Brutal Civility?

Just what does that mean anyways?

"Brutal", according to Google, means "savagely violent". "Civility" means "formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech." or "polite remarks used in formal conversation."

These are the two terms that came into my mind when reading the end of Oroonoko. On both sides of the story, there were perfect examples of those being "brutish" or "barbaric" and of those being "civil". However, even though there were plenty of disturbing images throughout, it was the end that sent chills down my spine.

I'm sure you all know how this went by now. Oroonoko is lied to about being returned to Africa with his family. He is brutally whipped and had pepper poured into the open wounds by Byam. After the beating, Oroonoko realizes he will never be free and his unborn child will never be free as well. He decides to kill his pregnant wife and then himself and...well...the rest is fictional history.

But here is what disturbed me:

Just imagining someone being whipped like how Oroonoko was whipped sends goosebumps up my arm. Tack on the fact that pepper is poured into the open wounds and I am visibly cringing. In my head, I'm imagining something along the lines of The Passion of the Christ with an extra guy in the mix just adding some spices to the newly tenderized meat that was a human being.

And all of this came from someone who was a member of those who are considered "civil". This brutal and apparently unwarranted (at least in my personal opinion) punishment is terrible enough, but to have been doled out by someone of such a prim and proper class is just downright scary.

I have no idea who this gentleman is, but I do know he is dressed appropriately for the time that Oroonoko was set. This guy is in military gear fitting of the time and, even though he is obviously a military guy, this guy doesn't look to be the kind of guy who can whip a man as brutally as Oroonoko was whipped and then proceed to pour pepper into the broken skin. Imagining this man doing what he did and then probably going off to enjoy his afternoon tea with blood still on his face, gloves, and fancy clothes just sends chills up my spine.

 

Yet, he is a member of "civilized" society.

 

Oroonoko, on the other hand, is "brutal". Somehow, this former African prince turned slave turned whipping post is the one who is the brute. Even when he informs his pregnant wife that he is going to slit her throat and then kill himself, he is the one who is still in chains like some kind of animal.

 

Also, it is even creepier that his wife basically replies with "Do what you must and thank you for letting me die with some dignity." He then slits her throat and CUTS OFF HER FACE?! I'm surprised we didn't open that can of worms in class. Or maybe we did...it's been a while since we all discussed this as a class.

 

However, he doesn't go into a brutal rampage against Byam. He does not engage in any further violence at all. Instead, he stays by his wife's side until her decomposing corpse alerts Byam's men of their location.

 

From there, Oroonoko is basically cut apart like some two year old's Ken doll. Yet, he still does not react violently. He just stands there, smoking his pipe while his nose, ears, and one leg are chopped off. This is a man who, unlike Byam, has every reason and right to unleash unholy Hell upon them. He lost everything, but remains calm and, dare I say it, civil?

 

However, he may have been calm and "formal", but slitting his pregnant wife's throat and then cutting off her face hardly seems like "civil" behavior (that's the key word).

 

 

I think that through these two characters, Aphra Behn made a very poignant declaration about humanity as a whole: "we are all brutally civil". Yes, of course, not all of us would turn to violent words, actions, or thoughts as a way to attain some kind of personal gratification, but it is the ones who do that make society this way. And through the actions of both the white and the black characters of this play, Behn shows that this "brutally civil" society is no just limited to one race or another. Every human being is victim to it.

 

To me, this is a very stunning revelation, especially during a time where the white man was considered to be the epitome of all that is good, right, and proper in the world. And to be made by a white woman?! Now, you're just talking crazy.

Everything Comes Down To Poop

Now, I was going to finally write something about Oroonoko (which, for some reason, sounds like a girl's name to me....but that's not what I was going to talk about...I promise), but our discussion about the various excrement in Gulliver's Travels just made me laugh so much that I had to save my depressing Oroonoko blog for later in favor of this one about, you guessed it, POOP!

Hahaha! College sure is great, isn't it?

Leave it to Jonathan Swift to answer life's most meaningful questions: just what can we do with an area that is overpopulated and starving and how does one dispose of poop when stranded on an island anyways? Gotta love that crazy Irishman, right?

