Even Numbered Groups...

I thought it was interesting how many of the characters were grouped in even numbers, most prevalently in groups consisting of four members.

There are:
- the Apocalyptic Horsemen: Famine, War, Pollution, and Death
- the Them: Adam, Wensleydale, Pepper, and Brian
- the other 4 Apocalyptic Horsemen: Grievous Bodily Harm, Cruelty to Animals, Really Cool People, and Treading in Dogsh*t (formerly All Foreigners Especially The French, formerly Things Not Working Properly Even When You've Given Them a Good Thumping, never actually No Alcohol Lager, and briefly Embarrassing Personal Problems)
- the 4 Demons: Hastur, Ligur, Crowley, and Beelzebub

In even numbers of groups consisting of two:
- the two witch-hunters: Mr. Shadwell and Newton Pulsifer
- the two witches: Anathema and Agnes Nutter

I'm sure there's many more correlations, but I just thought that 6 would be alot more prevalent in the book, maybe because it has a certain correlation with 666 being the devil's symbol. I just found it odd that 4 was more prevalent instead. But hey, maybe i'm fitting it into my own thoughts, but 4 and 2 makes 6 if added together...

Just food for thought,

- Marjorie D.

Part 3 of My Edited First Blog Post: Quotation

Original Post:
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/08/individual-post-historical.html
Edited Part 1 of Original Post:
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/edited-individual-post-1-historical.html
Edited Part 2 of Original Post:
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-of-my-edited-first-blog-post.html

And now, without further ado, Part 3:

It is not surprising to explore the possibility that Milton's faith was weakening as a result of the dreary events in his life. Milton might have even not believed in God. Maybe religion was never his thing...

Fall'n cherub, to be weak is miserable
Doing or suffering, but of this be sure:
To do aught good will never be our task
But ever to do ill our sole delight
As being the contrary to His high will
Whom we resist (1.157-62).

Milton wrote these lines, and if we continue with the notion that Milton was expressing himself in his poetry as a means of addressing what he wants to say, then these lines represent how much he did not like religion. Religion was obviously a powerful tool in England back then with the Anglican and Protestant churches in disarray. Now, could he have directed those words to the Anglican church? Many saw him as a heretic. Could he have seen the Anglican church's ways of good works in order to get to Heaven, something he could have referred to those lines 157-162? Included in that phrase, the word 'suffering' could be directed to to the Protestant church who believed that faith alone could get them to Heaven? "To do aught good will never be our task" -- could he have referred that to the Anglican church, who believed that good works and faith will get you into Heaven? Did he delight himself in doing ill will by opposing both churches? He most certainly must have, considering he went against them. In order to avoid being persecuted by both the Protestant and the Anglican church, is it possible he could have probably sided with the one whose ideas were less of a threat to him?

Just exploring possible theories... feel free to comment...

- Marjorie D.

Part 2 of My Edited First Blog Post: Quotation

*Note: Most of these questions that I ask beg an answer that I'm not quite sure of yet. Feel free to respond or comment.

The following is the second part of the original blog post I had first created, which can be found in the following link: (http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/08/individual-post-historical.html).
Part 1 of this edited blog post can be found in the following link:
(http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/edited-individual-post-1-historical.html)

This is Part 2:

In Books I and II of Paradise Lost, Satan persuades his fellows with the following lines:

What though the field be lost?
All is not lost: the' unconquerable will
And study of revenge, immortal hate
And courage never to submit or yield --
And what is else not to be overcome (1.105-09)

These lines speak of fortitude and strength and the will to go on, even if the prospects look bleak. As inspiring as these lines are, I wonder if Milton might have ever seen himself in Satan's shoes. In Part 1, I spoke about the troubles of his past. Could Milton have written these lines as some sort of advice, some sort of reassuring words of wisdom that he was sending to himself -- to reassure himself that all is not lost? (He was losing everything he had; his marriage, his position in power with Cromwell, etc.) Could Milton have written those lines as a means of holding on to his faith- the belief that maybe things will turn out in his favor? Many might have claimed that he was a rigid Protestant who believed in his faith, in what the Bible had to say, but what if he was having doubts about his faith? Why else would he have written a book that seems to portray Satan as the protagonist? Satan was once a beautiful angel with the much acclaimed status and power. Milton was once well-to-do. Born to privileges and an education any scholar would have envied him for, then suddenly reduced to the economic throes of man, would he not have likened himself to Satan? If he did endow his sufferings as a part of the "Eternal Providence" of God's plan, would he not have hated it? Would he not have blamed the Almighty and used Paradise Lost as something to avenge his sufferings? Was it a mind game, with the "courage to never submit or yield"? Mentioned earlier, Paradise Lost does seem to portray Satan as the protagonist, and God as the evil tyrant who lacks mercy and forgiveness to those who has wronged Him. Like how Mike K discussed in his blog post: (http://paradisefound2.blogspot.com/2008/09/individual-cpb-entry-1.html),
Milton hated tyranny. Would crying out in pain or moping about and submitting to desperation and suicide allow him to avenge his Maker? Of course not! Has he complained about his sufferings? We'll never know. But let's just say, that doing so would have meant he lost the battle. These five lines, I thought, might have meant him refusing to succumb to the difficulties of his life, and in order to make it easier for him, would find ways to incorporate it into his literary work of Paradise Lost. With "courage never to submit or yield", would voicing these out allow him to hold on to whatever remained of his strength to defy God?

What if his faith was weakening, but he did not want to show it? This will be further expanded in Part 3.

- Marjorie D.

Responses to a Few Confusing Questions in Discussions Throughout the Semester

At one point in class during the semester, we had discussed many key topics; some about the relevancy of the Bible as well as other matters about Paradise Lost. I thought that my perspective could help others understand a little more about these questions. I grew up 10 years in a Christian school, no specific denomination, though, plus 2 years in Catholic Bible study years later. I could be wrong, but I just thought that I'd pass on what I've been taught or the little I know I could possibly answer.

- Who wrote the Bible?
Based on what I've been taught, the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God.

- Did God create evil?
In essence, evil is the absence of good, in the same way, darkness is the absence of light. God did not create evil, but He does allow evil to occur. God allows evil to occur so that free will could be exercised. Without the presence of evil, we all would be serving God not because we want to, but rather because we have to; we would feel an obligation to. God wanted us to love Him freely out of choice. The only way that could be tested is if evil is present.

- If God knew what was going to happen in the future (i.e: Man is going to sin, anyway; Satan is going to rebel), why would He choose to continue with His creation?
Possible theories: God wants to prove His power to others, especially to those who refuse to acknowledge it. The presence of evil allows His followers to remind themselves why they are on His side. People need to find out things for themselves. If people prove themselves wrong, this provides a model for others to follow, so that future generations will not make the same mistake.

- Is God behind everything that happens?
God is not behind everything that happens. It's one of the reasons why temptation exists. God wants you to come to Him, not the other way around. He wants you to find your way amidst all the chaos and materialism of the world so that you can find your way to Him. Your experiences shape who you are. Your faith in Him and your good deeds will be paid off with the reward of everlasting life in Heaven.

- Why doesn't God play a more active role in Paradise Lost?
Milton probably wanted to reason that by God playing it cool, he wants to portray that reason rules the minds of men. Milton probably means to show that God is not easy to understand, and that is why his purpose for writing the epic, is to justify the ways of God to us. Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman confirm this in their book, Good Omens, whenever they mention the ineffable plan. God has a plan for everything, but it is obviously incomprehensible for us to understand, or perhaps, too complicated.

