Piers Plowman Passus 3-5

This language in this poem certainly isn't the most enjoyable to read but it's tolerable. The actual events of the story aren't very interesting to me, however the dynamic between the characters is somewhat interesting. The characters seem to disagree with each other based off of what they are (since their names are all nouns). I don't want to say that this makes the story predictable (since I genuinely have no clue what is going to happen next), but this does make it so that none of the interactions between the characters are particularly surprising. For example, in the second passus, Theology opposes the marriage of Mede and False, which makes sense given that a religion typically wouldn't approve of a bribe nor of something that isn't truthful. In the third passus, Conscience rejects Mede, which also makes sense since bribing or paying someone off doesn't align with anything in good conscience. In the fourth passus, they call Wrong a criminal which also isn't shocking. What else could Wrong be but a criminal?

I thought it was also interesting to consider the idea that certain characters dislike each other not for who they are, but for what they are (the idea that they represent). In the fifth passus, Envy says "I am sory...I am but selde other; And that maketh me so mad" (A.5.104-105). Envy is angry that (s)he is seldom anything other than Envy. (S)he doesn't necessarily want to be Envy, but by design, Envy can't be anything other than Envy. It is possible that the characters do not want to be what they are, but they quite literally cannot be anything else. They could be fine as people, yet the idea they represent (and them) will still be disliked. In the case of Envy, for example, (s)he might be disliked since envy is one of the seven deadly sins).