How Does The Reeve'S Tale Critique The Miller?

Reading 'The Reeve’s Tale' as a response to the Miller feels like watching a chess match where every move is spiteful. The Miller tells a crude joke at the carpenter’s expense, and the Reeve, a carpenter himself, retaliates by crafting a tale where a miller is humiliated in every possible way. The symmetry is savage: infidelity, theft, and physical comedy, but this time the miller is the fool. What fascinates me is the Reeve’s tactical precision. He doesn’t just mock the Miller’s story; he weaponizes it, using the same structure to highlight the Miller’s hypocrisy. The critique isn’t just literary—it’s deeply personal, revealing how medieval society used stories to settle scores. The Reeve’s tale isn’t just a rebuttal; it’s a mirror held up to the Miller’s flaws, proving that even in the 14th century, clapbacks were art.

The Reeve’s Tale critiques the Miller by turning his own crude humor against him. The Miller mocks carpenters, so the Reeve—a carpenter—shames millers. His story features a miller robbed and cuckolded, mirroring the Miller’s tale but with sharper intent. It’s less about morality and more about pride: the Reeve proves he can outdo the Miller in wit and vengeance. Chaucer’s brilliance lies in letting characters roast each other through their stories, making the critique feel alive and personal.

I love how 'The Reeve’s Tale' claps back at the Miller with zero subtlety. The Miller’s story is all about mocking a clueless carpenter, so the Reeve—who’s literally a carpenter—fires back by shaming a miller. It’s like medieval Twitter drama. The Reeve’s tale is packed with irony: the miller gets outsmarted by students, his daughter seduced, and his wife ‘borrowed’ for a night. Every detail feels like a middle finger to the Miller’s arrogance. Chaucer’s genius is in showing how storytelling isn’t just entertainment; it’s a power move. The Reeve doesn’t just disagree with the Miller; he dismantles him by turning his own crude humor into a weapon. The critique isn’t just about morality—it’s about who gets the last laugh.

As someone who’s spent years diving into medieval literature, I’ve always found the dynamic between 'The Reeve’s Tale' and 'The Miller’s Tale' in Chaucer’s 'The Canterbury Tales' utterly fascinating. The Reeve’s story is a direct rebuttal to the Miller’s bawdy, chaotic narrative, but it’s far more than just petty revenge. The Reeve, a carpenter by trade, crafts a tale that mirrors the Miller’s structure—infidelity, deception, and absurdity—but flips the roles. Where the Miller mocks the carpenter’s gullibility, the Reeve targets the Miller’s arrogance and dishonesty, painting millers as thieves and buffoons. The Reeve’s critique is layered: he exposes the Miller’s tale as crude and morally hollow while elevating his own as a clever, calculated counterpunch. The irony? Both tales are equally raunchy, but the Reeve’s precision in targeting the Miller’s profession (and pride) makes his critique sting harder.

What’s brilliant is how the Reeve uses the Miller’s own tools against him. The Miller’s tale is a riot of slapstick humor, but the Reeve’s response is darker, more vindictive—a simmering class resentment wrapped in farce. By making the miller in his tale a literal victim of theft and humiliation, the Reeve doesn’t just mock the Miller’s storytelling; he undermines his social standing. It’s a medieval roast battle where the Reeve’s wit cuts deeper because it’s personal. The tales together reveal how Chaucer uses storytelling as a weapon, letting characters like the Reeve expose the flaws in others’ narratives—and identities.