“Which do you think was more gripping to read? Boccaccio’s account of the plague or his stories?”
That is a hard question for me to answer. Why? It could be that I did not find either of his writings gripping. But I will complete this essay and try to sum up which of Boccaccio’s works I found to be more gripping.
I suppose that Boccaccio’s stories from the Decameron were more gripping for me to read because there were more of them to read than the accounts of the Black Death (aka: “the plague”). Also, Black Death details can be a bit ugly, gory, and sickening, so that is another reason why those accounts weren’t as gripping to me.
Since there was more to read about in his stories I was able to remember them better which lead to them having a bigger impact on me. I read seven times as many pages of Boccaccio’s stories than his accounts of the Black Death. So why wouldn’t Boccaccio’s stories be more gripping for a reader like me?
This scenario is similar to a person who only shops at name brand clothing stores. If that person were to go to a thrift store she would most likely not like it because she is accustom to shopping at the name brand stores- she hasn’t had enough experience at a thrift store to really appreciate it. (if you’re a person who tends to only shop at name brand stores I highly recommend trying out thrift stores- they’re AMAZING) It could go the same way for a person who only shops at thrift stores too.
Now, let’s get back to Boccaccio’s stories. In my view, his stories were “out there,” silly, and nonsensical (but, to give him credit, they were fictional). But they were great pieces of history for us all to look back on. The Decameron is a great source of information regarding times after the Black Death and before the renaissance. Many people past and present scour its pages to uncover things that were never known before about that time. The Decameron could, in effect, be called a history book.