Asher’s review of The Canterbury Tales > Likes and Comments
Like
😆 I take it this is one classic I’d be fine to skip lol.
Much as I generally hate to recommend against a classic, yes. It's quite long but unfinished, alternately preachy and profane, and tedious when it's not bawdy.
I generally still want to read the classics whether they’re good or not, but there are so many books I want to read, that I definitely won’t be prioritizing reading this one then.
Classics are, of course, usually groundbreaking in some form or fashion. Movies that are considered classics often introduced or popularized some filming or acting or special effects techniques that were soon greatly approved upon. Looking back, many of these films don't hold up very well, but the knowledge that they form a foundation for what came next still makes them important.
Similarly, a book like The Canterbury Tales is considered an important read, but many modern readers would not consider it a good read. Chaucer is sometimes called the father of English literature. In his day, Anglo-Norman French and Latin were the dominant literary languages, and here he was using (and further developing) the vulgar English. He greatly helped legitimize Middle English at the time. Makes me think of how Dante did the same for Italian with his Divine Comedy.
So The Canterbury Tales is considered one of the paramount works of English literature. The poetry is still impressive, and it is an invaluable look into medieval life and thought, but many a modern author could easily tell a couple dozen stories far more engaging.
So it's about what a given reader is looking for. I myself consider it an important but mostly unengaging work (this coming from someone enthralled by the likes of Beowulf).
That makes sense, and it’s why I hope to still read as many classics and foundational works of literature as possible whether I think I’ll enjoy them or not. Much can still be learned from them even if they didn’t hold up well, and reading of course isn’t only about entertainment. I think that’s why so many hate on some of the classics. They only care to be entertained and amused; learning isn’t of much or any importance. With that said though, I prefer to first work my way through books in which both can be accomplished.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ileana
(new)
Jun 27, 2026 10:56AM
😆 I take it this is one classic I’d be fine to skip lol.
reply
|
flag
Much as I generally hate to recommend against a classic, yes. It's quite long but unfinished, alternately preachy and profane, and tedious when it's not bawdy.
I generally still want to read the classics whether they’re good or not, but there are so many books I want to read, that I definitely won’t be prioritizing reading this one then.
Classics are, of course, usually groundbreaking in some form or fashion. Movies that are considered classics often introduced or popularized some filming or acting or special effects techniques that were soon greatly approved upon. Looking back, many of these films don't hold up very well, but the knowledge that they form a foundation for what came next still makes them important. Similarly, a book like The Canterbury Tales is considered an important read, but many modern readers would not consider it a good read. Chaucer is sometimes called the father of English literature. In his day, Anglo-Norman French and Latin were the dominant literary languages, and here he was using (and further developing) the vulgar English. He greatly helped legitimize Middle English at the time. Makes me think of how Dante did the same for Italian with his Divine Comedy.
So The Canterbury Tales is considered one of the paramount works of English literature. The poetry is still impressive, and it is an invaluable look into medieval life and thought, but many a modern author could easily tell a couple dozen stories far more engaging.
So it's about what a given reader is looking for. I myself consider it an important but mostly unengaging work (this coming from someone enthralled by the likes of Beowulf).
That makes sense, and it’s why I hope to still read as many classics and foundational works of literature as possible whether I think I’ll enjoy them or not. Much can still be learned from them even if they didn’t hold up well, and reading of course isn’t only about entertainment. I think that’s why so many hate on some of the classics. They only care to be entertained and amused; learning isn’t of much or any importance. With that said though, I prefer to first work my way through books in which both can be accomplished.