NOTE: Remember as you read that the Knight is telling this story--so the story comes through his perspective; but at the same time, Chaucer is telling HIS story through the Knight. So there are always two levels of storytelling going on in the tale. The trick is to figure out who is speaking when: Chaucer, or the Knight?
Answer TWO of the following:
Q1: Though the Knight is telling this story to the entire
group, in some ways he has a very specific audience in mind: his son, the
Squire. Why might we suspect that this story is really for him? How might this
also help explain why tells a story of “long, long ago” instead of a modern
tale of knights and battles? Consider, too, the difference between the Knight
and the Squire in the General Prologue.
Q2: At the end of Part One, the Knight poses the question:
“Now all you lovers, let me pose the question:/Who’s worse off, Arcita or
Palamon?” Are we supposed to side with one of the lovers? Does one suffer a
worse “hell” than the other? Or does this question have satiric undertones?
(again, you might consider the audience)
Q3: Examine Theseus’ response to the lovers at the end of
Part II: is this a mockery of the knight’s love or a defense of it? How might
this be a commentary on the love story itself?
Q4: What kind of storyteller is the Knight? Remember that
the narrator claims that “To tell a tale told by another man/You must repeat it
as nearly as you can.” How does his storytelling differ from the narrator’s?
What does he do well—or ill? Are we supposed to marvel at his rhetoric or find
it somewhat lacking? In other words, does he strike us as a clumsy or a crafty
poet?
Answer to Q1) We might suspect that the Knight is writing this with his son, the Squire, in mind because their masculine differences. The Knight is very macho and his son, not so much. The story the Knight is telling is how good and bad fortune go hand in hand; they are not separate. The Squire is a hopeless romantic who believes in the grand gestures and the fairytale endings. The Knight is considered more of a realist; he doesn’t let fancy gestures throw him off. The Knight is telling this story in hopes that his son will realize life isn’t all rainbows and sunshine. I believe that the Knight thinks his son has his heads in the clouds, and he’s trying to give him a little dose of reality.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Q3) When reading the end of Part II, I see this is almost a mockery as much as a defense of the knight’s love. With every heroic story we read with a dual, the “trophy” of the winner is always a fair maiden. On the other end though, knowing the winner gets the girl, it makes the guys fight harder and longer. On one end of the spectrum, I find this mockery, because it seems as if a guy can’t get a girl without fighting for her physically. On the other end, it seems as if Theseus knows, like with all the stories we read, that the guy who wins will get the girl; both the guy and girl will benefit from it. Emily will get a strong man to protect her and be with her forever, while the knight gets the hand of Emily. I believe the Knight is telling the story in a comical way to make people stop and think. In a way, I think he is making fun of the notion of romance. He is trying to get his son to realize the romance part of life isn’t the image he’s painted in his head. I think he is just trying to put off this “I’m a man. I don’t care about romance” vibe because his son cares about it so much. In a way, I am reminded of the song “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” from Mulan; the Knight is trying to make a “man” out of his son and make him realize the romance he believes to be grandiose comes with more problems than he might think.
Q1: Though the Knight is telling this story to the entire group, in some ways he has a very specific audience in mind: his son, the Squire. Why might we suspect that this story is really for him? How might this also help explain why tells a story of “long, long ago” instead of a modern tale of knights and battles? Consider, too, the difference between the Knight and the Squire in the General Prologue.
ReplyDeleteA: I think the knight is writing this passage with his son. The Squire is aka for his son. The knight is a tough cookie. Has women dancing on him at the clubs because of how masculine he is, but his son? His son is a wallflower. Drinking his tea by the wall, ready to go home. The knight is telling a story of how the good and bad go hand in hand. You can’t have a rainbow without a little rain type of thing. His son (Squire) is Cyrano De Bergerac aka he is a hopeless romantic. Head over heels for the idea of a happy ending. Long Long Ago is typically a fairytale line which keeps the son interested in the story. The Knight is more of a realist as he doesn’t let grand gestures and flowers throw him off. He keeps his nose to the grindstone. The knight tells the story in a way to explain that not everything is rainbows and butterflies, but the world is mean and nasty. I think the knight is aware that his son is a big ol softy so he tries to get his son’s head out of rainbows and more into war and smashing things. He doesn’t want his son to be startled when reality actually happens.
Q3: Examine Theseus’ response to the lovers at the end of Part II: is this a mockery of the knight’s love or a defense of it? How might this be a commentary on the love story itself?
A: Disney’s Robinhood was my childhood with the fox and the vixen. Even then there was a battle (kinda?) with winning the heart of Maid Marian. All the great heroic story, there is always a reason for the battles and usually, a lovely lady is involved. She most likely has long eyelashes to bat and a beautiful smile that one could just kiss. Knowing the winner gets the lovely eyelash batting beauty, this makes the guys battle for longer periods of time. Then soon the battling gets boring, as now we have to start teasing and mocking. Typically, in my opinion, the one to begin the teasing will probably be the one to lose because he’s not confident to win the battle so he has to mock his partner in a way to distract. Emily gets a big, strong man to protect her and hold her at night. To brush her hair 42 times and give her kisses, and to hold her forever, while the other guy, eh. Tough noodles. I believe the Knight is reliving this story in a comical way. To me, he seems like he is poking fun at the idea of romance and the dueling over some chick. He wants to give off the vibe of "I don't need a woman" so his son can see that not everything is all about romance.
Great responses...I like the Cyrano comparison, though I think the Knight is actually more like CYrano, who is a Romantic but also a hardened soldier. The squire is like Christian, who is a lover but doesn't know how to do it; the Knight is trying to teach him how NOT to be a lover, and how devoting yourself to an ideal of love can destroy the very nature of chivalry (by betraying your brother over a misguided love affair). The satire comes in how over-the-top the brohters act, which is suitable for a poem but not for real life. But we know from the Prologue that this is how the squire acts, too.
Delete