The Miller's Tale. I Dislike Them All...

Out of all the stories in The Canterbury Tales my least favorite has been “The Miller’s Tale”. The story has humor, and I can enjoy it from that angle, but there is so much that is either mean or doesn’t make sense, that I cannot make myself like it. Every story so far in the tales I have been able to immerse my self in, and try to look at the different perspectives of the characters, but I cannot in “the Miller’s Tale” because I don’t understand them, and not only that, but I don’t want to.

I cannot think of one of the four characters that has a redeeming quality about them.

Nicholas is very capable of being the cause of all trouble. He’s persistent and sexually motivated. I also find him to be a narcissist believing that the people around are there for his purpose, which is proven by his insistence in being in control of Alison’s body. He is clearly manipulative and mischievous, which he demonstrates with his relationship with John.

Next we have, Absolon, who is part of the church, and is also pursuing Alison. Forget the fact that he was not supposed to pursue her because he probably took a vow of chastity, but she is a married woman. His behavior is terrible, especially when considering his role with the church. Then after Alison and Nicholas humiliate him, he seeks revenge and physically hurts Nicholas intending to hurt her even though his actions were wrong.

John is an idiot, and clearly clueless to anything that is going on in his own house. While Alison and Nicholas are having sex in his house, and Absolon is trying to pursue John’s wife, he’s asleep in tub worried about a flood because Nicholas told him one was coming. There is nothing respectable about a man who follows other men blindly, which makes me feel no sympathy for John.

Finally, Alison, who I think is a little bit of the puppet master in this story because when things fall apart, she remains untouched. She has so much control over the men around her. In the two pranks that played on John and Absolon, she was there and in the action, but came out unharmed, with only the men punished for her behavior. All the bad that happened to them came from her. John broke his arm based on a lie that was told, so Nicholas could sleep with her. Absolon was farted on by Alison because he came to pursue her, and as result Absolon seeks revenge on her, but instead brands Nicholas. She is the only one who is not punished for her actions.

None of these characters demonstrate that they have any good traits at all. The other aspect of this tale that really bothers me is the amount of effort it takes for Nicholas to have sex with her. Was it really worth all the work he had to go through to be with her? The trickery is very elaborate in regards to tricking John into thinking there is a floods, and convincing his to sleep in a tub. I just think that if they were as determined as they were to have the affair, there had to be a simpler plan to accomplish their goal.        

http://ishali.deviantart.com/art/The-Miller-s-Tale-283798186

  

The General Prologue

I was terrified to start reading Chaucer this year, and I have had to in two different classes, but the very first thing I noticed was how pretty the language, which is the foundation of our own, actually sounded. When hearing the beginning o f the prologue read out loud the poem, I was surprised at how lyrical is sounded, and not because it’s a poem and rhymed, but because of the sound of each word. It’s strange how foreign the opening sounded. There was an immediate attraction to it much like listening to Spanish or French. There is a quality to them that is captivating maybe because it is unfamiliar, and this is intensified because this language is root to our own. “The General Prologue” captures these sounds, and with poetry, almost sounds like a song. For me hearing the poem out loud was a definite surprise, since it really wasn’t what I was expecting. 

The Wife of Bath: Prologue vs Tale

I have spent a lot of time this since reading "the Wife of Bath" in trying to determine whether “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” matches the tone in her prologue. I have come to the conclusion that they do.

The Wife of Bath is dominant character. She is outspoken and forceful. She is seemingly aware and in control of her life, and has a clear idea of what she wants out of marriage. Originally, I thought that her main goal was to control her husband, but, it turns out, that what she wants is to have a partner.  She did not want a master, or to be one, but instead be someone’s equal companion. When the wife of Bath describes her last husband, she says, “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).

Originally, I did not think that “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue” and “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” did not go together. Her idea of partnership is not answer the knight receives as to what women want. The old woman in the tale tells the knight that women want to be in charge and in control of their husbands.  This seemed opposite to the relationship the wife of bath had with her fifth husband, but after reflecting there is a moment in the tale that shows the knight and the woman becoming partners. After the knight tries to refuse the woman, and she responds to him, then he

            …adviseth him, and soore siketh,/

            But ate laste he seide in this maere:/

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

I putte me in youre wise governaunce.

            Cheseth yourself which maybe moost pleasaunce,/

And moost honour to yow and me also.

I do not fors the wheither of the two,

For as yow liketh, it suffisth me.’ (1128-1235).

