Chaucer Fun in the HUB!

I am glad that I took the time to grab a study break on Thursday and check out the Chaucer class performing in the HUB. I thought they did an excellent job, and it was really fun to see some of the things they'd been working on and reading this semester.

Like Audrey, I was struck by the similarities between the second play from the N-town cycle and the Second Shepherds' Play. They are both mystery plays, so that shouldn't have been surprising, but it still feels so new and different to me whenever these plays add pseudo-religious passages. How do these add on/expand the biblical narrative? Isn't there something a little sacrilegious to this, like the author is claiming that they are qualified to "add to" what the common people know about the Bible?

Well, I was thinking about this question and trying to think of instances in our world today where we try to stick pretty close to the text. And then I realized that my childhood hasn't been like this at all. For instance, some of my favorite things growing up were Veggietales, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and The Prince of Egypt. These works add, change, and interpret the stories they are trying to reflect. Nevertheless, they're excellent because they are involving, in some cases funny, and ultimately humanizing.

Both the play that the Chaucer class performed and the Second Shepherds' Play featured the addition of humorous, morally iffy characters. In the Second Shepherds' Play it's Mak, and in the play on Thursday it was the two accusers of Mary and Joseph. These characters are funny, for sure, and add drama to the story, but I wonder if the reason why they're included is because they're humanizing. These characters embody not only humor, but also the vice that is associated with humanity after the Fall. One of the main purposes behind the mystery plays was to make biblical stories accessible and relatable to the everyday man, and before I thought of this just in reference to subject matter. I figured that an audience would associate with only the pure and good characters. However, now I wonder if that's the case, or if these morally degenerate characters are there to represent the fallenness of the audience--and not just provide comic relief.

This is just a question I wanted to throw out after watching the Chaucer class perform. It was a really interesting and enjoyable show and got me back to thinking about the ways that writers shape their texts to fit their audiences and their times, which has been a huge focus of this course. Thanks to all of them for their excellent performance!