The following post was originally submitted as an essay assignment:
ESSAY 1: 100 points. Develop an essay of 500 to 750 words minimum/maximum with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Be sure to argue a particular point of view in your essay (your thesis) and cite varied examples from the readings in MLA format in order to support your perspective. Include a works cited page. Whatever you do, DO NOT give me an autobiography of the author or retell a story.
You may choose your topic for this paper from any one of the forums or literary response questions from weeks 1-4 of the course. Please draw on the texts from this week’s reading to support your conclusions.
The topic which I chose came from week 3, in which we were asked:
Does Chaucer’s “The Miller’s Tale” use humor? What kind of humor is it? Be specific, and explain whether you found the humor effective or not.
I had once read The Miller’s Tale from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and gave a rather brief review of how the piece had employed the use of humor. In that short synopsis I had given a few examples without much additional thought as the story brought about feelings of hurt and disgust. Having allowed for some time to pass, I now see the tale with a different perspective; I also find myself a bit more capable to delve a bit deeper into the subject.
The Miller’s Tale is a quick little story which lacks any sort moral point and exists solely for entertainment value. In the tale, we are told a story of an elder well to do carpenter who has wed a younger woman. The carpenter, John, seems to have quite a fondness of his bride, Alison, though she seems to have married him because of his financial status. Living with the two is a young student of meteorology/astrology–depending upon translation–named Nicolas. We’re also introduced to a third male character who works in the town church named Absolon. All the men of the story have an eye for Alison, but she has her eyes set on Nicolas; here is where the hilarity ensues.
The Miller tells us how Nicolas and Alison develop a plan to bed together which seems a bit elaborate and quite unconvential if the reader give it some thought. Chaucer through the Miller, however manages to distract the reader from this through his simple yet complex style and the marvel of the plan being hatched. While John is out of town Nicolas plays as if he is busy in his studies–so busy as to be in some trance of sorts. After John has returned Nicolas comes from his room and states that he has been foretold of a second Great Flood. John, the good man that he is, receives this news and responds in the best way he can–he builds and suspends emergency floatation devices for Alison, Nicolas and himself. Two comedic elements exist here if we review what has just taken place. Our resident weatherman, which we did not see the significance of his studies until now–joke number one–has predicted a second great flood. John failed to think that God had promised that there never again would be a Great Flood–joke number two.
Meanwhile, our bumbling, prudish clerk from the church decides to come and pay a visit to his interest. Absolon doesn’t know, however, that Alison is occupied with Nicolas; Absolon also doesn’t seem to care that John is home–even if he did, John was securely and snuggly asleep in his makeshift boat hanging from the rafters while our two adulterors have crept to the bedroom. Absolon attempts and fails to woo Alison at the window as he comes calling; instead he is gifted with the kiss of her backside. Being burned in humiliation, Absolon sets out to burn her literally.
Absolon returns to the window later with a tool fresh from the smith’s fire and asks for another kiss. Nicolas this time decides to oblige Absolon and breaks wind in his face while doing so; Absolon then brands the unsuspecting Nicolas. Here we have been delivered more humorous elements with Absolon being faced with an ass on two occasions–the second bringing about a healthy passing of gas in front of his nose. Absolon exacts his revenge, however it is unwittingly to the unintended party.
For our final dose of laughter we are reminded of John, who had been oblivious to all that had been going on. Immediately following Nicolas receiving a gift of burning flesh he loudly calls out for water to cool and soothe his burning bottom. His calls of “Water!” awaken John and cause him to believe that he is hearing the shouts of someone reacting to rising floodwaters. John quickly cuts the rope securing him to the ceiling expecting to float to safety; instead the poor man comes crashing down and breaks his arm.
I had consluded that the humor used in the Miller’s Tale was juvenile, sadastic and vulgar. Given more time to reflect upon the story, I come away with the same feelings. I can say, however that I recognized a few more humorous aspects this time, such as the forecasting ties and John’s foolish belief that there could be another Great Flood. I also see that, in regard to the Flood, this element was possibly more humorous to portions of the original audience of the story–members of the clergy–who were if not the original audience of the Canterbury Tales were in the audience written into the tales.
Today, I come to a slightly differing conclusion on the matter of whether the humor was effective. All of the humorus elements took part in bringing about the final joke. Without the trickery and farting we could not have been distracted enough to have recieved that humorous shock of John crashing in result to Nicolas’ scorched tail. This story was also written merely for entertainment; there is no moral to the story–there also aren’t any morals in the story. Looking at the piece as entertainment only, the humor is quite effective, much like a Wayans brothers film–crude, satirical views of a social class leaving the viewer questioning if the intended audience is the class being poked at or the classes above and/or below. Still, I do not appreciate the humor of the Wayans’, nor do I appreciate the humor in this story.