Making statements about the hypocrisy of Church affiliated officials, I find it admirably laughable that Chaucer had to announce a disclaimer to the Church saying he meant no disrespect.

While I wish that he just left “Canterbury Tales” as is, I can understand the pressure he must have experienced in taking back his opinion expressed through the characters he so vividly describes in his Prologue.

The first official to be contradictory to their stereotyped nature is the Pardoner. While people pay him to pardon them for their sins, he exploits this idea for his own greed in the pursuit of wealth. I, not knowing a lot about religion, find it odd that people pay a tithe in church. I am sure I am not the only who wonders why God needs Christian’s money. This idea and scepticism I experience is proved rational through the deceitful character of the Pardoner.

This same idea is also expressed through the characters of the Friar and the Summoner.

The Monk, while more of a likeable character, is described as caring little about hard work and prayer, and instead enjoys feast and hunting. This too is a contradiction as the position of a monk, like the Pardoner is supposed to be thought of a an idyllic Christian. If this is the case, then we can only assume what hypocrisy Chaucer makes of the idyllic Christian.

Narrated by the first and second hand witness of the story, Aphra Behn’s “Oroonoko” is told by the perspective of a wealthy English woman. Having this narrator interpret and support the rebellion of black slaves was what I thought unusual and unexpected.

Not only does the story tell of the struggles of the ultimate minority in that time period, but it is told by a woman. While Behn’s success as a writer was due to her ability to write like a man, she tries to appeal to the public and struggles of oppressed black slaves through romantic eyes. I find it contradictory that a subject so brutal and harsh is written by a romantic view. By writing about the exotic and foreign nature of the oriental setting, this environment of the unknown appeals to English readers as a safe visit to the South. From the comfort of their own homes they can vicariously witness the horrors and violence of other lands.

While in my last posts I criticize the translated perspective of time, I think this text has great success and relevance in literature because it tries to support something that was very forward thinking in that day. In alignment to our views, we can read back and somewhat agree with Behn’s supposed motivation of sparing awareness.

I also found myself very confused that the narrator supported Caesar (Oroonoko) in his attempts at freedom. Because slave labour was so common and valuable to the economy at that time period, I thought it odd that a woman, whose lifestyle is most likely supported by slave labour of one form or another, would support revolt against their oppressors.

Lastly, I was utterly furious at the outcome of this text. I am ashamed that I seem to only write posts about what displeases me (I really did enjoy the texts of this class for the most part), I just felt that Oroonoko killing his wife and then dying was so grossly avoidable. While not always seeking a happy ending, I am, however, most definitely a reader who craves closure. In killing his wife, I thought Oroonoko selfish and misogynist. I felt like it was so unnecessary that they both had to die. If anything, let your wife live and live without you.

In Shakespeare’s “The Tempest,” Prospero is ultimately the main protagonist and controls the inhabitants of the island like puppets on a stage. While we are told his motivations towards revenge or redemption, the way in which he goes pursuing these goals is questionable.

Led to sympathize with his struggles of being exiled and overthrown by his brother, this is meant to provide a rationalization and reason to why he goes about stranding and torturing his old companions upon his island. Not only does he claim the island as his own, but in doing so he kills a woman and then enslaves her son. By claiming them to be evil, the reader is expected to be okay with his actions and agree with them as just reason.

Like in my previous post on Why Beowulf and I Would Not Be Friends, time has a way of mixing messages and themes in translation. I am sure that In Shakespeare’s day when colonialism and imperialism was the new black, it was completely fashionable to claim a land for your own and dehumanize the native inhabitants as property. This belief also ties into an idea I have on the modern day interpretation of literature in that we read the themes we want to read. Instead of seeing Shakespeare as a racist or pro-colonization, many scholars and students almost force themselves to believe that Shakespeare is making a statement upon these subjects opposed to supporting them.

It is worship of canonical authors like Shakespeare that we strive to believe that he was forward thinking and saw the world and society the way in which we see it today. While he did write amazing literature, it is my belief that Prospero is a protagonist of dislikable nature and that many people interpret his character to be either misunderstood or a statement in favour of modern day views.

While Beowulf is praised and admired for his orality and quality of speech, I have trouble liking his character the way in which other characters appear to worship him.

Not given a physical description of our hero, we are convinced of his magnificence by the way in which other people interact with him. His overbearing pride might exude confidence to his subjects and supporters, but I feel as though in modern society humility is valued and worshiped much more that strength. I compared great leaders of today, and while yes, they do hone great speech making capabilities, it is the way in which they ultimately carry themselves that set Beowulf apart.

Over confidence comes across as playing with fire and even almost disrespectful at times in Beowulf. When he is retelling all of his great adventures, he does not neglect to emphasis how much greater and stronger he was than the monster he has slain. When he sets out to kill Grendel, He could have done so with a sword and armour, but instead he exhibits evidence of a hubris when he decided to take him on in the nude. While at the time that quality would have been praised, today it would be scorned.

President Obama, my immediate comparison and modern day representation of a great speaker, is arguably where he is today because of his ability to vocalize fantastic speeches. However, if he were at war with an opposing country that Obama was confident he could defeat, humiliating the country would be of bad taste. It is having the integrity to not engage in violence that is praised opposed to the bravery to do so back in the days of the Danes.