Geoffrey Chaucer Books

This is quite a fascinating look at the way people's opinions of Chaucer - and the ways in which they express them - have changed over six centuries. It's only 300 pages long, so it's far from comprehensive (my edition ends in 1968, which also limits it somewhat), but what's there is very appropriate and indexed quite well.

Naturally, it won't be of interest to people who aren't interested in (Chaucer or the history of literary theory) to begin with, but I do recommend it to those who are.

I think the author's intent with this book was to show the viewpoint of Philippa de Roet (Geoffrey Chaucer wife and Katherine, wife of John of Gaunt's sister) on the whole Katherine/John romance. Having read "Katherine" though, I have serious questions about the historical reliability of this book.

For on thing, this entire novel is based on the idea that Philippa had an affair with Duke John while his wife was alive, and bore him a child-but was married to Chaucer to cover this up. I have no idea if there is any historical evidence of this, but I can't imagine that Anya Seton, while writing "Katherine" would have ignored anything that stipulated to such an affair. I mean, it seems like something like that would be more in the realm of common knowledge.

So while the historical descriptions of palaces and rivalries, and court gossip is wonderful in this book, the lack of an authors note to explain the huge leap she made in perhaps making up the relationship between Philippa and John just makes the whole thing unreliable. A fun read, but not historical accurate I think. If you liked "Katherine" you may want to read this just for fun. I know reading this has made me want to read "Katherine" again.

Three stars.

A well-written chronical depicting the Very esscence of anime. Includes several pictorials and a wide range of varoius titles of anime to choose from.

This is a very poor quality edition of The Canterbury Tales. The pages look like they are photocopies of an old edition printed on cheap paper with warn type. I was so dissatisfied with this book, I purchased the "The Canterbury Tales: (original-spelling edition) (Penguin Classics)" and was very pleased.

The description should make clear that although the series is called "Unabridged Classics in MP3", the title of this volume is "_Selected_ Canterbury Tales". I.e. the selected tales are unabridged, not the entire collection.

Even more important is to note that the recording is not of Geoffrey Chaucer's actual poetry, but of somebody's translation into modern English.

...written by one who was at his wit's end to find an original topic. As a medievalist with a special interest both in Chaucer and the mystics of the era, it was obvious to me that the author was bending the words of the latter to fit Chaucer's characters. Neither aspect, fascinating though both are, survived the operation.

This is advertised and unabriged. What I received was Volume three of what may be a complete version, but it was not advertised as one of a series by any means. In addition, I was very sorry that it was recorded in modern english rather than the original middle english. If I had known, I would not have ordered and am pursuing a refund.

Not a complete version.. only has SOME of the tales. I didnt realize that when I bought it!

The typeface used on the Kindle edition of this book is miniscule, cannot be increased, and is nearly unreadable.

You've got to hand it to David Carlson, he certainly does not understate his claims. From start to finish, this book doesn't pretend to be anything less than a tendentious invective against Chaucer and those who crowned him the father of English poetry. Carlson's basic argument runs something along the lines of:

Major premiss) Feudalism brought nothing but woe into the world;
Minor premiss) Chaucer was an "official of the repressive apparatus of state";
Ergo) Chaucer's public career was pure evil.

Major premiss) Human beings exist only as political entities whose cultural productions are governed by the vested interests of their class;
Minor premiss #1) Chaucer was a member of the nascent bourgeoisie, an "estate" that fawned on the aristocracy and dreaded a revolt by the downtrodden peasants;
Minor premiss #2) See previous conclusion;
Ergo) "The end product of Chaucer's literary labors ... was the articulation of hegemony" (64).

Major premiss) In the absence of intra-textual criteria for determining the artistic worth of poetry, our literary canon is shaped by the ideology of the powers that be;
Minor premiss) See previous conclusion;
Ergo) Chaucer's status as a canonical poet is due to his being "a useful poet, rather than a good one, because he could serve" (65).

Major premiss) We Marxists now control the Groves of Academe and train future English teachers, curriculum planners, book reviewers, and anthology editors;
Minor premiss) We Marxists do not, or should not, like Chaucer;
Ergo) For the time being, it's all right to teach Chaucer to students with keen critical insights and independent thinking, just as long as they unanimously come to despise him. When the future generation of parents sends their children to our colleges, they will no longer want us to expose the tender souls to such retrograde sentimental drivel.

Okay, I realize I'm being carried away here. To sum up an entire book (though a slim one) in four syllogisms is admittedly reductive, especially when for rhetorical effect I fail to distinguish between explicit and implicit assumptions; consider, however, the description of a course taught at Prof. Carlson's own university (simply google "CHAUCER AND THE POETICS OF PRINCE-PLEASING"). As often happens, a controversial study quickly becomes dogmatic: though the course syllabus may have included articles reflecting various "minority" opinions -- who knows, perhaps even a Marxist vindication of Chaucer -- the conclusions that the students are expected to reach are spelled out loud and clear from the very beginning.

Fortunately for lovers of Chaucer, this particular pamphlet is so riddled with contradictions that it is bound to be discredited sooner or later. Chief among which is the author's placing of dissent above all other values, even when each dissenting party strives to achieve goals that other dissenting parties would have shrunk from with horror: the Pardoner (whom Carlson takes to be "queer") does not share the Wife of Bath's "feminist" concerns (quite on the contrary!), nor does she share his, and so neither pilgrim seems to object to the ridiculing of the other; the heterodox Lollards were probably pretty orthodox in their attitude to those who were not heterosexual males; and the Peasant Revolt of 1381 did away with a good many Fleming who were living in England, in what was clearly not an act of tolerance (Chaucer refers to this incident in the Nun's Priest's Tale and is somehow more appalled by its murderous nature than he is by the destruction of his patron's property). The height of absurdity is reached when, on p. 62, Chaucer is condemned for depicting an actual pilgrimage, which Carlson argues was more of a leisure-class affair than an expression of Christian piety; then, a Lollard "attack on pilgrimage" is quoted with approval claiming that the true pilgrimage is the soul's inner journey towards God; lastly, on pp. 63-64, when Chaucer's Parson makes the exact same point, he is deemed to speak in the service of the authoritarian Church! Can Chaucer never win? Will whatever party he sides with forever be in the wrong, and whatever party he does not represent sympathetically enough forever be in the right?

Be not mistaken, I do not advocate a blind worship of Chaucer or of the literary tradition that he fathered, and certainly not of the value-system in which he was rooted. Political criticism has convinced us that our cultural heritage has slanted vast segments of society, thereby contributing to their oppression and persecution. Yet an awareness of such issues should encourage us, not to reject, but to embrace the Great Books of the past, since by taking responsibility for their faults we are free to appreciate their subtleties and perhaps find that the worldview they evoke is more complex than we were prepared to believe. It is still debatable whether Chaucer's work articulates a single dominant ideology; that, on the other hand, Carlson's study shows him to be nothing less than a brazen ideologue -- the perfect specimen of his own theories -- is rather more convincing.

Those who favor prophet-of-doom-like tirades, agitprop masked as critical theory, the social-realist pulp fiction of the former USSR, or the social-surrealist pulp fiction of today, are bound to be disappointed in Chaucer; yet those who are willing to read between the lines may notice that he has other means to criticize the crooked ways of his world, in addition to delighting his readers with some top-quality verse. Let us enjoy the fruit of Chaucer's finer moments and cast aside the chaff of his occasional prejudices.