Middle English vs. "Modern" English

     Going through high school, I read both the Canterbury Tales by Chaucer as well as Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing by Shakespeare. At the time, I thought Shakespeare was much harder to read than Chaucer; little did I know that I would one day be reading Chaucer again but this time in it's original Middle English. Now that we are reading Measure for Measure, it makes me once again question whether reading Shakespeare or reading Chaucer is easier...
      Chaucer even though it is written in Middle English with hard-to-understand spelling and much different pronunciations, it was written so that anybody could read it. He wrote in "layman's terms." The stories are not too complicated (other than those like the Knight's), and his humor is written plainly; the Miller's tale contains the word "fart" at more than one instance. Chaucer does allude to various philosophical, biblical, and historical ideas and stories, but in the end he is simply portraying humanity at its core. Readers are introduced to people of all backgrounds and personalities, and Chaucer does not sugar-coat even the most raunchy of personalities.
     Shakespeare also portrays humanity's flaws but in a different light. The reader, or more appropriately the audience, has to pay attention to every detail. Shakespeare is the master of metaphors. His comedies are funny, but at times hard to understand with such outstanding metaphors standing in the way of the audiences' understanding. However, the spelling is more understandable to modern day readers. One does not have to reread over and over to understand certain words such as "wight." The only instances one has to go back to reread are those metaphors that catch me and maybe some of you off-guard at times.
    So the decision is up to you, is Chaucer easier to understand, or is Shakespeare?



Link: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bro/lowres/bron70l.jpg




Link:
http://tschinka.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/shakespeare-10.jpg

Blog challenge: post one of five!!

Editted vs. Non-editted Chaucer

     Although this is a couple weeks after we finished reading The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, there is something that I would like to bring attention to. While reading the "Wife of Bath's Prologue," there were many more vulgar statements there that I had not read when I read this book in high school my senior year. I had no idea how much the Wife of Bath used sex or the withholding of sex to get what she wanted from her husbands (and the older ones in particular). That was not mentioned in the version of the tales that I read in high school whatsoever, but should it have been?
     There are many reasons why editors make older pieces of literature more "kid-friendly." One reason would be so that children should be sheltered from the vulgarity of "adult living." Sex, drugs, and alcohol are too risqué of subjects to be discussed in classrooms. But isn't that the point of classes especially at a high school--to be exposed in a safe setting to temptations that will present later in life?
     I am currently interning at a high school with a teacher that has both seniors and freshmen. There is an astounding difference between the two age groups with both physical as well as intellectual maturity. It is understandable that the freshmen are not reading to controversial of pieces, but my mentor challenges the seniors by giving them essays on controversial topics. The point of teaching English is not simply to give students a broader range of vocabulary and read some cool books, but to use pieces of literature to make them think, debate, and decide upon real life issues such as drugs, sex, and alcohol. Because of this, it is my opinion that when it comes to taking British Literature in one's senior year of high school, there should not be an edited version. If Chaucer wanted the tone of the piece to be less vulgar, he would have written it that way. What are your thoughts? Should the vulgarity of Chaucer's tales be saved until a college literature course or should it be exposed to one in high school?

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