As a man of commerce and therefore occupied by time, I sincerely regret my inability to meet to pay my attendance on the blog when it is due. Not to boast, but although my post is much later than most, I intend to make quite the impression on our host. Maybe it was the weather, the birds and all that comes with the season. But excuses are like the assholes, so of course I have one. However mine stinks, just as all the rest. So I’ll attempt to put my yarning to the test. And weave a post conducted more beautiful than a symphony. I wish the post to live in infamy.
I was intrigued in the most recent reading, of Book one of The House of Fame. I wonder why our great creator and friend, Chaucer, decided to portray Dido slightly differently than in his Legend of Good Woman, which I have come to enjoy, like this post, later than I would have liked, and that was scheduled on ye olde syllabus. Reguardless of the timing of my reading, I found the content to be most intriguing. Why was Dido’s death more graphic in The House of Fame. Is all of The Legend of Good Women meant to be gentile and tame?! I certainly doubt such, as the content is highly male-centric. To save his soul from damnation, perhaps, is why he forwent it. But back to the differences found in the text. Specifically, the lack of blade in Dido’s chest. For in The Legend of Good Woman Dido is the only woman in the legend, that lacks the description of a sword through her midsection. Since this is the detail that he seems to want to omit. I wonder why he thinks for all the other women in the legend this fate is fit, and not for sweet Dido.
Beyond this slight detail I loved this work. But my reasons for, you may reason me a jerk. I think Chaucer was smart and thinking of money. In adding a chapter to an already successful franchise laid out for him but other epic poets. Perhaps it is true what they say of good writers stealing. I think I’ll stick to wheel and dealing.