My thesis, titled Female Agency in the Canterbury Tales and Telling Tales, compares Geoffrey Chaucer’s fourteenth century work and Patience Agbabi’s modern adaptation in regards to their portrayal of female agency. While each work contained a whole selection of tales, I focus on four tales, which were The Miller’s Tale, The Clerk’s Tale, The Physician’s Tale, and The Wife of Bath’s Tale. I also include relevant historical information to support and assist in the analysis of the literary texts, and secondary sources were also used supplementarily to enhance the analysis. I argue that female agency is irrationally believed to be dangerous, and the consequent attempts at protection manifest as limitations, which are themselves damaging. The paper is divided into two main sections, which are themselves separated into three smaller categories. The first of the two main sections concerns what actions and options are available to women influenced by a distinction of gender; this section is divided into female gender ideals, marriage, and occupation. The second of the two main sections addresses the entities or individuals enacting the limitations upon female agency, and its three subsections are society, men, and women. I ultimately conclude that not only is it irrational to believe that female agency is dangerous, but also that making gender-based judgment on the capacity of a group of people or an individual is inherently flawed.

A handbook consisting of scholarship and social media included to frame the six experiences around which this handbook is organized: getting in the zone, a thought process in overdrive; impulsivity; a distinct relationship to creativity; difficulties with transitions, especially the transition to and from sleep; and a complex relationship to medication. Following the initial framing, I then describe what each of these experiences feel like to me. To render these experiences for the purpose of a shared inquiry, I followed the critical-incident interview method that Flower describes in Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement. I first learned to use this interview technique in ENG 205: Introduction to Writing, Rhetorics and Literacies and practiced it further in ENG 390: Methods of Inquiry. The crux of my project is the insights of research participants as they read and responded to the six critical incidents and respective follow-up questions I designed for this study. The full interview protocol–approved by ASU’s Internal Review Board in December of 2022–is included in the appendix. Following IRB approval, I recruited four participants for a critical-incident interview, the results of which enliven this handbook’s portrait of thriving with ADHD.