Piers Plowman Passus 2

Auden’s analysis of mysteries coincides to my initial opinion of the archetype of a traditional thriller mystery.  He describes the need for a sociopathic murderer, innocent victim, intelligent detective, and  to make sense of chaos and confusion, a victim who garners sympathy from the audience, and a small group of peripheral townspeople who are potential suspects in the crime.  I have enjoyed reading novels by Agatha Christie, Carolyn Keene, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as the plot follows the traditional format.  The end of the novel resolves with a murderer being named and punished, bringing justice to the victim.  The reader’s questions about the sequence of events are answered, which provides closure and satisfaction.  However, after reading Doyle’s “Valley of Fear”, I have learned that the reader is allowed to ask questions and be confused about the logic of the detective, or the legitimacy of testimony or clues provided.  The reader is then able to become an active part of the investigation, generating his or her own opinions before the truth is revealed.

Passus 2 in “Piers Plowman” definitely made me confused.  The reader learns that Mede is marrying Falce.  However, the significance of the marriage, and who Mede is in relation to the narrator Will, is undefined.  However, the lack of clarity in who the characters are contributes to the element of mystery.  The reader becomes more invested in the story, questioning the purpose of the marriage, and how it relates to Will.