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.