These were just a few questions posed throughout discussions over the semester, questions I wondered about as well, and the answers provided - some were based on my understanding and what I've been taught since I was little, and others were just possible theories. Feel free to add more, or comment on anything that might seem contradicting, confusing, or ineffable. :D

- Marjorie D.

One More Thing...

Here is one more idea before I officially "sign off"...Patti briefly mentioned in class that Milton influenced many leaders of society, in particular, Malcolm X.  While I do know that Milton's good vs. evil discussion that we have also been partaking in is shared by Malcolm X, I am not sure of what else.  I thoroughly searched on YouTube and articles pertaining to "Malcolm X and John Milton" but was led to somewhat of a dead end.  Is the only relationship good vs. evil?  I know there is definitely some evidence out there supporting this claim, but I seem to be missing it.  Has anyone else found this?  I think this is definitely a topic worth looking into...

Kellie M.

Reaction to assignments this semester:

Looking back on my reactions towards the first three books of Paradise Lost, this comes as a surprise to me, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading Paradise Lost this semester.  After getting used to John Milton's style of writing and diligently working to understand the meanings behind his epic poem, I feel accomplished as well as enriched.  Certainly I could read Paradise Lost countless times again for deeper understanding, but for now, I feel as though I've gotten a lot of of it my first time through.  The discussions in class, as well as through the Common Place Blog furthered my understanding and interests.  In all honesty, however, I wish that the CPB was more of a short reaction or question towards a particular passage, rather than lengthy analyses of certain areas of the poem.  I do understand the idea behind such assignments, but I feel I could have gotten more out of the CPB had it been more of a place for class discussions and such.  Perhaps that is the nature of the blog though...I suppose we made of it what we wanted at the time and had I wanted to post a quick question or response, I easily could have.  I feel as though I didn't entirely understand the assignment through out most of the semester.  I was hesitant about posting little things so that it did not count as one of my posts, but I understand now that that is not really the nature of the blog.

I did like that I could access my group as well as class' discussions at any time, helping me to better understand the material of this course.  I also enjoyed Good Omens and the direct relationship between it and Paradise Lost, something we all spent the majority of the semester working through.  What do you guys think? - CPB: To be, or not to be?

Kellie M.

In Response to Marjorie's Latest Post:

I agree...Milton does not seem to do God justice in Paradise Lost.  But isn't that his "shtick", if you will?  We know for certain that Milton is not your most devout Christian.  In fact, he is often considered a heretic, so isn't it only natural for him to portray God as somewhat "overrated"?  On the other hand, we have repeatedly learned that Milton's purpose is to "justify the ways of God to man".  Perhaps Milton is using some sort of 'null hypothesis' here in which he attempts to disprove the opposite in order to prove was he actually believes.  In other words, maybe Milton is trying to prove his feelings towards God's inadequacy by poorly attempting to show His greatness, therefore proving his "less that almighty" status. 

It is becoming more and more evident that Milton is a man I may never understand...

Kellie M.

Adam and Eve in modern music

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/n/nina+simone/forbidden+fruit_20100591.html

This is a song by Nina Simone called Forbidden Fruit...I think you can probably guess what it's about.  It's basically a summary of Adam and Eve - thought you guys might want to hear it!

Kellie M.

In Defense of Satan...

The following post is in response to Sheryl’s blog: (http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/response-to-perfection.html).

In my response and summary of Kenneth Gross’s “From Satan and the Romantic Satan”, I did make the claim that Satan is a lot more interesting and appealing than God, because Milton seems to display Satan as the only “character with a voice, mind, or attitude most clearly”. (Gross 421-422). (http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/kenneth-gross-from-satan-and-romantic.html). Yes, Satan’s shortcomings, the intricacy of the way his mind works, how he thinks, his thought processes, his wiles and beguiles, his prowess, his faults, his actions -- all these make Satan so much more interesting than the God, Milton portrays. The line “Perfection is boring” was merely meant to EMPHASIZE the idea that I think that Satan is alot more appealing than any other character in Paradise Lost, particularly his counterself, God. God knows everything, and His decisions seem to be ineffable, but with the way, Milton describes God, I feel that He is just another political entity. I do realize that God is more than just “a one-dimensional character” as Sheryl puts it, but I find the idea of God allowing His Son and his other angels to do the dirty work, not up to par with my expectations of who He is and what He should represent. He sends His Son, among other things, to create Earth (Book IV), lead his army to fight the battle against Satan (as described by Raphael in Book VI), and Michael to carry out Adam and Eve’s sentence when they sinned (Book X). In the Book of Genesis, the voice of God is heard through the Garden, and God speaks them, but this is a contrast to Milton’s version, where he sends his archangel Michael to do his bidding. This certainly does put a spin on it, but regardless, I can’t help but question why Milton does not portray God with a more active role. Because God plays a much less active role than Satan, my perception of Him in Paradise Lost is not as up to par as how I've always viewed Him to be in real life.

I guess alot of my decision is based on how I like to root for the underdog, regardless of whether I believe in it or not, but, like beauty, perception is in the eye of the beholder.

- Marjorie D.

Response to Sheryl's "Apples...again" post:

"And there was never an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it"...

I also thought this quote was very interesting in Good Omens.  I think this quote is very symbolic towards Paradise Lost as well as in Good Omens.  It reminded me of the commonly used response "was it worth it?" when you get into some sort of trouble.  While Good Omens does make light of the fact that Adam seems to think that it's always worth it, it also demonstrates the temptation that is Eve. The apple obviously symbolizes the actual fall of man, and subsequent "falls" that follow.  However, it also represents Eve.  Adam gives in to evil only because Eve begs him to after she ate from the tree.  Apparently Eve was worth it to Adam.  Perhaps the apple, that is Eve, is always worth it to Adam because he gets such joy in "eating" it.  Eve completed Adam's life, granting him happiness and love.  So maybe love is the underlying theme in this quotation.  Perhaps love, according to Good Omens, is always worth getting into trouble for.  Love conquers all, right?  

I'm kind of just working through my thoughts here with this one...what do you guys think? 

Kellie M.

Response to Sheryl's

Lost In Translation

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/paradise-lost-in-prose/

This is a link to the New York Times article about Paradise Lost that Patti emailed to us today.  In short, a man by the name of Dennis Danielson is translating Paradise Lost into a more understandable version of English.  His new book will have John Milton's original words on one side of the book with his newly translated version on the other.  While this option is better than my original thought of it being a completely new version, I still am against the making of it. The beauty of Milton's epic poem is in his delivery of it.  As I began Paradise Lost, I was frustrated because I didn't understand the meaning or purpose behind it.  As I've said in previous posts, it took me about three or four books to understand what was happening in Paradise Lost.  But the more I read, the more I understand, and the more I appreciated Milton for his mysterious contradicting lines in his epic poem.  The fact that Paradise Lost can be read undoubtedly at least five or six times and still not yet be fully understood adds to its tremendous depth.  If Paradise Lost was merely put in simple terms, it would take away from its ability to leave the reader feeling conflicted.  As stated in the New York Times article, Milton uses contradicting words like "fondly" meaning foolishly and affectionately, where Danielson uses "infatuated fool" to describe Adam.

