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.
No comments:
Post a Comment