Ok, so the Wife of Bath is probably the funniest characters of the series. I mean, come on. All the Miller has for him is his drunken stupidity. Take the bottle away from him and he's got nothing! The Wife of Bath's quick wit and constant flirtatious innuendos are constant and everlasting. Like, it has been how long since the tale has been written and her mannerisms are STILL hysterical and for all the same reasons, too! How's that for good writing? Eat it, Shakespeare!

Anyways, if you are doubting me, why don't you just read one of the first things she says on pg.102 (approximately line 28):

"God bad us for to wexe and multiplye:
   That gentil text can I wel understonde."

For all of you who haven't read this part yet, she is basically saying "God told us to increase and multiply. That's a nice bit of scripture I can understand well."

Oh, and if that didn't tickle your funny bones, check this: SHE NEVER SAYS SHE HAS ANY KIDS!! LIKE EVER!! GOOGLE IT!!

So, that's it for me for now since I'm presenting on this, along with my dear friend Brittney, in a few days. I just really wanted you all to get hyped for the Wife of Bath ahead of time.

In Which I Make A Semi-Relevant Association

Okay. So...

It's not that I'm an illiterate simpleton. It's just that I'd heard of the "Canterbury Tales", but I'd never really given them much thought, at all. I vaguely knew that they were held together in some book form, and that they were a collection of stories. Weirdly, I was reading the Sandman comic "World's End", which is likened to the "Canterbury Tales" themselves (This is because "World's End" is about a series of travelers telling their stories on the way to an inn) so I feel like I accidentally almost-kind-of prepared to read the "Canterbury Tales", a bit. 

And my idea of Chaucer is (embarrassing as it is to admit) a naked Paul Bettany from the movie "A Knight's Tale". I think it's a great movie, even though the anachronisms can be used in a drinking game to see how fast one can get alcohol poisoning.
But Sandman! What's cool about "World's End" is that the entire volume is filled with literary and mythological allusions, very much like "The Canterbury Tales". The allusions and sly additions to the Sandman mythology broaden the stories told, to the point where stories begin to create their own stories--much like the "Canterbury Tales" from which the author borrowed the idea. Granted, this is all slightly confusing to a newcomer who has no idea what I'm really talking about--but trust me, man, it's cool. Especially because this volume can be read on its own, without prior knowledge of the other books in the series.

(World's End Inn)

Of bums and fake floods

Dr. Mitchell-Buck was right; the Miller’s tale was very amusing. Although, I did not originally think it would end up being amusing because, I kept thinking that Alison, the Carpenter’s wife was annoying. She seemed fickle to me, and I haven’t given up on that idea yet but other than that the whole story was like some sort of twisted and raunchy sitcom. First of all, the scholar Nicholas is a sly dog. He basically whisked right into the story and stole Alison right from under the Carpenter’s nose. Plus there was the incident where Nicholas convinced the Carpenter that Noah’s flood was coming, “Shal al be dreynt, so hidous is the shour” (3520). I cannot believe that he bought that foolish tale that the scholar sold. That was ridiculous enough but of course it gets better. The funniest part was when the Absolon kissed Alison’s butt. (This was also a really shocking scene as well… I did not expect it at all). My face when I read that was basically like this:

Were you guys expecting Alison and Nicholas to pull something like that off? And to add to that, were you expecting the guy to come back with a hot iron and burn the skin off of Nicholas’s bum? There was much more bum in this story than I thought there would be.