So while the translated Paradise Lost will allow readers of all educational backgrounds to simply read John Milton's Paradise Lost, it will prohibit the understanding and true appreciation for the epic poem in its truest form.

Kellie M.

Good vs. Evil in everyday world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOM1k4oLGJU

This is a Nike 'Just Do It' commercial.  Not only is it titled, 'Good vs. Evil', it is an obvious representation of the discussion we have been having within our group.  The classic 'good' symbols are represented through the teams white jerseys in contrast to the 'evil' teams dark and scary appearance.  The evil team seems to be playing unfairly as they are head-budding, a clear violation of the rules of the game, and the goalie's wings outstretch the length of the goal.  However, a sign of hope appears at the end as the good team prevails.

This commercial is a very clear representation of good and evil.  I am aware of the fact that it might not aid in answering our apparently unanswerable questions between good and evil, however, it allows us to visualize a possible fight between Heaven and Hell in Paradise Lost.  It also shows how 'Good vs. Evil' is a constant, never ending discussion, as we are talking about it hundreds of years later.

Maybe Nike, in some convoluted way, is putting out a declaration of the remaining existence of good in today's society. ...or maybe it is simply an advertiser's way of making us want to buy their product.  My guess is both...feel free to comment!

Kellie M.

Revision of first post

This is a revision of my first post on Paradise Lost.  To see the original post, please visit http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

I distinctly remember feeling absolute confusion while beginning Paradise Lost.  I also remember sitting in my dining room at home the second weekend of school desperately trying to understand Milton's language and compose a "blog post", something I was completely unfamiliar with at the time.  As I began to understand Paradise Lost about three or four books into it, I was able to reflect on my original interpretations of the epic poem and understand what actually had happened, something I did not understand while reading the beginning of Paradise Lost.  

However, in rereading my original post, surprisingly most of my reactions still remain towards the quote in Book 2, lines 622-624.  I still feel that same daunting, depressing feeling after reading, "A universe of death which God by curse / Created evil, for evil only good, / Where all life dies, death lives, and nature breeds" (2, 6220624).  But after an entire semester of reading and analyzing Milton in Paradise Lost, I am able to take another look at this quote.  Perhaps it is meant to be read as "...which God by curse created evil / for evil only good, where all life dies..."  In other words, maybe Milton is trying to say that God created evil by curse, for evil is only good in a place where all life dies (Hell), also known as a place where death lives. 

 This relates to our group's ongoing discussion of Heaven and Hell.  Evil is considered bad in Heaven, but considered good in Hell.  Ipso facto, good in Hell is considered doing bad in Heaven.  However, if you do "good" in Hell [evil], then shouldn't that be condemned because you are in Hell for doing bad.  Evil should be considered bad in Hell because the goal of the demons in Hell is to do bad...or good for that matter.  This seems to be getting too confusing - To sum it all up, good in Heaven is bad in Hell, where good in Hell is bad in Heaven.  So which is actually better - to do good in Heaven or to do good in Hell?  I guess it depends on who you're talking to...

Kellie M.

More on Good and Evil

If you have been following this blog, you may have noticed that several of us have talked about Heaven & Hell, and which one is the better one. While none of us have really come up with a concrete answer (I don't think there really is one), I wold like to expand that subject in another direction: Good and Evil.

Reading through Paradise Lost, one knows that there is a battle between good and evil, but which is which? Satan at the beginning seems "good" to the reader, and God for once seems almost "evil" in his actions. But then as the poem continues the roles switch to the more expected views. Earlier in the semester our group was responsible for analyzing other publications of John Milton, and one quote still sticks out to me:

"Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of god is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned" ( from Areopagitica)

Our group established that one must be exposed to both forces in order for free will to function in a productive way (that is to make the correct decisions). But these forces are "interwoven" in a way that ensures that in order for one to exist, the other too must exist. We see this in Paradise Lost, most notably during the fall and the eating of the apple. In order for either Adam or Eve to choose good (obeying God) or evil (disobeying), they had to be exposed to both. We reasoned in class that this could be Gods reason for not intervening. Furthermore I believe that it is important to think about how paradise is filled with good, but still allows evil in. This makes me wonder if evil is really as bad as we make it out to be.

As I read through Good Omens I noticed a similar feeling to keep both good and evil, and found a couple quotes to support this. The first one occurs when the Them are discussing plans to change the world and to possibly get rid of their gang rivals.

"'What your all sayin',' he summed up, in his best chairman tones, 'is that it wouldn't be any good at all if the Greasy Johnsonites beat the Them or the other way round?'

'Thats right,' said Pepper.'Because,' she added,'if we beat them, we'd have to be our own deadly enemies'" (p.317)

The case of survival comes into play here. For the Them (which believe they are good so we will assume this) the survival of the Johnsonites (therefore evil) is crucial because without them there would be no rivalry. They would have no one to fight, no one to challenge themselves to. It would lead to an inward destruction. The same goes for Heaven & Hell, Good & Evil. Without each other thee would be no opponents, and they would be left fighting each other, most likely leading to destruction by their own people.

My next reference comes a bit later, when everyone is at the air base, and Adam is deciding whether to end the world or not.

But even if you win, you can't really beat the other side, because you don't really want to. I mean, not for good." (p.362)

The first question that popped into my head after reading this was: Why didn't God just destroy the fallen angels when they originally rebelled? Why allow them to survive? I believe this quote sums it up quite nicely. Essentially, God has to have an opposing force, and this leads him to hold back when he battles the angels. In this way he beats them in that battle and sends them to Hell; but God still allows the angels to survive so that he has an enemy. The same goes for Good ad Evil- one side cant truly win, because then there wouldn't be any opponents, no sides to chose, no point to free will.

I see that my post is becoming quite long,so I apologize for the length. However I thought that this concept was pretty interesting, and I hope the rest of you do too. As always, feel free to comment or disagree.

Rebecca R.

The Expulsion from Eden

http://www.pitt.edu/~ulin/Paradise/images/PL12b.jpg

If you click on the above link, you will find William Blake's painting depicting the scene from Book Twelve of Paradise Lost, when Adam and Eve are led out of paradise by the Angel Michael.

I have already written an entire paper on the painting done by Blake that depicts the Eve's temptation by the serpent, but as I was doing further research into Blake's works, this particular painting also caught my eye. Perhaps it is Blake's use of vibrant colors that initially draw me to the painting, but it is the arrangement of the the figures and the extreme detail that keep me staring.

Blake illustrates what appears to me to be the face of God several times through the upper portion of the painting. This entire portion of the painting is also done in oranges and reds, which I automatically associate with fire. When I see this, I feel that Blake is making you feel that God is either metaphorically of literally burning paradise since Adam and Eve can no longer dwell there. It seems as though Blake is further driving in the point that Adam and Eve will never be able to return to paradise again because it has been thoroughly destroyed.

Another thing about the painting that draws my attention is the way that Adam and Eve are looking to the serpent on the ground as they are led out of Eden. Both Adam and Eve have their arms raised as though they are questioning the serpent, who is now forced to move on on his belly. They do not seem angry really, just unsure of why the serpent would cause them all this trouble. Furthermore, the way the serpent's tongue flares back at Adam makes me think that the serpent is kind of rubbing it in that even though he has not been entirely victorious, he still feels that he has defeated man in some way.

Lastly, I would like to point out the line of thorns that Adam and Eve must cross when they leave paradise. I feel that the thorns are Blake's final symbol of the fact that Adam and Eve are leaving paradise forever, and the path ahead is not going to be an easy one.

