I can dig it.

Maybe I'm a heartless asshole. Probably. Anyway, maybe I'm a heartless asshole but I have been seeing some people struggling on a moral standpoint on The Miller's Tale, and let me just tell you that this is hardly the case for me at all. First of all, dude's drunk. So for everyone feeling despair over the callousness of the story, there is a chance that the original, true, non Drunk History version of the story is a beautiful tell about forbidden courtly love and beautiful elopements.

For those of you like me who couldn't care less, taking the story at face value is hilarious, and I actually don't think it's degrading toward women at all. (That tends to be our beef with stories, right?) I mean, in this story, the men do not battle over the woman, Alison, like she is an object. In fact, ironically this is the one story where our guy, Nicholas, asks Alison for her consent. In fact, they construct the plan to fool her husband, John, together. And instead of the woman getting her face shoved in a boiling tub in a very infantalizing "this happens to women who misbehave" sort of way, she quite literally has society (or rather a member of society, Absolon) kiss her ass.

So yeah, I can dig it. I think it works as a good piece of satire. But then it begs the question...was the Knights Tale a satire as well, if Chaucer shuts it down so easily in this next story? Hmm...

Anyway, what do you all think? Are you all heartless assholes like me? (If so, welcome. There's tacos here.) Or is this story not your cup of tea? Did you interpret it in a completely different way? Let me know.


NOTE: (updated later) Upon re-reading and talking in class I realized that Alison didn't consent as much as I thought. I feel pretty bad for not seeing that. However, I do still think Alison is a spit fire who chooses to at least spend her time with this guy. Either way, she doesn't seem to dig Absolon, a guy who seems to resemble the regular courtly love stereotype to me. Don't hate me guys. Now I'm conflicted. After all, Alison still gets a pretty boy to kiss her ass. I guess new question...is anything about this story feminist at all like I originally thought? Or is this story not a true win for women?

What a Woman!

Ahhh, I was so excited to reread this story, even with the confusing Middle English. I simply love the Wife of Bath. She has to be my favorite character in Medieval literature. That being said, I'm not extremely well-read in Medieval literature or anything. She's just one of the characters that have stuck with me through Dr. MB's classes. Before we continue, let me tell you that I picture her just like Scarlett O' Hara. Always have, always will.

Honestly, she's sexy and sharp as a tack, and I don't believe that depictions of the Wife of Bath necessarily do her justice. Because like Scarlett, she's not just a sex object, although she is more than aware of her appeal. She is well-read and knows it (this is one difference between her and Scarlett, a Southern belle who had better things to do) and frequently uses it to her advantage. She even has knowledge of the Bible, saying that Solomon was just as promiscuous than she is, if not more. Honestly. She's aware of all of those religious bigots who are judging her sexual confidence, and is better read in their own book than they are. I adore her for this.

Her sexual confidence, in my opinion, makes her so great to me. Her attitude is basically, "Yeah I've had five husbands. Maybe I'll have six. Sex rocks." She is so comfortable in her own skin. I also love how she describes her marriages, particularly the man she describes near the end of her prologue, whom she seems to love the most. They can both be hurtful and manipulative, but they have an honest and true marriage. As a married woman, I appreciate this. Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but their passion is so apparent to me.

Her tale is interesting as well, particularly due to the fact that the moral seems to be (if I'm reading it correctly) that want women want the most is free will. This is interesting coming from the Wife of Bath as she is always seeking this. I'm not sure how this story translates today. Is free will really what women today want most? I would say having free will today goes without saying. So what do we wish? I myself like a man who can make a mean chicken taco, but what do all you ladies (and gents) want in a relationship? 

Correct me if I'm wrong...

I'm titling this post "correct me if I'm wrong," because I don't feel completely confident on what I just read. There. I said it. Chances are, I'm not the only one.

First of all, I'm confused as to why The Knight of the Cart (Lancelot) will not tell people his name. Is it for his own protection? Is it for Guinevere's? Is it possible that if Meleagant found out Lancelot was coming for her, he would kill her? Then again, I got the impression that Guinevere was "for Meleagant's son. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, the idea that Guinevere, a powerful (albeit bitchy) woman can still be held captive. It reminds me of a recent event in the news where female Olympic gymnasts were said to be sexually harassed by their doctor. You can be a queen, or an Olympic athlete, and even then you run the risk of being sexualized. Maybe reading this story in such a modern context is wrong, but there are some passages in the story that simply cannot be ignored. Like...

"But if she [a damsel in distress, presumably] was under the escort of one knight, another, anxious to fight for her and successful in winning her in armed combat, might do with her as he pleased without receiving censure or shame." (186)


...Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that passage essentially condoning rape? It seems like such a weird passage. It also treats women as flat screen tvs during Best Buy's Black Friday sale.



I will say one thing though...the courtly love aspect of this story, although a little heavy handed, is quite beautiful at times. A knight fighting for his love no matter what, warding off foes and refusing any other woman. Charged by his love and desire for her. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I find that quite lovely. Even if he does get himself in a "hairy" situation. (Ha ha...hair pun. Get it?)

Can somebody give me "the talk?"

Because I'm confused about sex. Well...sex in the context of Medieval Romance anyway. I was surprised when reading on The Art of Courtly Love that a fiery, passionate romance WITHIN a marriage was looked down upon by proper society and the Catholic Church. Well you see, I was brought up in a Catholic family (Irish-Catholic...so we can preach the morals and chug the alcohol at the same time) and I was always taught that a marriage was an appropriate place to experience your urges to the fullest. Not only does this not seem to be the case so far, but it seems that some of the texts encourage affairs.

So my reaction is...what? 

You have a marriage for propriety, and an affair for love, which messes up the marriage. So why don't you just allow for love within marriage and avoid the whole mess? 

Matthew (my tall husband) and I (his short wife) were discussing this while making Mexican food (if I could write my own book on courtly love it would probably be all about making food in general), and he seemed to think these rigid rules had something to do with control. But of what? Or whom? 

However, it seems that Equitan equates passionate love with marriage. Although the wife having an affair with her husband is presented as permissible, the king does desire to marry her so that they may stay together and continue expressing their love. The king seems to love his would-be-wife. 

So this leaves me...confused. And anyway, the Mexican food is ready.