Geoffrey Chaucer must have been, in his own subtle way, an anti-conformist who was particularly confident in his beliefs. As an influential writer, Chaucer may have felt an obligation to the United Kingdom, to the world, or simply to himself. Whatever the case, Chaucer certainly felt an obligation to something; his beliefs reverberate throughout The Canterbury Tales.
             At its best, fiction represents an alternative reality, which under different circumstances, could plausibly have been. Though some writers purposely stray from realistic ideals, all fiction, no matter how abstract, has its basis somewhere in something the writer experiences, sees, or is at least familiar. Ergo, fiction writers tend to be especially observant in their day-to-day experiences, consciously or otherwise. Similarly, little proof is required to show writers as intellectual people, and these two gifts of intellect and awareness beget social commentary; enter Chaucer's opinion of the church.
             The Prioress is the first associate of the church introduced in the General Prologue. Chaucer used his descriptive powers to make very clear the Prioress' impiety to his more worldly readers, while more naive readers will overlook the Prioress' love of dogs and impeccable manners as being perfectly normal for a woman in her position. This trend continues with the Monk and finally the Friar, both men being indulgent in their own right, although their behavior could be mistaken as acceptable, since Chaucer depicts the two characters in a seemingly positive light.
             Was Chaucer's ironic presentation of these clergymen intended? Absolutely. As a master of voice, Chaucer can perpetuate as much ignorance or brilliance in his writing as he chooses. For some tales, like The Knight's Tale, Chaucer is a magnificent storyteller, while in Sir Thopas Chaucer intentionally portrays himself as simple and dumb -- "I only know a tale in rhyme which ...