As previously announced, the Palgrave editor doesn’t like In Hir Corages as our title. (She wrote, “Our titles need to be descriptive and have the key words upfront. . . .Perhaps the subtitle could then become the title?”)
I’m about to submit the contract for our book and need to report our decision (though I suspect it could be changed later). So far, nobody has argued strongly for an alternative to Rethinking Chaucerian Beasts. I’m still partial to it despite the negative connotations and questionable denotation of ” beasts.” The only viable alternative that I’ve come up with is Rethinking Chaucer’s Animals, but even that sounds flat.
So would you please let me know if you object to Rethinking Chaucerian Beasts? Also let me know if you’ve thought of another possibility.
NOTE: To post a comment, you’ll need to supply your name (nicknames okay) and e-mail address. You can leave the “Website” box empty.
I’m fine with Rethinking Chaucerian Beasts. It alludes provocatively back to Beryl Rowland’s book Blind Beasts, and (as you pointed out to me in an email Lynn) it scans quite nicely too! I say we keep it.
I’m fine with “Rethinking Ch’s Beasts” too. Strikes me that you could have ‘beasts’ (negative connotation) on the left side of the colon, and the corages line (more positive, implied shared eros/piety w/ people) on the right side. The balance should work well.