-Sheryl W

Apples....Again

I personally loved Good Omens. This could have been due to the fact that it was full of hilarious references to the unending fallacies of man, or perhaps the fact that I understood the Paradise Lost references since I have studied it so intensely this semester. Either way, I found Good Omens to be a breath of fresh air after months of Milton's hard to decipher poetry.

There were numerous quotes from Good Omens that stick out in my mind, but one that is particularly humorous and thought-provoking to me comes right at the end of the novel. The quote goes, "And there was never an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it."

To me, this quote pretty much sums up the views of the Adams of both Good Omens as well as Paradise lost. Of course, the Good Omens' Adam was being slightly more simplistic in his use of the apple, mostly referring the fact that he found apples particularly delicious, but I thought the quote was a hilarious spoof of the way the biblical Adam of Paradise Lost eventually feels about his eating of the forbidden apple as well.

Although initially feeling that he had committed the most terrible mistake he ever could have, the Adam of Paradise Lost eventually comes to see, with some help from the Angel Michael, that his eating of the apple will make a new Paradise in time. This Adam may not have made any remarks concerning the taste of the apple, but he does see that bad decisions do not always lead to the most awful consequences.

All in all, the list of connections between the Adam's could go on for a very long time, but for now, I will stop making comparisons and leave you thinking about one question. What you would do for an apple?

-Sheryl W

Edited Original Post: Historical Information

This is a revision of my original post which lacked connections to the text and can be found at: http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/08/individual-post-historical-information.html

As we have established in class, John Milton's life was encompassed by a world filled with politics and religion. Milton lived through four different rulers, a civil war, and the death of some close relatives(supported by Marjorie D.). It is unthinkable to assume that such events play only a minor role in his career as a writer. While reading Paradise Lost, it is important to remember these influences, but also to grasp a better understanding of them.

Living through multiple rulers ad a civil war, John Milton was given ample opportunity to form an opinion on authority. During the rule of King Charles, Charles aimed to unite England Scotland and Ireland into one kingdom. When Parliament advised against such actions, Charles dissolved parliament. This is a clear case of authoritative rule and as a class we have seen multiple examples of Milton resisting such governments. From the beginning the reader sees support for overthrowing a superior power as they listen to Satan’s speeches. (Books 1&2) Milton shows further support for abolishing absolute rule with the set up of a democratic meeting in Book 2.

As political issues began to work themselves out in England, religious views introduced more contempt, and gave way to the Civil War. This war was fought between King Charles (with his Royalist supporters) and Parliament (the Roundheads). Milton’s Paradise Lost obviously stems off of religious background; and I feel that he tries to portray the Civil War in bits of his book. Milton parallels Satan’s role as leader of the revolting angels to that of Oliver Cromwell in opposition to King Charles. Oliver Cromwell started off with a powerful role in Parliament, just as Satan started off with a high status in Heaven. (5.811-12) Once King Charles was defeated and beheaded in 1649 Cromwell became the Lord Protector. Much Like Cromwell, Satan immediately took advantage of a position of power after the fall. (2.451-6)

Milton however was not trying to express rebellion of the church, for he was a very devout Protestant. Milton however sets up the hierarchy of his Heaven with that of England. And Milton, while showing support of revolution for a cause, does not fully reject God’s authoritative power. Milton keeps God as the all-powerful leader; one of the few differences between his real life and the poem.

These are just a few examples of how Milton pulls his real life experiences into his epic poem. And even though freedom of press wasn’t as widely practiced (in fact Milton had to go into hiding around 1659) Milton still published the first version of Paradise Lost in 1667.

** background information taken from class and can also be found at: http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/english/

Rebecca R.

An In-Between Exists...

Rebecca mentions an interesting statement from Crowley in her blog post:
“For angels, there are no in-between, you were either in Heaven or in Hell.” - Crowley
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-omens-character-crowley-similar-to.html

Why can’t there be an in-between? I don’t think Crowley was right in saying that for angels, there is no such thing. Better yet, I think Crowley has yet to realize that there is an in-between, and that he, Aziraphale, and like-minded angels and demons and humans, make up this in-between. This in-between is context-dependent where I feel it is a state of mind, where one cannot be classified as entirely good or entirely evil, but is rather in a state in between the two.

Crowley and Aziraphale have lived long enough on Earth, that they have become like humans, in some way - not entirely good and not entirely evil either -. For example, Crowley still has his devilish fun when he turns the men’s paintball guns into actual real guns with lead bullets while they were at the Manor. But he grants them miraculous escapes. Not everyone can amazingly and miraculously dodge lead bullets and expect to be unharmed. A kind of intervention has to take place, and this is where Crowley comes in to make sure that no one is fatally harmed in the process. (107). “Underneath it all, Crowley was an optimist.” (304) He believed that he will come out on top, even with Hell chasing after him and Heaven looking down upon him. Crowley, a devil, is in the in-between. He is neither good nor evil. Even further, Aziraphale acknowledges that Crowley, despite being a demon, still has some measure of the innate goodness from which he once was.
He [Aziraphale] smiled at Crowley.
“I’d just like to say,” he said, “if we don’t get out of this, that... I’ll have known, deep down inside, that there was a spark of goodness in you.” (370)

Aziraphale knows that there is some spark of goodness in Crowley, and that the choices he chooses to make, stem from both areas of good and evil. It cannot be simplified or categorized to a person being either good or evil.
The same goes, vice versa. For Aziraphale, Crowley confirms how he isn’t all good either, despite being an angel.
“Just remember I’ll have known that, deep down inside, you [Aziraphale] were just enough of a bastard to be worth liking.” (371)

Obviously, Crowley is able to bond with Aziraphale, perhaps on the basis of him being the only other being around for millions of years, but also, maybe because he sees a definite not-so-good-quality about Aziraphale, where is able to find a connection with.

This all comes down to that no one, no matter what side they are from, each innately possesses a sure and certain amount of evil and good.

I think the same goes in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Satan, despite choosing evil, still questions his purpose in choosing evil. In Book IV, as he sees Paradise and witnesses Eve and Adam’s happiness, he doubts whether the path he’s chosen was the right thing to do. He has to constantly remind himself that he’s chosen evil and that there is no turning back. This means that he still possessed an innate goodness in him, that he dispels and refuses to acknowledge.
In a strong sense of fideism as Kenneth Gross uses the term, everyone, humans, devils, and angels, possess the free will to choose a path, good or evil, for themselves, regardless if others consider them to be on Heaven’s side (good) or Hell’s side, which is evil.

This leads me to believe that Crowley and Aziraphale are neither good nor evil. Humans can’t also be classified as either one. Therefore, they and others who think like them, are the in-betweens.

Feel free to comment!

- Marjorie D.

Pratchett, Terry and Neil Gaiman. Good Omens. New York: Harper Torch, 1990

A Different Take on Paradise Lost

While browsing through you-tube, i came across a little skit based on Paradise Lost. I can't seem to get the video to embed, but you can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jE2FgIkGlE&feature=related.