This passage is not showing the wife taking power from her husband, and being the one in control. This passage more shows him offering what he has to her freely after he reflected on their exchange. When he says to her “Cheseth yourself which maybe moost pleasaunce/ And moost honour to you and me also” (1231-1232), to me, I feel like a partnership has taken place. By him offering himself to her, the knight has elevated her status. He includes himself, asking her to consider his needs as well.

           

So, after looking at this situation with the knight, it seems to me that the Wife of Bath does connect to her tale. The responsibility that knight puts into his wife, is similar to the responsibility Jankin put into her. It’s not just a responsibility of property, but also a responsibility to protect another person. Both of these men ended up elevating their wives station and worthiness in their marriages. They are not simply props, who make life difficult for their husbands, but get to be active participants in their marriages. This was a good story for the wife of bath because it wasn’t about dominating, it was about being appreciated and valued in their relationship.

Golden Book of Marriage and Utopia

Hey guys!

So, I'd like to make a connection here between the Wife of Bath’s prologue and part of Book II of Utopia, something that occurred to me while reading the latter. I’m not necessarily sure of what conclusion I can draw from all of this so I hope someone else can help me!

Also, psa I’m in both Dr. MB’s Chaucer and Brit Lit class and we discussed the Wife of Bath at the exact same time so I hope I’m not mixing up what we covered in each class. If so uh…at least you’ll have some new information!

So, while covering the Wife of Bath, we discussed the book that Jenkin read to her that she eventually ripped pages out of. The book is called “The Book of Wicked Wives” and the section I’m going to be looking at is one we read in class and it at the back of our book on page 358. It is from the section written by Theophrastus, Golden Book of Marriage.
It reads: “Moreover there is no choice in the matter of a wife: one has to take whatever comes along. If she’s nagging, stupid, ugly, proud, smelly—whatever fault she has, we find out after marriage. Now a horse, an ass, a cow, a dog, the cheapest of slaves, clothes, kettles, a wooden chair, a cup, a clay pot—all these are tested first, and then purchased. Only a wife is not put on display—in case her faults are discovered before we take her.”

Ignoring the obvious, horrifying misogyny in this section (I know, it pains me to ignore it and not rant about it), I’d like to point out that there is a connection with Utopia.

In Book II of Utopia, we are being told all of the different ways that the society works in Utopia. This “perfect” land has a distinctive ritual that the men and women go through before marrying; one which several people objected to in class. We see this on page 72.

More is repeating Raphael’s explanation of Utopia and is talking about marriage. “Whether she is a widow or a virgin, the woman is shown naked to the suitor by the responsible and respectable matron; and similarly, some respectable man presents the suitor naked to the woman…When men go to buy a colt, where they are risking only a little money, they are so suspicious that, though the beast is almost bare, they won’t close the deal until the saddle and blanket have been taken off, lest there be a hidden sore underneath. Yet in the choice of a mate, which may cause either delight or disgust for the rest of their lives, people are completely careless. They leave all the rest of her body completely covered up with clothes and estimate the attractiveness of a woman from a mere handsbreadth of her person, the face, which is all they can see. And so they marry, running the risk of bitter discord, if something in either’s person should offend the other.”

So what does this tell us? Well, for one, both Theophrastus and More (the author) or Raphael (the speaker) are comparing women and wives to livestock. Both writings are speaking of marriage as a transaction wherein a woman is bought and is constantly trying to trick men into a bad exchange.

However, More (the writer) does decide that in this Utopia, both women and men are exposed completely before they are married. While only the women is described as being likely to trick the man into “buying” her, the men are also exposed. Is More saying that this could happen with men tricking women into marriage as well? When he gives the example of going to buy a horse, he compares this to marrying a woman and this led me to believe he thought the same thing that Theophrastus did, but perhaps he is thinking this of both genders.

Is More being influenced by Theophrastus? Has he read Golden Book of Marriage? Has he read Chaucer and is he drawing this idea from him? Or was this an idea that a lot of men had at this time period?

I’m really not sure what to make of this connection. Does anyone else have any ideas?

You know, Utopia doesn't seem so bad in hindsight...

That the word 'utopia' can literally mean 'no place' says a lot about the fact that, as a species, nothing ever particularly seems to satisfy us. This has been portrayed in multiple ways across multiple medias. Even if the world itself is perfect, there's always that one teensy little imperfection that really makes the deal a lot harder to sell to us. And if it isn't small, then it's either a big problem, or the fact that an entire group of people is so discriminated against that they couldn't possibly see the world in the same fashion, thus no longer making it a utopia.

