Modern America’s melting pot culture seems inherently resistant to having any kind of representation. By simply including some characters, one feels that it is leaving others out. The wide range of people and ways of being in modern America seem to outweigh the reality Chaucer dealt with. Yet, our society retains its stereotypes, images of how certain people ate. Both the characters of my piece and of Canterbury Tales are based around stereotypes, but grow interesting in the way they break out of (or simply struggle with) such assumptions.

The character I made the strongest attempt to imitate was the narrator. I tried to emulate the narrator’s naiveté. The narrator praises the characters while showing the reader their many flaws. S/he seems to see every character as the shining example of their class. The narrator claims to become one of the group, but then acts as an observer/interviewer, separated from the written characters. The narrator remains oblivious, as the reader watches ever-widening gap between what the characters ought to be, and what they are. The narrator shows us the elderly character as someone to be admired, and zones in on him fiddling with his knife. The narrator praises him for being willing to cut the children’s’ food, but the readers are shown the filth of his using the knife to clean his fingernails at the same.

This elderly character is parallel to Chaucer’s knight, another war hero. However, the elder man is neither worshipped nor respected in the way of Chaucer’s knight. Simply by his old age and ancient characteristics, the gentleman is shown as a little outdated, unattractive and one whose mannerisms are meant to disgust the reader.

Canterbury tales brings us back to a time when people had to travel together, in packs. Modern Travel is fast becoming a personal experience; modern travelers barely interact with their seat-neighbor. Modern travelers’ plans must set aside in order to truly conjugate as a group Rather than Chaucer’s outgoing Host, the modern characters are left with a young business man unwilling to interact with the narrator. However, parallels can be drawn between the young man and the merchant character, the one character Chaucer found very little to praise about. Talking only of money, the merchant refused even to tell the company his name. “He delivered his remarks very solemnly… no one knew he was in debt…. But to tell the truth, I don’t know what his name was” (276- 286). Chaucer’s character was a merchant, in times where Nobility was declining, and the merchant class was fast becoming the most wealthy and powerful. The modern young man is also part of a new growing industry- the internet. However, the merchant boasts about his affairs, while our new young main wishes to be left entirely alone with his computer.


The Pilgrims on the Canterbury trail seem to lack one thing that is able to bind modern groups together - children. There are no actual children characters introduced in the Canterbury Tales’ General Prologue. Though children do not represent any main characters in my modern version, they bind the story together. Both the two mothers and the storyteller gentleman are introduced in the ways they interact with the children in the group. The role of the nuclear family, particularly in the setting of trips and vacations, has gained much significance in this modern transposition.

What Chaucer lacked in Children, he made up for in Catholics. Chaucerian England was entirely Catholic, the idea of a reformation a million miles away. Diversity of race, culture and creed was simply nonexistent. The only hint readers are given of other religions are of the Muslims and Russian Orthodox the knight “fought for our faith”. My prologue used neither race nor religion as a starting point for socioeconomic diversity, though the Russian couple would have been unthinkable in Chaucer’s day. Furthermore, several of the characters are racially ambiguous.

While Chaucerian England was cleanly divided into three estates- Military (including Nobility), Religious and Laymen, modern America’s distinctions are far murkier. As Chaucer did, I attempted to base characters off our modern assumptions. Yet, the Canterbury Tales’ characters are not full stereotypes. Rather, the stereotypical characters seem to be aware that they are stereotypes, and try to resist it- by either being something else, or having justification for their stereotypical actions.
“There was also a nun, a PRIORESS… she sang the divined service well…and took great pains to behave in a well bred fashion.” (118-140)
The Prioress’s holy orders of simplicity contradict her constant efforts at cultivating a Noble Bearing. The English Prioress’ attempt to learn French and act like a lady is comparable to the Second Mother’s small-town teaching background clashing with her love for trashy tabloids. Yet, while Chaucer’s character attempts to better herself, the modern character falls short of her predestined stereotype.

The differences between Chaucerian England and modern America cannot be counted; every aspect of life has changed. Yet, should people gather together once more, to tell stories and form a group; the variety of walks of life will show themselves. Furthermore, there will always be a chance to make fun of someone.