Now, other than being incredibly funny, the description of the disposal of the poop actually makes a statement. Well, actually, since every reader sees different messages in the same work of literature, the poop actually makes multiple statements! I'm just gonna write mine down here, though.

It takes 300 Lilliputian tailors to dress the gargantuan Gulliver. It takes 300 Lilliputian chefs to feed him. And it takes 300 Lilliputian...excrement evacuators to dispose of the waste that Gulliver produces.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. And I think that is exactly what Jonathan Swift is saying through his extensive description about the disposal of poop. During Swift's time, as well as our own time, there were people doing the dirtiest and seemingly most meaningless jobs. These people receive little to almost no recognition as to their contribution to society. They might sometimes feel as if their contributions to society are meaningless and wonder why they bother to wake up each morning to do it day in and day out.

However, consider if you were a Lilliputian with the giant Gulliver on your island home. This behemoth is excreting tons upon tons upon tons of waste almost on a daily basis (that is, if he's regular of course). If those 300 people in charge of the poop disposal suddenly woke up and decided not to bother taking care of the poop, the results would be catastrophic. Poop would be everywhere. Your once idyllic homeland is now overflowing with stinking shit. Your water is contaminated from the excrement. People die every day from the effects of the shit. There is no escape. You are only left to wonder when you will be next.

All because those 300 excrement evacuators decided that their job was not worth doing.

So, I think that Swift is saying that in order to have a functioning society, every cog, gear, nut, bolt, etc. no matter how small needs to do their part. Some parts may seem unnecessary or insignificant, but without that one part, your world could suddenly be overrun with shit. Because...as many Scrubs fans may already know:

 

Also, I would like to point out that using shit as imagery, as many of you may know, is not just something Jonathan Swift did once and was never spoken of again. It has been used in modern day media as well. Yeah, it is under a different context and expressing a different meaning but it is still there. My personal favorite example is from South Park. If you're a fan of the show, then you know what series of episodes I am talking about: the ones concerning Stan's cynicism.

For some reason, I couldn't find the link from the video uploader, but the link below should take you to one of my favorite parts of the series of episodes (and maybe even the entire show).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdD3hSW1UpM 

 

Anyways, just wanted to shoot the shit with you guys for a bit (haha...get it? Shoot the shit?...no? Damn.)

Belial: The Patron Demon of Introverted College Students

So in class today we discussed a few of the demons who were introduced in Paradise Lost. In my group, we were assigned the demon known as Belial ("worthless" in Hebrew). Through his description, I somehow managed to make the crazy connection that Belial could very well be the demon of introverted college students.

Now, before you click away or immediately think I'm stupid, crazy, or both, allow me to explain myself.

Belial is described as being extremely lazy, "timorous", and having quite a way with words. He is one of the more "humane" demons you will encounter in Hell. It seems as if all he wants to do is sit on his demon booty until such a time when God decides that they have gone through enough suffering and to let them back in heaven. Well, sit on his booty and make cookies that taste like sulfur no matter how many chocolate chips are added.

Now, as an introverted college student, I can personally say that this demon shares many of the qualities I think qualifies someone as being an introverted college student.

For one, there are only a select few college students who will not admit to being lazy. Those who deny being lazy are either lying or are somehow inherently lazy in some way. I mean, c'mon, how many times have you finished your classes and the primary thing you do is sit in your room and watch Maury, play videogames, check Facebook, etc? Or, even better, how many times have you been assigned a reading that is just not something you wanna do or had revising a paper as your only assignment and just blew it off because you were too busy watching dubstep cat on the internet? I mean, if lazy college students were the minority, I highly doubt there would be so many memes and other references to it as there are now.

Ok, so now that we got that out of the way, let's move on to timorous. For those of you who don't know what that word means, Google defines it as "showing or suffering from nervousness, fear, or a lack of self confidence". Now, I don't think this really needs much of a description, but I'll provide a little tid bit.

The definition of an introvert, also according to Google, is "a shy, reticent, and typically self-centered person". Now, that does not necessarily make such a person nervous, fearful, or lacking self confidence. It just means that an introvert prefers more relaxed and somewhat more solo based activities than extroverted people. That means group projects, speaking in front of a group, etc. would be a quite uncomfortable experience for an introvert. An experience that could possibly make some feel as if they are "suffering from a nervousness, fear, or a lack of self confidence", perhaps? I think you get the picture.

