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.