One of the most striking examples of a faux Utopia (although really, aren't they all fake?) is the psychedelic 80's badfest of Logan's Run, where all but a small portion of Earth has been completely wiped out of humans, save for one sole civilization that's dedicated to nothing but for the pursuit of happiness and 'earthly pleasures'. Sounds great, right? Just as good as More's Utopia!

There's a slight problem. In the utopia of Logan's Run, every citizen must die as soon as they turn 30.

More's Utopia is a lot less transparent than that, and that's what makes it stand out above literally every other pop cultural 'utopia' rendition that we've seen in the last 50 years. With movies and books like "The Hunger Games" and a couple of notable Star Trek episodes it's different, because can plainly see just what exactly is 'wrong' with whatever is going on the the world.

With More's Utopia, I could honestly think of a handful of people that I know who would be perfectly happy to move there (provided certain elements are updated to fit a more 'modern' era. At least there's that.

The Familial Role

     I truly believe that a vast number of our societal issues can be traced back to the family – and what happens inside the familial circle. We are all a product of our parents, our upbringing, and if educated on such things as morality, courtesy, respect and the value for human life, I believe so many of our social catastrophes and intolerances towards others which breed discord and violence would never come to fruition. Today, we see that so many of our modern perpetrators have been the victims of a troubled childhood.

     Yet to some extent, it is also one's society's responsibility to ensure that its inhabitants are getting the training that grounds them as active, productive, healthy members of the community. One of the passages in Book I of Utopia illustrates this

                     'If you do not find a cure for these evils, it is futile to boast of your

                     justice in punishing theft. . .If you allow young folk to be abominably

                     brought up and their characters corrupted, little by little, from childhood;

                     and if then you punish them as grownups for committing crimes to

                     which their early training has inclined them, what else is this, I ask,

                     but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?' (21)

The validity of the point being made here is truly sobering to read. And as I processed this, it really hit me that, as a society, we have so much responsibility to ensure that resources are provided to the family's and the individuals within them so they have the knowledge and tools necessary to raise well-rounded, balanced citizens. There is no one to blame but ourselves if a society degenerates generationally. Ultimately, the family holds the power to nurture and train the future of society. But shouldn't we all take an active role or at least an interest in determining our destiny?

Why aren’t the Utopians Vegetarians?

Reading through Utopia I found a fair few things quite odd. One thing that stuck out to me was their ideas toward meat. It states that they sell it and eat it and it’s made readily available to them, but they dare not taint their hands with the blood of the animals, they have their slaves do it. More states that “Bondsmen do the slaughtering and cleaning [of the animals]…The Utopians feel that slaughtering our fellow creatures gradually destroys the sense of compassion, which is the finest sentiment of which our human nature is capable” (50). If the Utopians truly feel that way, then why subject anyone to do the slaughtering and to the loss of compassion? Aren’t they saying that by killing an animal you slowly kill your soul? That seems a little cruel to do even to a “slave” whom the Utopians still consider human beings, I’m pretty sure at least. I feel the much simpler thing to do, especially since they are so big into farming and big ol' gardens, is to just become vegetarians. 

http://www.nomeatathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fruits-and-veggies-photo.jpg

Utopia and Euthanasia

I was very intrigued by Thomas More’s ideas of his Utopia. I was particularly drawn to his views (or the Utopian views) of euthanasia. Like the footnotes point out with the root words of Utopia (no-place) and Raphael Hythloday (an archangel / nonsense-peddler), I feel it is important to know a word’s origin. I feel it helps to understand where a word comes from and how it was originally meant before society placed it into a new context. For example, euthanasia has a bad connotation to it because we associate it with death and loss, typically that of a pet: “I had to have my dog euthanized (or put down).” Euthanasia has now become a “bad” word because it is associated with our own bad feelings that we associate with it. Euthanasia’s Greek roots (funny how a lot of More’s vocabulary is rooted in Greek) as found on medterms.com state that “The word "euthanasia" comes straight out of the Greek—"eu", goodly or well + "thanatos" death = the good death—and for 18th-century writers in England that was what euthanasia meant, a "good" death, a welcome way to depart quietly and well from life.” I feel this is exactly what More was trying to relay to the readers, not that the Utopians wanted to go around killing people or convincing people they’d be better off dead, but providing a way to end suffering and escape a painful and drawn out death.