Initially, as I watched this video, I took it as little more than a general representation of the basics of Paradise Lost. But as I watched for a second time, I started to like it more. Besides the fact that the little clay people are just plain cute, I liked the simplicity of the video. Milton uses complex language to get his ideas across, and the symbols that he has strewn throughout the poem sometimes take several readings to even notice. Although the video only tackles a small part of the poem, mainly the creation and fall of man, I thought that the creator of the video did an excellent job breaking down the basic emotions provoked within Paradise Lost, and representing them in a way that is easy for nearly anyone to understand. Overall, I'm sure this video was made only for entertainment purposes, but as a reader of Paradise Lost, it was nice for someone to make Milton simple for once.

-Sheryl W

Expansion of "Good Omen's Quote Confusion"

As I continued to read through Good Omens, I stumbled across a couple quotes that I felt strengthened  the posts of Kellie and I. For anyone wanting to revisit these posts here are the links:

Kellie's original post:

http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-omens-quote-confusion.html

My response post:

http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-response-to-kellys-post-good-omens.html

After Aziraphale finds Agnes Nutter's book, he sits down and reads it to discover he knows the location of the Antichrist. Aziraphale struggles between  who he should tell, Crowley or Heaven.

He ought to tell Crowley.

No, he didn't. He wanted to tell Crowley. He ought to tell Heaven.

He was an angel, after all. You had to do the right thing. It was built in. (p.240)

As we discussed in class, Aziraphale and Crowley have a sort of friendship growing because they both have been around for so long. And this connection that they have gets in the way of what they should do and what they want to do. For Aziraphale, telling Crowley seems natural(especialy since they were both working to find the Antichrist); but telling Heaven is what he knows is right. This idea of what is right is what pulls at Aziraphale, and he gives in to this "built in" part of himself. He almost has no control over it, telling Heaven seems so automatic that Aziraphale doesnt even have enough time to warn Crowley of Heaven's plans.

It is here where Aziraphale rely's n the natural way of things. That is, the common belief that Heaven is good and Hell is Bad. He says:

because everyone knew Heaven would win in the end, and Crowley would be able to understand. (p.240)

This once again sets the ground of what should and will be done. The fact that everyone "knew"

heaven would win shows the automatic nature of the results of such a  battle. It doesn't even require thinking, because who would doubt such a result? Its all a matter of what is "built in."

Rebecca R.

"Remembering" the Future

““Its memory, you see.” Said Anathema. “It works backward as well as forwards. Racial memory, I mean.”

            Newt gave her a polite but blank look.

        “What I’m trying to say,” she said patiently, “is that Agnes didn’t see the future. That’s just a metaphor. She remembered it.”” (Good Omens, p.225)

This quote got me thinking about God in Paradise Lost. More specifically, I started thinking about how He reacts to the fall. We know that God knows what’s going to happen in both the future, and what has already happened in the past. In book 3, we see that God is well aware that Satan is heading towards Earth I order to try to deceive man and ruin God’s plan. However, God does nothing, and allows Satan to continue with his plan. I wonder if this is because God could be “remembering” a memory, and that is why he knows what is going to happen. It makes me wonder if God knows everything in the future because he is “remembering” all of these memories, and for him to intervene would have too much of a drastic change on the world.

Where would we be without the fall? Still living in a happy paradise? Would we still be oblivious to harmful things? And what would test our loyalty to Him? We have discussed over and over again that Milton used Paradise Lost to “explain the works of God to man.” But I think there is no explaining. How can one fathom an explanation of God’s actions. Why God didn’t intervene when he had the chance is just as much of a mystery as how our lives would be had Satan not tempted Eve. I think this could be because he is simply looking back on time while the rest of us are going forward.

            I am not elevating Agnes Nutter to the status of God, I just feel that her way of prophesizing is similar to Gods, that is if she is remembering an event. For her, she seems to have written down events, and while they aren’t in a concrete order, they are very accurate. For her to be “remembering” memories seems quite odd, but then again she seemed odd for her time anyway. Is this because maybe she didn’t fit in with that time period? The idea of her remembering events seems to mean that she was more suited for a later time period, one where people already knew what happened.

            I guess it’s just a little strange for me to think of memory working forwards. I always knew that when you have a memory your recalling information, but to have a memory predicting events seems odd, and definitely uncommon. But I also would like to add that this helps me put together a reason for God knowing about the fall. I believe that He could have been “remembering” the future in a way that the rest of the world couldn’t.

 

Rebecca R.

Adam and Newt: both overwhelmed by a woman's beauty

  When Newt gets into an accident in Good Omens, he is brought to Jasmine cottage where he wakes up to Anathema watching over him. As the two of them interact, Newt refers to her beauty and the fact that she’s a woman multiple times. He tells the reader of her physical features and scent of perfume (p.210;217) As Newt listens to Anathema about the prophecies, he begins to wonder if any of this is real, and how Agnes Nutter could have predicted these events. The only thing he seemed sure of was that he “was in a room with a very attractive woman” and “I short, whatever Newt was now thinking with, it wasn’t his brain.” (p.228)

This idea that he wasn’t thinking with his brain reminded me of Adam in Paradise Lost. Over and Over again, the reader sees Adam in awe of Eve’s beauty, and much like Newt, not thinking with his brain. One instance occurs as Raphael visits. Adam proclaims to Raphael:

Her loveliness so absolute she seems

And In herself complete so well to know

Her own that what she wills to do or say

Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, est.

All higher knowledge in her presence falls

Degraded. Wisdom in discurse with her

Loses discount’nanced and like folly show

Authority and Reason on her wait. (8. 547-54)

Both Newt and Adam seem to disregard their orders, as they become overwhelmed by the beauty of these women. For Newt, he was supposed to be a witchhunter. Fr him to wake up in a witch’s house, and sit down with her, only to be mesmerized by the physical appearance of Anathema. For Adam, he becomes so overwhelmed by Eve’s appearance that it actually brings upon his fall. Adam is so obsessed with Eve that he is willing to eat the fruit because “all higher knowledge in her presence falls”(8.551)Adam disobeys God’s rules, because he loses all ability to reason when Eve is around him.

  I know how Adam ends up, Eve’s beauty still an overwhelming force after the fall. Adam, after being upset, still praises Eve’s beauty. I’m not sure how Newt ends up, but I think it will be interesting to see if he disobeys because of Anathema’s beauty.

 

Rebecca R.

A Response to Perfection

This post is in response to Marjorie’s post that summarized and commented on Kenneth Gross’ "From Satan and the Romantic Satan: A Notebook" (http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/kenneth-gross-from-satan-and-romantic.html).

In Marjorie's post, she makes the claim that "perfection is boring!!!" This may indeed be a very true statement, but I am not sure that I agree with the context that it is being used in. Marjorie is making the claim that Satan is an exciting and relatable character because of his shortcomings, and that God is not as exciting because he is perfect. Now I could be wrong in my assessment, but I don't think that God is less exciting due to the fact that he knows everything. In fact, I sometimes find that I am more intrigued by God's knowledge of the future, and the way that he generally seems to make things look as though they are just happening, when the reader is aware that God is actually responsible for everything that happens in the universe. Perhaps it's just me, but I always feel that there is a lot more involved in God's decision making than is let on, and it's the readers job to not just take the text as literal, but instead make our own inferences.

I will leave it up to you to decide if God is simply a one-dimensional character who can go without little analysis, or if he is actually just as complex as Satan.

