Talk:The Reeve's Prologue and Tale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

==Rape in the Reeve's Tale==

First Alan got up and, without any complaint from the miller's daughter, joined her in bed.

While this summary is technically correct, it strongly implies that the miller's daughter made no complaint because she was willing, which is misleading. The relevant passage, from the original[1], makes it clear that she was unable to complain:

And up he rose and to the girl he crept. This wench lay on her back and soundly slept, Until he'd come so near, ere she might spy, It was too late to struggle, then, or cry; And, to be brief, these two were soon alone.

Likewise, that "the cradle had been moved" bit - the original makes it very clear that John moved it, to trick the miller's wife into his bed. The sensibilities of the Reeve's Tale are very much contrary to modern attitudes; we shouldn't obscure that point by obscuring issues of nonconsent & deceit. --Calair 00:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree on your first point that the previous summary is misleading, but I think the rewrite goes too far in the other direction. There just isn't enough in the text to indicate either consent or lack of consent; only surprise. --Sneftel 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added the mention of struggling, though, since that is in the original, and removed the quote marks because this isn't actually a direct quote from Chaucer. --Calair 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm... where do you read that? The lines in question: "Til he so ny was, er she myghte espie, / That it had been to late for to crie, / And shortly for to seyn, they were aton." --Sneftel 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how I managed to miss the blindingly obvious fact that the version I quoted above was a modernised one and not the original text, but somehow I did. Ugh. I beg your pardon, and have reverted to your version minus the quote marks. --Calair 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No prob; modernized versions are the only way to stay sane while reading The Canterbury Tales. Article looks great now. Thanks! --Sneftel 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just thought I'd add some of my own thoughts to this. Discussions about if it was rape or just a seely young girl should realy be on the main page as it is fascinating and greatly alters how we read the story. Too many lits articles here are dominated by long plot summaries at the expense of analysis and discussion of themes. I know analysis is more difficult to write and make POV or less original research but plot summaries simply mean people don't have to read it and they don't give people any clues to interpretation. Oh well I sould probably solve it myself but it is good to find other people arguing over 14th century literature. MeltBanana 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since literary analysis is original research, it's not really appropriate for us to do it. What IS useful is analysis which is sourced and (ideally) generally agreed upon by scholars in the field. If you have some of that, you should definitely add it to the article. --Sneftel 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The subject of historical attitudes towards rape is probably worth an article in itself. AFAICT, folk of Chaucer's time had a much more lenient attitude towards rape than we do today. There are plenty of stories and songs from that era which which seem to see nothing very objectionable in the idea of tricking a woman into sex. In the Wife of Bath's tale[2] the hero of the tale is condemned to death for rape, but the queen and her ladies all plead for innocence; in Tirant lo Blanc, the title character - presented as a paragon of chivalry - spends much of the book courting a princess and ends up forcing himself on her with the connivance of the queen, and after about five minutes of "how could you?" she ends up more in love with him than ever. I agree that Wikipedia's not the place for original research, but if somebody else has done the research it would make a worthwhile article for this and others to point to. --Calair 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a very interesting subject. --Sneftel 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

Also, it just occurred to me that the synopsis is given in past tense. I could've sworn I remember reading something in WP:Style about putting it in present tense, and other articles seem to follow that convention, but I can't find it now. Do you think it matters? --Sneftel 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I always have trouble keeping track of Wikipedia conventions - I wouldn't be surprised if that was correct. But it probably isn't a big issue; if anybody really objects to past tense, I daresay they'll fix it one of these days. --Calair 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Editing tense is not my idea of a good time either. --Sneftel 23:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)