Printable View
I was interested to see on another thread that many ppl consider Chaucer the greatest english writer after Shakespeare. I am a complete ignoramous when it comes to Chaucer I must admit, but I'd always thought of him as little more than a bawdy storyteller. Milton, Wordsworth, George Eliot, Dickens etc have a seriousness and depth as well as being entertaining. Is the same true of Chaucer? Is he more than a storyteller and historical curiosity?
Chaucer had very considerable depth, certainly much more than Wordsworth and Dickens. Like any great writer, Chaucer's writing was approachable, more so than Milton's writing. I wonder what he would have written in other times, when then techniques were broader.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
Chaucer is an author I probably wouldn't name if someone asked me for the greatest American and English writers, but I read his Catnerbury Tales and they have something about them that makes me think that he is an inevitable part in the history of English literature. :yawnb:
But was Chaucer a feminist? In the Canterbury Tales he draws a number of assertive women. And Chaucer`s own tale - of Melibeus & Prudence - is a fine example of a women running intellectual rings round her husband. Quite a big deal for those times I would suggest.
The term "feminist" wasn't invented until the 1960's, before then women were women, and some of them were assertive. After all, women have run the world as long as people have been around. It was not at all unusual for women to run intellectual rings around their husbands. That sort of behavior only started to be seen as strange when some men lost the perspective necessary to understand what women were really doing, or maybe they started to resent the protected position that women had.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballb
Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
Chaucer is generally considered the greatest English poet after Shakespeare. It's not an opinion I or that most general readers agree with, though. One of Chaucer's great skills was that he was able to create greater depth to his characters by offering a greater number of perspectives on them. First of all, you have the General Prologue which says something about the pilgrim. Then you usually have the pilgrim's prologue. And then you have the tale itself, which should be read with the pilgrim in mind, as the tale often tells you something about the teller that the teller is not consciously aware of. The Pardoner is often considered Chaucer's masterpiece, exactly because the description, prologue and tale create a multi-dimensionality which was rare at the time. It is often said that Shakespeare's primary English precursor in the creation of characters was Chaucer. That said, I consider most of the tales insufferably boring. Even the few entertaining ones are so filled with so many meaningless digressions. And for all of his skill Chaucer still has many of his pilgrims quoting the same exact books, which mars the illusion that these are independent characters. Chaucer sets up a magnificent framework but it is vastly underused, IMO. Too much scatological nonsense, too many digressions, not enough interesting tales (even the well-drawn Wife of Bath tells a disappointing one), not enough intertextuality between tales, and too few interesting characters. Ultimately, the guy was a colossal bore.
Interesting post. Perhaps his reputation relies more on his use of language? I remember someone saying Anthony Burgess used to get drunk and, as he was driven home from the pub, would stand up in the open topped car and yell out passages of Chaucer and Shakespeare. The poetry must have gripped him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oenomaus
Chaucer's poetry is very beautiful. If you're going to read Chaucer I would suggest reading it in the original Middle English if you have the time (it's a little bit of work to learn the pronunciation but there are audio guides available on-line). Modern translations often have the habit of turning his poetry into doggerel. Chaucer is certainly a writer I respect but honestly I find him a disappointment. That said, maybe you'll feel differently. I would recommend starting with the General Prologue and then jumping to the Pardoner and the Wife of Bath.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
Ultimately, the guy was a colossal bore.
In your opinion. Of course in your opinion Dante, Milton, and Spencer may also be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Harry Potter anyone?:rolleyes:
Poor luke.:( I have a dialectical tension with the classics. My passion seems to lie with the 19th century realists/naturalists, up through Henry James death in 1916.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I profess horror when it comes to Spencer, which will probably lead to your starting a passionate defense in a Spencer thread, but I love Donne, so I think the problem there is stylistic. Spencer obfucates in an age already growing too distant.
I have read some Milton, actually, and agree with kasie on some points she mentioned elsewhere. Paradise Lost is too static for me, too dry, and Dante is simply the better poet who is extending Italy's imperial claims through Catholicism. Like a good Florentine, he takes revenge on his enemies by putting them in hell, and I can't help but love the guy--but my family is no stranger to Rome and the Vatican. Italians, in fact, clung to the notion of empire throughout the Papacy, until John Paul II took the throne, and there was some significant contemporary regret, in the Italian mindset, over his reign. Imperial pretensions take a long time to die out.
You asked in another thread if poetry still matters--does the Western canon?
I am not sure. The chain of being and the imperial body, these were not simply metaphors to the masses between Dante and Shakespeare--but next to modern determinism, rather quaint concepts, especially with the advent of the human genome.
With a wave of the hand and fart from the anus. Though as far as Spenser goes I am only dismissing the Faerie Queene, which I've likened to 16th century Stalinist propaganda. Putting aside the fact that it's heavily repetitious and has no internality or characters whatsoever. I sort of expected something from the first half of Book II but Spenser seems content with avoiding giving us any insight or conflict within his characters. I'm not too familiar with Spenser's other work. As far as Milton goes, Lycidas is the only work I like. I do consider Chaucer far-and-away the superior of the poets you've mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I am no adherent of the "Canon" as an infallible scripture. There are surely figures of great reputation who have done little for me. On the other hand... if I should think to make a critical comment that seemingly goes against the vast weight of critical opinion I might think to qualify that comment by making it clear that it was but personal opinion... or at least offer solid reasoning for said opinion. Too often I've found that sweeping statements dismissing figures generally accepted as central to the "canon" ("Mozart sucks, dude", "Michelangelo was a hack", "Chaucer is a bore") is a sign of a rather limited critical ability (to put it gently) or a sad desire to shock and convince others of one's renown as a free thinker. As for the "survival" of the "canon"... I have no fear. Certainly it will change. Works will fall from grace and others will earn a place... but history will continue to select what is imagined to be the best and most representative work of each era... forgetting 99%+. Future generations of artist, art lovers, and art "experts" will make those decisions because Mallarme's declaration of ennui at having "read all the books" was but rhetorical. We can only read but a portion of all we might desire to. By the same token, the notion of "the end of history" is but empty rhetoric as well.
We also need to keep historical context in mind. Just because Chaucer includes assertive women in the Tales does not necessarily means he is a "feminist" so to speak. It is quite possible that these characters are intended to serve as models of what Medieval women should not be like. It's not easy to see where Chaucer stands, since he presents extremes (Wife of Bath and the Clerk's Tale) and a middle ground story with the Franklin.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballb
Anyway, back to the topic creator's question...
Although Chaucer definitely uses a carnivalesque, fabilaux approach to some of the tales (e.g. Miller's), that does not make him a "bawdy storyteller." These "over the top" styles often served to reinforce his tales, rather than weaken them as mediums for social commentary (anything from the anti-feminist traditions, satirizing members of the clergy, comparing the sins and virtues, etc.)
I think that Chaucer is a great English writer. Obviously to many people it is boring, but I would like to point out that it was written in the Middle Ages and thus far I have found nothing that couldn't be thought of as boring. The writing, when translated into modern english, loses something. I agree with someone above who said to hear it or read it in the Middle English version. The poetry, which is what the Canterbury Tales are, loses something when translated.
And many people may not find it to be great literature now because they can't relate to it. Chaucer was writing about ideas or problems that were typical of the society in which he lived in, not the society in which we live in. Besides, I think the repetition is what makes his story memorable. Others may disagree, but this is strictly my opinion.