-Sheryl W

Revision on first post

This post is a revision of the first post that I made on this blog. If you would like to see the first post you can find it at http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/08/individual-post-historical_31.html

As a reader of Paradise Lost, I am very troubled by the fact that Satan's supposed followers are not initially united in their thoughts. Without a united front, I find it hard to believe that Satan actually thought that he and his followers stood any chance against such a foe as God.. Satan biggest concern is obviously making sure that he somehow gets revenge against God, which for him means that another battle with Heaven is imminent. Satan did his best to convince his followers that the war in Heaven had not been lost, and he makes this point very clear right from the beginning of the debate that takes place in Pandemonium.

"Powers and Dominions, Deitites of Heav'n,
For since no deep within her gulf can hold
Immortal vigour, though opprest and fall'n,
I give not Heav'n for lost." (Book II. 11-14)

The next to speak is the angel Moloch, a fierce warrior. He does share Satan's sentiments in that he is pushing for another war, but his motivations differ from those of Satan. Moloch feels that he and the other angels must go to war with Heaven again because nothing could be worse than Hell.

"What can be worse
Than to dwell here, driv'n out from bliss, condemn'd
In this abhorred deep to utter woe;" (Book II. 85-87)

For me, the most troubling argument comes from the angel Belial, known for his great wisdom and intelligence. Belial takes a very different approach to looking at the situation that these angels find themselves in. Unlike Moloch, Belial does not feel that God has punished them to the extent that he could have, and war is not the solution. Belial is optimistic enough to believe that there is a chance that God may even forgive them someday.

"Shall we then live thus vile, the race of Heav'n
Thus trampl'd, thus expelled to suffer here
Chains and torments? better these than worse
By my advice; since fate inevitable
Subdues us, and Omnipotent Decree,
The Victor's will." (Book II. 194-199)

Overall, without definite agreement between all of the angels involved in the conquest, I see little hope that they could overcome the almighty ruler.

-Sheryl W

In Response to Kelly's post "Good Omen's Quote Confusion"

A reminder of the quote: "You couldn't be a demon and have free will"(23)

I think what this quote is trying to say is that demons are confined to acting a certain way.  As the book progresses Crowley and Aziraphale constantly remind each other that they have to act a certain way because they're a demon or an angel. For example, when they stop and pick up the girl, Anathema, Aziraphale automatically starts to fix the bike, and heal the girl. This was because "Aziraphale couldn't resist an opportunity to do good."(92) Its in his nature, and is what is expected of him. Nowhere is he told that he must fix the girl's bike, but rather it is assumed that he will do an act of good because he is n angel. Therefore his free will is limited. On the other hand Crowley is expected t act in evil ways, because after all he is a demon. For example, when Crowley makes the paintball guns into real guns, Aziraphale is shocked, but to Crowley its just something in his nature. It is expected that he will instigate bad behavior. Crowley's reasoning for all of his actions is "Because its my job."(110) He is not told directly to change the guns, it is just expected of him, therefore limiting his free will.

So how does this connect with Paradise Lost? Well, if you recall Satan gets to earth and starts to second guess himself. He sees all of the wonderful things on earth and begins to regret the rebellion. (the beginning of Book 4) But he convinces himself that"which way I fly is Hell, myself am Hell" and "all good to me is lost./Evil, be thou my good" (4.75;109-110) For Satan, the other fallen angels are expecting him to complete his mission. He is now one of them, and their expectation limits his choices and free will. He must conform to the image of himself that he has created. Satan can't just go around in Hell proclaiming revenge, and then not do it because he gets discouraged when he sees earth. For Satan, it is supposed to be in his nature to do bad, and this expectation limits him.

This is simply my take on the subject, feel free to disagree.

Rebecca R.

Good Omens Quote Confusion

"You couldn't be a demon and have free will" (23).

I read this passage, in response to my previous post of the "unanswerable question: Heaven or Hell?", at least five times, making sure I was reading it correctly.  I'm still a little confused.  God grants his angels free will and it it with this power that they are able to sin and be banned to Hell.  Is free will then taken away from them?  Satan is still able to make his own decisions in Paradise Lost, so I do not think this is the case.  And regarding modern day "demons", ie. thieves, murderers, criminals, don't they have the power to choose good or evil?  The narrator is right in saying, "There was no getting out of it" (23) because as I have said before, choosing Heaven or Hell is a grey area.  However, is he correct in stating that demons do not have free will?  Or perhaps he is saying you couldn't possibly be a demon if you had free will.  This is the same as saying you couldn't choose good and evil if you were a demon but in a different way.  Any way I word it, it seems to have the same contradictory meaning.  What do you guys think?

Kellie M.

Response to Rebecca's Crowley Post:

It took me at least three Books of Paradise Lost to begin to understand remotely what John Milton was trying to say.  After that, however, I began to read Paradise Lost in a way unique to such an epic poem and have become accustomed to that style of writing.  As I began reading Good Omens, the same feelings of confusion and frustration from Paradise Lost came rushing back to me.  Good Omens is supposed to be a "much easier read", so I am confident that such confusion is simply a style transition, rather than an inability to understand Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's spinoff of Paradise Lost.

Much like Rebecca, I too was reminded of Paradise Lost and the battle of "which is the lesser of two evils?" when I read the passage on page 23 of Good Omens.  Right before this debate within himself, the narrator describes Crowley thumping the wheel and taking on a sort of "when it rains, it pours" outlook on life.  Apparently things had been going so well for Crowley, and now all of a sudden, the world is apparently ending.  As I read this, I was immediately reminded of my time here at Uconn, only a month ago.  I feel as though we, as college students, can more easily relate to Good Omens in comparison with Paradise Lost because of its satirist irony and ability to mock such a serious topic.  At times we all have felt like we were on top of the world...livin' the dream, and then suddenly we are told that Armageddon is going to happen a week from today.  (I say 'we all' in hopes of reassuring myself that I am not alone on this one...you've got a major psych exam the next morning, you are deciding whether or not to continue something in your life that could potentially change your college career, and your boyfriend comes to break up with you at 11 pm...)

So the question remains; Heaven or Hell: which one is worse?   On a side note, the fact that the authors put in, "You couldn't get a decent drink in either of them, for a start" (23), incorporates the idea of making Good Omens something that we can enjoy because of it's laid back style.

In my opinion, the answer to this question is entirely context dependent.  If you have a more rebellious attitude towards life, Heaven of course, is not the place for you.  And on the other hand, if you are one who likes to follow rules and structure, Hell should not be your goal.  Of course, this is not a black-or-white topic.  Most people fall in the middle, making this an unanswerable question...

Kellie M.

Good Omens Character Crowley similar to Satan

As I began reading Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, I was releived that it didn't contain "books" that i would have to read through twice in order to mildly understand. It became a smoother read for me as as i continued through the book I came across a paragraph that seemed strikingly familiar to Paradise Lost:

"no more world. Just endless Heaven, or depending who won, endless Hell. Crowley didn't know which was worse. Well, Hell was worse of course, by definition. But Crowley remembered what Heaven was like, and it had quite a few things in common with Hell. You couldn't get a decent drink in either of them, for a start. And the boredom you got in Heaven was almost as bad as the excitement you got in Hell. But there was no getting out of it." (p.23)

I am not sure if anyone else picked up on this, but the first thing that popped into my head was Satan saying " Better to reign in Hell then serve in Heaven!"(1.263) While Satan had originally looked around him and saw how horrible Hell was, he seemed doomed. But then he trned it around and assumed the position of leader, claiming it was better for him to have power in Hell the to live in servitude in Heaven.

