It is hard for me to read a text where the author tells you off the bat that nothing I will be reading is completely concrete. The number of times that Beidler uses the words “it seems”, “we assume”, or “we cannot say” is numerous throughout his account. It frustrated me and made me distrust Beidler in the beginning to know that he did not have anything else to present to us with other then how those have come to “think” of him rather then what they know of him. All that we know are those documents that just so happened to be found. But, then my sense of Beidler changed as I read more into the biographical and historical context section, for one cannot blame him for the lack of solid ground to define Chaucer. I then began to place myself in Beidler’s shoes and admire his perseverance to get to the most accurate account of this mysterious man. Through readings, documents, and historical events occurring at the time, Beidler, I believe, set us up with the most concrete description one can give. He presented the writer with not the modern/easiest read text, the Ellesmere manuscript, but rather took from the most true manuscript around that would have displayed the closest account as if Chaucer himself wrote it, the Hengwrt manuscript. Beidler showed us through historical events at the time, how Chaucer avoided challenging social structure by his lack of reference to those events. Lastly, to sum up my change of heart toward Beidler, I would rather him be as truthful towards me with his “we assumes” and “we cannots says” and “it seems” then for an editor to tell me something was concrete when it was not. I respect his honesty and his determination to unveil the mysterious man of Geoffrey Chaucer in most truthful, unembellished way possible.