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