For Crowley, he has mixed emotions. He knows that Hell is supposed to be worse then Heaven, but he can't say that he was completely satisfied in Heaven. And he has been to both extremes, one too boring for him, the other with a bit too much excitement. While he was torn between which one was better- he did have one thing right- for angels there was no in-between, you were either in Heaven or in Hell. Feel free to chose the lesser of two evils.

So the question still remains, and I ask it to you: Is it better to be in Heaven, or Hell? Let me know, because I'm with Crowley on this one- I don't know which one is better.

Rebecca R.

Edited Individual Post 1: Historical Information

I've found my original post and had accidentally replaced it with this early in the semester. I've corrected my mistake, so here is the link to the original post, of which this is the revision of:
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html

Challenging life experiences, in many ways, help shape our thoughts and ideas and how we act around society today. Be it in the tumultuous and bitter parts of an ugly past or from the small traces of happiness from overcoming our obstacles, our experiences contribute to the very mind and soul that represents the best of us.
Great minds seem to be interconnected very strongly with these harsh encounters. To name a few, Edgar Allen Poe, Emily Dickinson, and John Milton seem to be just a some of the many whose works show a very strong correlation, not from what they learned and knew, but with what they went through.

John Milton, more specifically what this blog is all about, endured turbulent times, many which spanned over the course of his lifetime. Milton went through a difficult period of instability in his country, (among a few of the details mentioned in class today). He's endured the turbulent times of politics, war, and religion during the English civil war and the likes of the tyranny of Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, and Charles II's reign, not to mention the deaths of two wives as well as two of his five children. He's found himself blind at the age of 44 with three children to raise, including trying to avoid being captured from Parliament for some time before his name could be cleared. He's lived through the financial distresses of England's economy and the Great Fire of London. (1)

Despite all these challenging experiences, Milton was able to produce such astounding literary works. More specifically, Paradise Lost, perhaps his greatest work of all and written in 1667, was written after the rebellion when Milton worked for Oliver Cromwell. (2) Could it be possible that the failed rebellion caused him to write about Paradise Lost? Could he have seen himself in Satan's shoes when his cause was lost? Perhaps he could have seen his and Cromwell's vision for the future, as some sort of Paradise, that had gone awry?

This connection shows a strong correlation with Milton's mind and his works. This leads me to believe in theory that perhaps matters of a dark substance, be it in life events, force minds to reach deeply into one's soul and procure the very thing of which great ideas may have originated from.

Citations:

(1) Biography was summarized from: Lewalski’, Barbara K., “The Life of John Milton”. London 2000, which can be found in the first few introductory pages from John Milton’s Paradise Lost, A Norton Critical Edition, and edited by Gordon Teskey

(2) Campbell, Gordon, ed. A Milton Chronology. New York: Macmillan, 1997

- Marjorie D.

Kenneth Gross: "From Satan and the Romantic Satan: A Notebook"

Before we go any further, Gross points out that reading Milton’s epic requires a critical fideism. (Gross, 421). This fideism, as Gross puts it, is of a “sufficient condition” that provide a means “ for us to try and ground our reading of the poetry on a hypothetical commitment to the polarized terms of the poet’s belief”. (Gross, 421). Gross means to say that in order to follow what is written in Paradise Lost, we must put ourselves in a state that dispels all scientific notions and theories, except those of religious factors that play a key role in the development of this epic.

First things first, Gross’s criticism focuses a great deal on what makes Satan such a compelling character in Paradise Lost. “It is not that I like Satan’s voice, mind, or attitude better than those of other characters in the poem, but rather that Satan, at times, seems to be the only character with a voice, mind, or attitude of his own, or the one who places the stresses of voice, mind, and attitude most clearly” (Gross, 421-422). Gross explains that Satan seems to be the only character in the book, because almost everything that happens in the chapter is about Satan. Books I and II highlight the peak of his height to power; III is about God and His Son talking about the their plan of action as a result of what Satan is doing; IV devotes a great deal of Satan’s thought processes as he witnesses Eve and Adam in Paradise; V relates Eve’s dream about Satan’s temptation as well as Raphael’s discourse of Satan’s revolt against Heaven; Book VI continues to relate the final battle whence Satan fell from Heaven, and VII does not fail to mention again loss of “the envious foe” and his “flaming legions” several times, over the narration of the creation of earth and its inhabitants. (VII, 131-46). Book VIII devotes a few lines of what Raphael saw when he visited Hell. (VIII, 228-47). He tells Adam he hears within “noise other than the sound of dance or song, / Torment and loud lament and furious rage (VIII, 243-44). These lines detail what happens in Book I when Satan and his followers find themselves in Hell. IX focuses on Satan tempting Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which resulted in Eve’s and Adam’s fall from Grace. Book X devotes some of its lines about Satan’s fulfilled mission and what happens when he returns to Pandemonium. (Books XI and XII, I shall recount in a later post, so as to not divert the attention away from what this post is about.) These Books, although they recount of things other than Satan, retells everything as a result of Satan’s rebellion. This is what Gross means when he says that Satan seems to be the only character in the book.

Gross also says that he likes to think about Satan, because how Milton describes Satan’s thought processes parallel how our minds interpret situations when we are under subjectivity, self-consciousness, awkward pressures, and the like. (Gross 422). “The steady awareness of Satan’s conscious and unconscious falsehoods - his lies against himself, his cohorts, his God - the feeling of things lost or evaded, the evidence in his speeches of a mind crossed by longing and pain, the awareness of contexts and unacknowledged truths which press in, threaten, and block: there is a good reason why these also have carried more dramatic weight with readers than the accurate theology of a reasonable God who must have no inside, no underside, no shifts in motivation (indeed, no motivation at all), must in a sense have no mind.” Gross means to say that Satan’s actions and feelings are romantic in a sense, because he is derived from the essence of dramatic plays such as Macbeth and Hamlet. Readers such as myself are more likely to empathize with Satan because he is a character who has faults and who is very much similar to the next human being. Readers like me are less likely to empathize the Son or God because any description that tells any action sprung from these beings carry little dramatic interest, due to them appearing “difficult, spare, authoritative, and their often beautiful utterances may yet appear to us as more unabashedly ‘political’ ”. (Gross, 423). Perfection is boring!!!!!! What exciting thing ever happens from knowing everything? With Satan, its different. We expect drama; we expect conflicts; we expect emotions; we expect chaos erupting from the depths of our soul. With Satan, he appears to be just like us. With Satan - the Romantic Satan - , we liken the battles of frustrations of our daily lives similar to the battles Satan was fighting for as he battles with his own mind. “The mind is its own place, and in itself / Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n” (I. 254-55). These lines reflect our own state of mind when we choose to sugar-coat the realities of life. We try to find happiness amidst the chaos resulting from our entropic state, but really, we see things the way we choose our mind to see things. To me, the motivation behind his actions is similar to the depths of our soul, but only constrained by our own superego. This is why I sympathize and empathize Satan and his plight.

- Marjorie D.

