Monday, November 24, 2014

The Pardoner's Tale .vs. the Tale of Three Brothers

The Pardoner's Tale and the Tale of the Three Brothers are alike because they both take a journey to battle Death. They come up with separate strategies to get what they want. In the Pardoner's Tale, the three men come up with strategies to kill each other to keep all  of the money that they find under a tree. In the Tale of the Three Brothers,the three men also go on a journey to battle Death. They allegedly defeated Death and they all got an item of their choice and used that opportunity to get something they want, whether it be a loved one, or to be free from Death's harmful grip. Additionally, in both stories, all three of the characters die and are taken by Death.
     However, the characters all die for different reasons. The three brothers all die because the items that they received all had loopholes except for one, who died on his own account of handing down his invisibility cloak. In contrast, in the Pardoner's Tale, all three die from their greedy plans to take the money for themselves. In the Tale of the Three Brothers, the characters die from their ignorance and Death tricking them. In the Pardoner's Tale, the three characters died because their greedy plans to kill one another worked.
   

4 comments:

  1. I find it interesting to ponder that the three rioters died because of each other and the two brothers because of death's actions. It would definitely seem to cast a darker light on the tale of the Pardoner, essentially saying that humans kill humans, not death, whereas the tale of Rowling seems to state that death is more evil. I wonder why the money was there in the first place. Maybe Death or the old man put it there? I'm also wondering if the two bothers who died were also greedy or self serving in some way? I'm also considering whether or not the younger brother who got away was somehow greedy or self serving, or just smart? It was fate that the two rioters took the poisoned bottle instead of the one that had water in it, or do you think some sort of intervention occurred? I thought it was a strong point to mention that all of the characters eventually die, and that only the youngest brother goes of his own free will. I wonder if he could have lived on forever, and if he could have, why he did not? The tory says he gladly went with death. Perhaps there is a greater message about immortality?

    ReplyDelete