Personally, I think that if the fate of his current living situation wasn't being threatened with the possible war against heaven, Belial would be perfectly happy to avoid meetings like these and stay by the shores of the burning lake while baking chocolate chip sulfur cookies.

Ah, finally we have reached the last part of Belial's description: his way with words.

Now, as we discussed in class, Belial's words really hold no meaning. He may make some points, but they're really just his main point of "Aw, c'mon guys, do we really have to go do stuff? Can't we just stay in hell and wait this all out?". Belial's whole speech is pretty much what college students tell their teachers, parents, or whoever just to get their way. Say for instance it is a beautiful day outside and you really don't want to spend it in your tiny, stuffy, windowless classroom. You're probably going to try and persuade the teacher, as well as your fellow students, to go outside you might say:

 "But Dr. Mitchell-Buck, I think we could get a better idea of exactly the paradise Satan lost if we read Paradise Lost outside. I mean, the semester is already basically over and I'm sure nobody would mind. It really would be better than sitting inside all day because right after this class I have to write a 1,000 page research essay about mitochondria for my biology course. If we don't go outside, I may never see the light of day until the end of the year."

Was that a bit overdramatic? Yes, but hopefully you see my point.

So, I hope you see what I see now: Belial is the patron demon of introverted college students. Even if you don't agree with all of my points, I hope you can at least find a similarity with one, two, or 1.5 of them!

The Many Faces of Satan

One thing I noticed through all of our many readings this year was how much people loved to include Satan in their works. Dr. Faustus, Utopia, and Paradise Lost all had some character that either was directly Satan or was somewhat symbolic of Satan. One could also argue the comparison between Grendel/Grendel's mom from Beowulf and Satan, but that's so far back in the past it's not really worth spending much time on.

What I thought was cool is that even all those years ago, people love to make scary things funny and what could possibly be scarier than Satan?! Sure, he may not be that threatening or imposing by modern day standards, but back in those days Satan was the realest form of evil ever!

Even today, there have been countless songs, TV shows, movies, etc. that have all included Satan in some way. Stephen Lynch, one of the funniest guys alive in my book, even wrote a pretty funny song about Satan that automatically makes me think of the version of Satan/Mephistopheles/whatever portrayed in Dr. Faustus because of how serious and foreboding the song sounds in the beginning, but it then turns around and is silly and ridiculous the rest of the way through, which I think summons up part of what  Dr. Faustus was getting at: Satan is only really scary if you chose that path. If you are on the good side, there really isn't any harm in poking some fun at something as serious and scary as Satan.

Another, more serious portrayal of Satan I found in modern standards is Lucifer from the hit CW TV show Supernatural. Now, I'm not going to get into the plot of the show too much (seriously if you guys are interested just watch it on Netflix or something), but I will say that this version of Satan most closely parallels the Lucifer from Paradise Lost. Supernatural Lucifer is hell bent *badum tiss* on reclaiming his place in Heaven and destroying all the inferior humans, who he blames as the reason he fell in the first place because he wouldn't "bow to them" (which I think is the exact words from the show). At some points, you actually can feel some sympathy towards this fallen angel because his love for God (or "Father" as most of the angels in the show refer to him as) is still so strong. Also, he has some serious sex appeal.

Oh yeah, if you're wondering why his face is all scarred up it's because the man Lucifer is inhabiting in just a human vessel and not just any old human can be the vessel for the brightest of God's angels.

There are plenty of other examples too! Like Mephisto from many different issues of  Marvel's comics (Deadpool and Nightcrawler are the two I can think of off the top of my head) Lucifer from Constantine, or even Satan from South Park.

 (Mephisto)

 

 (Lucifer from Constantine)

 

 (Satan and Saddam from South Park)

 

Oh I could think of many, many, MANY more examples of Satan's many modern day forms, but that's not my reason for bringing all of this junk up. My point is that Satan is most always used as the extreme form of evil in almost every media he is portrayed in. He is the symbol of what you don't want to do, the guy you don't want to have any dealings with, and the guy who is paying the ultimate price for his own arrogance. There is almost always no contest when it comes to a work that includes Satan. You aren't going to be on his team no matter what and why? Because it has been ingrained in everyone's brains that Satan=Bad! There usually is no wiggle room and usually you won't have anyone disagree with you. Of course, I could be wrong. I mean, after all, my knowledge isn't infinite and I don't know all there is to know about the public opinion of Satan on a global scale....although I highly doubt the amount of Satan supporters are in the majority.