I have witnessed a lot of death and dying and I appreciate the sentiment More is trying to convey. More states the Utopians “tell [the dying person that] he should not let the disease prey on him any longer, but now that life is simply torture, he should not hesitate to die but should rely on hope for something better” (71). The “something better” is likely that person’s perception of the afterlife aka heaven. My Great Grandfather passed away at 88-years-old. He was put on Hospice because he was terminally ill and dying and he knew it as well as everyone did. He prayed every night and day for God to take him Home. He eventually couldn’t eat or drink anymore and because he was on Hospice they didn’t allow IVs or feeding tubes. His body eventually shut down. It was hard for me to watch. I didn’t understand why they deprived him of food and water. But now I do. It was to move along his progression to the other side. He was suffering, crying out to die every day but unable to obtain the release he sought. He prayed for an end to his life on Earth so he could move on to something better, somewhere where he could be pain free. It upsets me now that we don’t provide the “good death” (euthanasia) to those terminally ill. I don’t think it is right to force someone to suffer longer because the idea of something we don’t fully understand makes us too uncomfortable aka dying.

We extend this gratitude easily to our beloved pets. Two years ago I lost my golden retriever to lymphoma. His lymph nodes on his neck swelled to the size of mangos and labored his breathing. He couldn't keep any food down. He could barely walk. His quality of life was gone. He was suffering. I took him to the vet and held him close as they injected him with medication that made him fall asleep. I held him as he died. It was the best I could offer him at that point, the good death, and I prayed he was taken off to something better.

If we do this for our pets, whom we cherish (sometimes more than people), why don’t we offer the same treatment to friends and family?

My sweet Brodie Bruce. He was diagnosed with lymphoma when he was almost 4yrs old. With chemo treatment he was able to stay with me for an additional 11 months before he passed. He was 2 months shy of his 5th birthday.

Utopia

   In class we had a great discussion about Book II of Utopia. However, after having this discussion I realized how much I disliked the idea of a Utopia. I realized how NOT perfect a Utopia really was...to be honest it was just as bad as any other society. One thing I thought was pretty interesting was the "Marriage and Divorce" section. If a Utopian couple cannot get along, they find others who they would like to live with. However, they have to get the senate's approval in order to "separate by mutual consent and contract new marriages" (73). Divorce is only accepted if the senators and THEIR wives have thoroughly evaluated the situation. In my opinion that'a a little weird, and I believe the couples are not receiving as much freedom as they should. It goes on to say that divorce is given unwillingly because "they know that husbands and wives will find it hard to settle down together if each has in mind that a new marriage is easily available" (73). Well that's very interesting because it seems as though the senators are not just handing out free divorces if a couple has a problem. They actually make them at least TRY to work it out... I guess that's pretty good too. Unfortunately, as I kept reading I saw that they punish adulterers with the "strictest form of slavery" (73). I don't like the term slavery at all..so that kinda pushed my buttons just a bit. In Utopia there should only be perfection right? Why even have slavery or adulterers? Again, that's the reason why a Utopia will never exist because no one is perfect.
    While in class we discussed the health care situation given in Utopia. That was one thing we could all agree was pretty awesome! I mean who wouldn't love four hospitals in every city? No one could ever complain that the wait to be seen by a doctor was too long, because there were many other hospitals to go to! Also, with having all of these hospitals it showed that the main concern was to take care of the sick and make sure they were 100% healthy (that's great in my opinion)! We talked about how the hospitals were very large for comfort reasons and for those who had contagious diseases to have private rooms. This was another awesome aspect! Everyone would love going to the hospitals in a Utopian society, the nurses and doctors were great care givers, the hospitals were well supplied, and hunger would never be an option because of the wonderful food! Only a crazy man wouldn't accept this type of health care!

The Con's List of Utopia

So on Wednesday we have a class discussion on Book II of Utopia. I heard a lot of people saying that they did not like it as much as Book I and I have to disagree. I thought Book II was great because it offered us insight into the thoughts of what Thomas More may, or may not have considered a Utopian Society. What I wanted to talk about on the blog were some of the things that we didn’t talk about or mention in class. My con’s list far outweighed my pro’s list for the Utopian society so I thought I would address those rather than the pro’s. One of the things that I couldn’t stand was their courting rituals. Where the women and man have to show themselves to each other naked? “Whether she is a widow or a virgin, the woman is shown naked to the suitor by a responsible and respectable matron; and similarly, some respectable man presents the suitor naked to the woman.” (72) It may just be my old soul showing through but I was like that’s odd…and weird…and I am uncomfortable. I also found their ideals on war fascinating. They have this idea that war is beneath them, and yet if it came down to do it they are willing to pay as much as it costs to get the Zapoletes to fight for them. These people, the Zapoletes, are said to be made of the utmost viciousness. It is curious that although war is beneath the Utopians, they are willing to slaughter their enemy, and the fighters they hired should it be necessary.