Response to Rebecca's "Could Adam be the reason..." post:

In the article, "On Adam and Eve: Paradise Lost: The Conscious Meaning and The Unconscious Meaning" by E. M. W. Tillyard that I just discussed, Tillyard claims that "Mental levity is common to both Adam and Eve, but stronger in Eve" (450).  Levity is described as "lightness of mind, character or behavior; lack of appropriate seriousness or earnestness" by Dictionary.com.  I think Rebecca brings up a very important point that perhaps Adam is overlooked and critics are quick to judge Eve, simply because she is the one who physically caused The Fall.  Can we blame Eve for being beguiled by the serpent?  While Milton has depicted Eve as a women who can similarly reason like Adam, he has also shown her in a way that appears to be more flighty and carefree.  Is Adam, the man who is able to reason, to blame for allowing Eve to go off by herself, consciously aware of the dangers of such actions?  Or is Eve using the classic, "He told me to do it" excuse to get out of the sin she has just committed?  

Kellie M.

On Adam and Eve: E.M.W Tillyard- From Paradise Lost: The Conscious Meaning and The Unconscious Meaning

E. M. W. Tillyard responds somewhat bitterly in his article about Adam and Eve in Milton's Paradise Lost.  He claims that Milton's views are undeniably Adam's thoughts and that Milton's views on the subordination of women are evidently expressed in Paradise Lost.  After quoting Paradise Lost, Tillyard states, "It is of course Milton's own voice, unable through the urgency of personal experience to keep silent" (450).

Tillyard goes on to explain the sin of all humanity is the fear of being alone.  He claims gregariousness, meaning sociable according to Dictionary.com, is common in humanity as well, but this is only a sin for men, as women are not meant to stand alone.

Tillyard says, "uxoriousness is a purely masculine failing".  Here, uxoriousness is a means being "affectionately submissive towards one's wife" (Dictionary.com).  Clearly Tillyard recognizes Milton's obvious inequality of men and women in Paradise Lost, however, while Milton seems to have respect for mankind, Tillyard gives off the impression that he views men as unworthy in his description by stating that only men are sinning when they fear being alone.  Tillyard then criticizes Milton's depiction of Adam and Eve while stating that there was no way Milton could have described them accurately because no concrete visual of Adam and Eve exists.  Also discussed in this article is the idea that milton fully expresses his lifelong search for perfection in Paradise Lost.  This is the "unconscious" aspect of his epic poem, expressed in the relationship and events regarding Adam and Eve.

While Tillyard may be able to recognize some of what Milton is trying to convey, his article sheds somewhat of a negatively bitter attitude towards Milton's Paradise Lost in his description of what he believes to be the underlying theme of the poem: Paradise, not Paradise Lost.

Kellie M.

Satan's confliction's with time and self-love

In Regina M Schwartz’s article “Yet once more”: Re-creation, Repetition, and Return, Schwartz points out 2 ideas that I feel are important. The first is that time goes on, and neither humans nor Satan can stop it or go back. The only one with that power is God, and Satan struggles with this idea, leading him to repeat his wrong doings. The other idea that Schwartz points out is the effect of narcissism on oneself and how similar Satan is to Eve.

I would first like to focus on the idea of time. Satan has fallen, but he refuses to accept this, and therefore “repeats” his act of falling by going to earth and corrupting man. Satan refuses to accept that another being has put him where he is (hell), and is instead determined that he is there by choice. Satan cannot go back in time, so his only option is to continue forward in a series of repetitive movements of his past errors. Satan is forced to a world “of wrath and displeasure, and he wreaks revenge on whatever does not feel wrath and displeasure as he does…revenge is the will’s ill will against time”

Because Satan is unable t be in a paradise, he decides that Adam and Eve can no longer be in their own paradise. Satan’s plan is “not just of expelling mankind, but with the more comprehensive aim of wasting the whole creation.” In this act, Satan falls again as he repeats his motives for up heaving God.

The second point Schwartz makes is the narcissistic qualities shared between Satan an Eve. Satan expresses a “towering self-love” when he claims to be self-created and when that claim leads him to resistance to God. Satan’s incredible self-love makes it hard for him to watch Adam and Eve embrace because he cannot stand that “two are participating in that embrace”. This is because for him, the only love is self -love. There is no room for love of another.

Satan’s self love extends to his love of Sin who is from Satan, therefore a part of him. It is through Sin that Schwartz compares Satan and Eve. Eve herself showed self love as she looked at her reflection. Eve’s characteristics are strikingly similar to Sin’s. They were both formed “from the left side of their parent/mate.” I believe this came up in class, but I am not sure who said it. I would like to agree that it is a bit ironic that Eve is supposed to be pure but she comes from the same side of Adam that Sin comes from Satan. Furthermore, the “issue of her loins, like Sin’s, will be ‘Food for so foul a Monster.’” Both Eve and Sin suffer the same fate.

What is important to notice here is that the connections between Eve and Sin are s similar that it seems to link Eve to Satan, potentially a reflection that Eve was the one that needed to be deceived into falling first. Satan refuses to acknowledge his narcissism, and he even claims to have n recollection of Sin. At last Eve knew that she was staring at herself. Even though she was turned away she realized the power of self-love, where Satan rejects any such accusations.

 

Rebecca R.

 

Source: “Yet once more”: Re-Creation, Repetition, and Return by Regina M. Schwartz

Could Adam be the reason for losing Paradise?

I would first like to direct your attention to Sheryl's post, Was Paradise already Lost? Sheryl addresses the decision of Eve to work separately from Adam. I know that the bible shows Eve being tempted alone, and that the same event has to happen in Paradise Lost; but I cant help but feel that its somewhat Adam's fault. Adam gives in to Eves request and leaves her alone right after he is warned about Satan. This contradicts the idea of Eve getting directions from Adam, and instead portrays Eve as an authoritative figure, and Adam a bit submissive to her. 

Then after they both eat the fruit, Adam turns on Eve, blaming her for their actions:

Desire of wandering this unhappy morn

(I know not whence) possessed thee! We had then

Remained still happy, not as now despoiled

Of all our good, shamed, naked, miserable! (9.1136-9)

However, Adam was the one who allowed them to part that morning. So his decision to let Eve go on her own was a decision that put Eve in the position to make the decision to eat the fruit. Is Adam not supposed to have more reason? So would it not make sense for Adam to stay with Eve to be a source of reason and to prevent her from being tempted?

Yet it is still a common belief that Eve should be the one blamed for the fall because she was the one to take the fruit, eat it, and then feed it to Adam. It seems as though Adams lack of protection that day is overlooked to place the blame elsewhere. But I think that if Adam was with Eve, the blame would be placed equally on them- for they would both had been fooled. For now, I feel that responsibility rests on Adams shoulders, as he was the one to relinquish his role as Eve's protector that day. It was Adam who allowed Eve to wander on her own, when he knew of the increased dangers she could face.

Rebecca R.

Was Paradise already Lost?

In Book IX of Paradise Lost, Eve and Adam are having a discussion about whether or not Eve should go off on her own to do work. Adam believes that it would be far to dangerous for Eve to go off considering that they have been warned about the threat of Satan on Earth. Eve then beings up a very interesting point.

"If this be our condition, thus to dwell
In narrow circuit strait'n'd by a Foe,
Subtle of violent, we not endu'd
Single with like defence, wherever met,
How are we happy, still in fear of harm?" (9. 322-26)

In this passage, Eve points out that they are already not living the same blissful life they once were simply because they now must watch out for Satan within their Paradise.
This passage leads me to speculate if Milton was trying to make it seem as though Adam and Eve's fall was not so traumatic after all, and that because of Satan's threat, Paradise never had a chance of staying blissful forever. Or maybe, Milton was trying to point out that Eve may have had more reason than Adam after all.

Sheryl W.