 

The reason I see for this is because as scary as hell and Satan may be upon first glance (take a look at "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" if you doubt me), but if your faith/morals/whatever makes you good is strong enough then using Satan in works isn't so bad. Also, using Satan can show the audience what not to be, what not to do, and so on and so forth.

 

Anyways, I'm exhausted both physically and of the subject of Satan. So, I'll just stop typing and see what it is that you guys have to say about the subject....if anything at all. Mkaybye!

 

Mercy vs Justice

No, I'm not talking about that song by Kanye West. And  no, I'm not talking about that teenybopper store either. I'm talking about the actual words, what they mean (at least what they mean to me), and how they both play major roles in this play.

Mercy, at least to me, means to have the ability to inflict pain, punishment, death, etc. upon another being but choosing not to. This is a quality I have seen in the Duke as well as Mariana. I've seen this in the Duke when he eventually decides not to sentence Angelo to death. True, it was because Mariana protested against it, but as a duke, he could easily ignore her protests and kill Angelo anyways. Mariana shows mercy towards Angelo because, even though she had been wronged by him, she still forgave him for his actions and wanted him to have life.

So, I suppose good things really do happen to bad people. Angelo better praise Jesus (or Satan) for giving him a merciful woman such as Mariana.

The topic of justice that we discussed in class immediately reminded me of Javert from Les Miserables, which is yet another play (or musical, rather) that is a great illustration of mercy vs. justice. I mean, the dang thing opens with a bunch of dudes pleading for mercy and Javert (the law/justice) basically saying "No. You guys stole bread and now you have to pull this giant ship."

I'm a huge (and I mean HUGE) Les Miserables fan, so let me just include the reprise of the song by Gavroche and the rest of the underprivileged Parisians for your enjoyment. Notice how the privileged few seem to just turn a blind eye to the cries for mercy.

In this play, I believe Valjean represents mercy and Javert represents justice. Valjean shows mercy towards Javert by sparing his life, even though Javert has been a huge scumbucket towards him throughout the entire sequence of events. Javert was acting as the law, because as we all know, he is the law and the law is him.  Law is most commonly associated with justice and...you get it.

Anyways, mercy and justice battle it out throughout both of these plays. Ultimately, if you are looking at both plays through the lens of mercy vs. justice, mercy wins. In the case of Javert and Valjean, I think at the point where Valjean spares Javert's life is the point that shows Javert the dangers of blindly seeking justice without any mercy. I think that this leads Javert to look back on his life and how he had been living it and made him see that justice without mercy is really no way to live a righteous life (and we all know Javert is all about being righteous). So, he kills himself after yet another huge soliloquy and actually succeeds in making the audience feel sorry for him (or at least me).

Also, I ask you to please ignore Russel Crowe's mediocre singing. I just chose this class because the acting is good and I think that seeing the scene acted out really puts the whole thing into context.

Anyways, back to Measure for Measure (FINALLY!). In my opinion, Angelo most closely parallels Javert at least in the scene where Isabella is asking Angelo to show mercy towards her brother. Angelo responds "It is the law, not I, condemn your brother." (Act 2 Scene 2). This is a very Javert-like thing to say. Angelo could very well pardon Isabella's brother because...well...his offence wasn't that bad considering he was getting married to his lover soon (just like all Valjean did was steal some bread to feed his family). However, he showed no mercy and ended up (SPOILER) marrying Mariana. Not as bad as flinging one's self off a bridge, but whatever.

The Duke most closely parallels Valjean due to the fact that he purposefully spares Angelo's life even though killing him would be the most "just" thing to do, at least by the standards set at that time. However, he was merciful and spared him from the death penalty.

So, what I got from this is that, in the end, mercy always wins. But that's just me.

