Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This is apparently the first of two tales which Chaucer himself tells, or in this case starts to tell since Harry Bailey cuts him off in mid tale.

The switch to verse that is almost sing-song is what struck me initially about this tale. It moves along much more quickly than the other tales; indeed, it almost gallops along. But in reality, what happens? Sir Thopas is described in excruciating detail at the start, he goes off in search of his love but meets the giant tho, of course, being himself a model of chivalry lets Sir Thopas go off to arm himself, again in excruciating detail, then... and that's it.

One reference calls it a "silly" tale, and I think even that may be a compliment. Is it intended as a bit of a calm lull between other tales? Thoughts?

It's a strange one for sure. I wonder whether Chaucer is saving his story-telling skills for the book, or engaging in a little joke.

Laurele wrote: "It's a strange one for sure. I wonder whether Chaucer is saving his story-telling skills for the book, or engaging in a little joke."

Very strange Can't seem to make out what Chaucer is doing here. Anyone got any thoughts?

I think it's interesting that the Man of Law goes on the flatter Chaucer and mentions his works extensively, and then when we get to his own tale, it's a silly rhyme and the Host stops him. He seems almost insulted. Perhaps he expected something grand from Chaucer? I agree with what you say, Everyman, about it galloping along. It was over before I was really aware of what was happening, and personally I would have liked for it to have finished.

I also noted that it seemed to have more fantasy elements in it than the others, which had the gods and goddesses. Maybe that was one of the reasons in which he was stopped (though I know a later tale does have fantasy in it, but I won't go there yet)? Or maybe they felt it wouldn't have a moral, and therefore no reason?

And as I'm writing this I'm watching a comedian discuss how her family always expects her to be funny. Maybe it was like that in Chaucer's time. If you're an entertainer, then you must always be entertaining?

Jennifer wrote: "And as I'm writing this I'm watching a comedian discuss how her family always expects her to be funny. Maybe it was like that in Chaucer's time. If you're an entertainer, then you must always be entertaining? "

Although Chaucer wasn't really an entertainer. He was a high government official, and most of the stuff he wrote, at least the stuff I've read such as Troilus and Criseyde, was quite serious poetry.

Everyman wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "And as I'm writing this I'm watching a comedian discuss how her family always expects her to be funny. Maybe it was like that in Chaucer's time. If you're an entertainer, then you ..."

True, but couldn't poetry be considered a form of entertainment, especially given the times?

Jennifer wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "And as I'm writing this I'm watching a comedian discuss how her family always expects her to be funny. Maybe it was like that in Chaucer's time. If you're an enter..."

Certainly. I was picking up on your version of funny entertainment, which Chaucer certainly is in the Tales, but maybe not otherwise.