True Life: The Wife of Bath's Tale

BBC's adaptation of Chaucer's Wife of Bath

The question that we're truly battling with when asking whether this adaptation can still be considered part of Chaucer's tales is a question of originality. According to different theorists that I've already discussed (you can find them below in full detail) editions are mere stages of a work. If this is a case, then this show is most assuredly part of Chaucer's initial work; however, there is also the theory that each new edition is a brand new work altogether and would then render this adaptation of the film a new piece, a new TEXT. The questions are mind-boggling (and sometimes go around in an enormous circle) yet these are aspects that shape and control the way we see things. If this show wasn't labeled under the category of Chaucer then would we just watch it as any ordinary show? Think of it this way. Disney's The Lion King is a completely original film that many hold dear to their hearts. Wrong. The film is a rendition of Shakespeare's Hamlet made into a children's film. If this is the case, then did the audience go see this movie because of its relation to Hamlet? Continuing on, is the film then merely an edition of the original work, or is it a new work? I can't say that I have the answers to any of these questions, but to realize whether something is a part of something or a new work captures the attention of audiences worldwide.