The Question of Isabelle's Justification

I'm not surprised that so many people are offended by the question "was Isabelle's choice justified?"
Judging from the video we watched and the intense perverseness of the scene in which this question was meant for, it is perfectly rational for the answer to that question to be: "Um, that's a bullshit question because a woman's body is her right and not some poker chip she has to use to gamble for what's clearly right." or "That's a bullshit question because of feminine rights and that dude was clearly a rapist or some kind of sexual fiend."

However, I for one live by the age old rule that states: "There is no such thing as a bullshit question." I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the question of Isabelle's "justification" was meant to be a rhetorical one; at least by modern standards. I hate to keep bringing it up, but a woman's sexuality was a commodity back in Shakespeare's time and even before then, as we have seen with the Canterbury Tales. So the question of if her choice was "justified" is perfectly rational to ask, even if the guy proposing the choice is a raging pervert.

But also, there have been plenty of other examples through different forms of media in which a woman is presented with the choice to give herself to some guy (or guys...ew) in exchange for someone's life or what not. Let's look at the queen from 300 for example. Yes, I am aware that 300 was an incredibly hokey movie and not entirely (if at all) factual. However, I chose this because it is a pretty modern example of what I would like to call: "Isabelle's Choice".

For those of you not familiar with the movie, let me explain the scene I am referring to. Leonidas and his men have holed themselves up in the Hot Gates and have been fighting valiantly against the Persian armies for a really long time. However, without reinforcements, their fighting would most certainly be in vain and they would all die. The queen, Gorgo, loves her husband very much and believes in his cause. She has faith that victory is in their grasp and all they need is more reinforcements. However, even as queen of Sparta, Gorgo cannot simply send the reinforcements to her husband's aid. She needs to sway the council (all men of course) to send the reinforcements; which requires the support of a particularly lecherous and traitorous councilmember named Theron. Here is where he presents Isabelle's Choice: Give yourself to me and I will sway the council in your favor. Refuse and you and your husband are SOL.

Here's the actual scene. And, I will warn you that things get uncomfortable at around 2:41.

Now, Gorgo chose to sleep with Theron, who was neither a gentle or ideal lover by far; which didn't work out in her favor because Theron betrayed her and well...the rest is history.

My point is: if Isabelle had chosen to sleep with the equally disgusting and unlikeable Angelo, would the question still be "bullshit"? If he had approached her in a kinder and more romantic way (let's say with flowers and chocolates, while strumming a lyre and singing beneath her balcony), would her choice not to sleep with him to save an innocent man still be "bullshit"?  

Although, because of the kind of person Isabelle is and because of the modern times we live in, it is quite difficult for us to consider her choice to not have sex with Angelo as anything but justified.

I just thought the comparison between these two different characters would make for an interesting discussion because I, myself, had issues trying to figure out how the question of Isabelle's justification even came into being. However, after much thought and seeing the two different answers to the same choice, I began to at least understand it a little bit.

Squandering Power

Alright, so today in class we were discussing Dr. Faustus and if he deserved to be redeemed and go to heaven or to burn in hell for all eternity. Then, we started to talk about how Faustus used his power; which leads me to the topic of this blog: squandering of power.

Now, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who's read the whole play through that Dr. Faustus that Faustus does, indeed, squander his power. We already discussed that this was meant to frustrate the audience, but was it also used as a way to further push the audience to want Faustus to burn?

I think that if the play ended with God descending from heaven and bringing Faustus up with Him, then the audience would be kind of peeved off. And by kinda, I mean very.

I just can't imagine seeing someone who already had such a good life, decide it's not good enough, and then sells his soul to Satan just to pull cheesy pranks on everyone instead of doing some good with his life. Granted, you still aren't doing much "good" with the power of Satan (unless, you're the Ghost Rider of course).

Still, Faustus still could've done something so dastardly evil, like wage war against heaven or something.

I guess, if the play was written where Faustus used his deeds for good, then I kinda have a feeling it would probably be really similar to the plot of Ghost Rider (you know, dude signs his soul over to Satan with good intentions...ends up doing other cool stuff instead...you get it). Also, they would not have had the technology to produce a scene as awesome as this one back then, so I guess it all worked out for the best.

Also, I just realized that with this hell power, Faustus could essentially be Ghost Rider. I mean, he did have the power, just not the desire to do good for anyone other than himself.

