I have noticed a very interesting comparison between Dante and Chaucer, which is something that I never would have imagined. It seems really ironic that both works seem to revolve around human error. Chaucer exaggerates the faults of humans with vivid imagery and a plethora of comparisons that leads the reader to assume that his characters are very "screwed up." He is careful to elaborate on every major fault in a humorous way that seems to mock the imperfections of humans. Dante's approach was much more serious and blatantly honest, but he still described the faults of the souls that inhabited the levels of Hell. While Dante did not include much humor in his descriptions, he did explore the deepest, darkest depths of each person until he had reduced their faults to the most basic form. I seem to think that if you could somehow combine these two literary techniques into one, you might be able to formulate a unique perspective of human faults. This perspective would be able to identify hidden faults (through exaggeration) and define the underlying problem with each (Dante's different levels of Hell.)
P.S. I commented on Skylar's "Divination and Schisms"
You make an excellent observation about combing the two views of people's faults. However, I think that combing the two styles would be a mistake. Instead of showing the faults and the problems with the faults you would end up stripping the faults down and making them seem trivial and unimportant instead of illuminating them and showing the problem with those faults.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this. Faults are easiest things to spot within a story. Chaucer uses people who are covered in mistake and totally out of line in character. Dante uses people who are proud of their mistakes, and are willing to share and defend their causes for doing the things they did. These works are as much psychologically driven as they are for their original purposes.
ReplyDelete