First off, the Pardoner is quite
the character. The entire time I was reading I had the constant worry that I
was being lied to, but I could never quite tell if I was or not. At the very
least, he obviously omits certain facts of the tales he tells to make his
point. For example, on lines 505-512 the Pardoner is discussing why gluttony is
humanities first ruin. The Pardoner
states that:
For whyl that Adam fasted, as I
rede
He was in Paradys; and whan that he
Eet of the fruyt defended on the
tree,
Anon he was outcated to wo and
peyne. (508-511)
All the Pardoner talks about here is how bad Adam was for
eating the forbidden fruit; this is completely opposite to the normal
interpretation. Usually, it is Eve that is blamed for eating the forbidden
fruit and then talking Adam into eating the fruit as well. He almost completely
erases her from the picture; he does not even say her name! The Pardoner simply
refers to Eve as “his [Adam’s] wyf” (505). On one had it makes me want to cheer
because everything is not being blamed on the woman for once, but it also makes
me want groan because he does not even mention the woman at all.
 |
| IDK how to feel |
Back to the Pardoner's tale though, how do these men expect to kill death? Do they realize how implausible that is? Are they simply still too drunk from their previous escapades to make any logical decisions? Or is the Pardoner simply pulling a fast one on us again?
 |
| Too Many Questions! |
Compared to the Wife of Bath’s tale, I felt that this tale
was lackluster. The thieves got what they deserved in the end and they all died
because of their own selfish greed. It was a straightforward tale without much
fluff or additions added to it. The tale seemed like one of the half-ass
sermons he would give to people he wanted to give him money.
Moral? Check!
Basic Plot? Check!
Anything beyond those two is simply a cherry on top for him.
 |
| Can't he do a bit better? |
If the Discworld series has taught me anything, it's that you don't kill Death; you just get him to retire. That accomplishes the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThat aside though, I like the point that it sounds like a cheesy, lackluster story he'd preach to get money, because I'm sure that's exactly what it is. The Pardoner doesn't seem like the type to be terribly creative and believe in the morals he preaches, so why would he bother to craft a tale full of substance and intrigue to teach a moral? He's exactly the kind of person that would make up a story in five minutes, then ramble about some stuff midway through if he needs to fill some time, and then just smack an abrupt ending and a moral onto it at the end to say "Okay, moral taught. Did you learn something? Good. Money now, please." If you ask me, I think he genuinely doesn't care about teaching a lesson at all, which is why the story seems to lack polish compared to the Wife of Bath.