I guess if Faustus truly used his powers for evil, then I guess the answer to the grand question of if he deserves to go to hell would be made too easy. It's the general consensus that bad guys burn and good guys get to ride off into the sunset after all.

Utopia

So, I am so glad we are done with Middle English. I mean, even though I did like the stories and how the language sounded read aloud (by other people of course…not me…that just sounded…just no.), I really like reading something that I can pronounce.

Sure, I may not be able to understand the high class philosophy and jokes that were clearly written to be funny in Latin or to someone with a brain the size of Modok (if you don’t know who he is Google it and rethink your life), but God dangit I can tell what a word is saying!

Anyways, to the actual text.

I entered this text having no prior experience with it other than knowing that it exists. I expected it to be like a typical experience about how, in a perfect world, everything is sunshines and rainbows. I thought it would be a relatively easy concept to grasp, you know? Like, Thomas More writes a scene where it is definitely hinting at how people of that time should rethink society or something.

But I have never been so wrong (Couldn't find the right Hobbit meme to fit this so deal with it).

Instead, I actually found Thomas More's utopia to be kind of disturbing. I mean, in an ideal world, shouldn't stuff like war, getting older, and dying be some kind of a myth? And what kind of peaceful and noble country would be so cowardly as to hire mercenaries to do the dirty work instead of confronting whatever problem themselves (and yes, I'm aware that there are many countries who may or may not do that even today)?

I know More's Utopia is a social critique and junk, but I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are still so many problems that exist in such a "perfect" society. And yes...I consider having no privacy a MAJOR problem.

Also, I know these aren't sheep, but use your imagination. And if you're offended by the language then, well, sorry I didn't make the dang thing.

 

Sex as a Weapon: Is It Really So Wrong?

I've noticed a lot of people who have an issue with the Wife of Bath tend to either have an issue with her weaponizing sex or her tolerance of domestic violence. Instead of writing a blog post about the obvious wrongs of domestic abuse, I decided to take on the task of trying to argue how weaponizing sex really isn't all that bad.

Ok, let me kick this thing off by saying that, believe it or not, sex is used as a weapon in both modern media and modern society (shocker! I know. *insert sarcastic eyeroll*). In many beloved movies that usually feature a woman starting from the bottom (thanks, Drake) and ending up at the top, sex is usually featured. Of course, each movie is different, so of course sex isn't always used in the same way, so let me get more specific.

Let's take a look at one of America's most beloved films, featuring America's sweetheart: Julia Roberts, Pretty Woman.

Basically, if you haven't seen this movie (and I don't understand why you wouldn't have by now), it's about a prostitute who is whisked off her leather boot wearing feet by some rich big wig in a limo. No, he doesn't hire her into a low entry position and she sleeps her way to the top. In fact, he takes he takes her in to be his escort for social events. They inevidably fall in love, but what happens after she sleeps with him? She becomes his girlfriend! Shocker! No.

Anyways, in addition to gaining a new man, this lucky lady of the evening also gains a wealthy buisness man who will listen to all of her crazy buisness ideas. Talk about having your cake and eating it to. All the creative license you could ever want with none of the backlash if it all falls to shit? Sign me up!

I really don't expect all of you to accept my crazy conspiracy theory about Pretty Woman, but consider this: has your mother/stepmother/father's girlfriend/father's boyfriend ever made your father/stepfather/mother's boyfriend/mother's girlfriend sleep on the couch as punishment?

Honestly, like, what do you think she's/he's doing there?

And also, for all of you sexually active and/or people in a relationship, after getting into an arguement or if your partner is doing something that you don't agree with, are you going to hop straight in the sack with them? I would hope not because, well, whether or not you realize it, you would be condoning their bad behavior. In order to get your point across, you start taking away things they like to do with you (including the big nasty!).

Now, using sex outside of the walls of a relationship is very underhanded and lazy in modern standards, but that's all women had at their disposal during Chaucer's time. Women typically weren't taught to read and write and weren't sent off to fancy dancy universities to better their lives.  They were born to become breeders for whatever gentleman their parents chose for them.

So, once again, my hat goes off to Chaucer for generating one of the first feminist pieces of his time.

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.

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.

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.