In the article, "Paradise Lost in Prose" (link: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/paradise-lost-in-prose/) it is revealed that a new version of "Paradise Lost" is being translated into a more modern dialect of English. This is something that many a night I would have loved to have a more simplified version of "Paradise Lost" that would have explained to story of Satan, Adam, Eve, and the fall in words that I understood however there are many concerns that I have to agree with.
The idea that, "ordinary readers, now “require mediation to read ‘Paradise Lost’ with full appreciation.”"(Fish,Stanley. "Paradise Lost in Prose") is something I know from personal experience would make getting through the long poem filled with seventeenth century language a bit easier. This does in fact seem to be a valid argument to me however there are also concerns that a more simplified version of Milton's epic poem would defer from the original message and even more so the intended effect of the poem. According to Stanley Fish, in the updated version of "Paradise Lost", "Absent are both the tone of scornful wonder the epic voice directs at the erring sinners and the undercutting of that scorn by the dance of vowels and consonants" (Fish,Stanley. "Paradise Lost in Prose"). Here Fish voices the concerns that if there were to be a way to cop out of working through the original version of "Paradise Lost" then most would lose out on the key grammatical, vocabulary, and tonal aspects that Milton had intended for the poem.
For me personally, I felt as though I did however have the mediation that the author of this translated version of "Paradise Lost" suggested modern readers have while still reading the original text. Each class as we would discuss the section that we had read more and more passages were beginning to make sense to me and I was able to comprehend them easier. I also believe that the commonplace books helped to do this as well. The different opinions and interpretations that my classmates had helped me to further my understanding and well as the connections that they provided to outside sources and interpretations. I do have to say though that I would have liked to have had a further mediation while I was reading the book so that I could be able to make more sense of the book as I read it instead of after the fact. That is why I think it would be a good idea to have this translated version as the new author intends it, as a side-by-side version. I think by having a more modernized text directly next to the original text would allow readers to still take in the "Milton Affect" while being able to comprehend the message and take away from the book a more complete message.
What do you think? If there were a supplemental translation would it ruin the Milton experience or would it be more helpful in the end??
Em
Monday, December 1, 2008
Nature vs. Nurture in Good Omens
Lauren did a post about Nature and its role in Paradise Lost, and I wanted to expand that, talking about Nature and Good Omens. I figured I'd at least give her credit for the initial idea though. Here's her post!
While Nature seems to be very important in Paradise Lost, it really doesn't seem to be as important in Good Omens. In fact, nurture seems to be much more relevant. This surprised me a lot actually. I fully expected little Adam the anti-Christ to be a bully; mean, cold-hearted, tricky and deceiving. Instead, he's a pretty normal kid, even naming his hell-hound Dog instead of Killer or anything remotely stereotypical.
All three of the babies that got switched turned out much differently than expected. It was strange to think about because, as Lauren said, in Paradise Lost, nature plays a huge role in Adam and Eve's lives. However, there are a lot of parts in Paradise Lost and Good Omens that seem to be quite opposite; some even ironic.
Adam grew up nothing like the anti-Christ, though one would think that his destiny to be the anti-Christ would take over. I was really surprised by that. Why wouldn't he be controlled more by his destiny? And why was it so different than Paradise Lost?
While Nature seems to be very important in Paradise Lost, it really doesn't seem to be as important in Good Omens. In fact, nurture seems to be much more relevant. This surprised me a lot actually. I fully expected little Adam the anti-Christ to be a bully; mean, cold-hearted, tricky and deceiving. Instead, he's a pretty normal kid, even naming his hell-hound Dog instead of Killer or anything remotely stereotypical.
All three of the babies that got switched turned out much differently than expected. It was strange to think about because, as Lauren said, in Paradise Lost, nature plays a huge role in Adam and Eve's lives. However, there are a lot of parts in Paradise Lost and Good Omens that seem to be quite opposite; some even ironic.
Adam grew up nothing like the anti-Christ, though one would think that his destiny to be the anti-Christ would take over. I was really surprised by that. Why wouldn't he be controlled more by his destiny? And why was it so different than Paradise Lost?
No, no God
Andrea posted about God and Satan being much less present in Good Omens, and posed some interesting questions, so I responded to a few of them here. This is Andrea's post.
Andrea, I agree with you here. There are almost no references to either God or Satan. One would think they would be most present because they are so key in Paradise Lost, but they're not. It seemed odd to me at first too, but when I thought about it, I realized that it's a totally different time period.
In Paradise Lost, God and Satan were very much present because they both had important jobs to do. God had just introduced Adam and Eve to the world, and had to influence them in a good way, trying to help them. Satan on the other hand is trying to get back at God and tempt mankind. This would cause man to understand evil as well as good, enabling them to sin. Satan and his plan have to be explained in depth to help the reader understand what's actually going on.
In Good Omens, however, God and Satan really don't have to be present nearly as much. Satan's already done his work, causing the fall of the human race. Sure, he still wants to cause more destruction, but even then, at the beginning of the book, Crowley realized he was nearly out of work! He realizes that people themselves are doing much worse things than he could ever think of. Satan's barely present because he has a few "minions" doing his work for him, what little there is left to do.
God is also at this point nearly out of work. He's been trying to get mankind to do the right thing since Adam and Eve. Even they messed up! Aziraphael is there to try to make things better, but at this point, the human race has gone so downhill, there's only so much he can do. Since God wanted humans to have free will, he can't stop what they are doing. He has given them options, but they keep choosing temptation. After a while, I'd get tired too.
All in all, I think the reason God and Satan don't make many appearances is because, while they should be key characters, they are not. This is much later in time, and mankind has taken over their rule, basically. Not even Satan can get to them as well as he'd like.
Andrea, I agree with you here. There are almost no references to either God or Satan. One would think they would be most present because they are so key in Paradise Lost, but they're not. It seemed odd to me at first too, but when I thought about it, I realized that it's a totally different time period.
In Paradise Lost, God and Satan were very much present because they both had important jobs to do. God had just introduced Adam and Eve to the world, and had to influence them in a good way, trying to help them. Satan on the other hand is trying to get back at God and tempt mankind. This would cause man to understand evil as well as good, enabling them to sin. Satan and his plan have to be explained in depth to help the reader understand what's actually going on.
In Good Omens, however, God and Satan really don't have to be present nearly as much. Satan's already done his work, causing the fall of the human race. Sure, he still wants to cause more destruction, but even then, at the beginning of the book, Crowley realized he was nearly out of work! He realizes that people themselves are doing much worse things than he could ever think of. Satan's barely present because he has a few "minions" doing his work for him, what little there is left to do.
God is also at this point nearly out of work. He's been trying to get mankind to do the right thing since Adam and Eve. Even they messed up! Aziraphael is there to try to make things better, but at this point, the human race has gone so downhill, there's only so much he can do. Since God wanted humans to have free will, he can't stop what they are doing. He has given them options, but they keep choosing temptation. After a while, I'd get tired too.
All in all, I think the reason God and Satan don't make many appearances is because, while they should be key characters, they are not. This is much later in time, and mankind has taken over their rule, basically. Not even Satan can get to them as well as he'd like.
"Adam, Eve, and the Fall in Paradise Lost"
I found this article that I believe analyzed the roles of Adam and Eve within the poem "Paradise Lost" in regards to the fall in a way that I had not yet considered. The article, "Adam, Eve, and the Fall in Paradise Lost" by Fredson Bowers explorers the relationship that Adam and Eve shared throughout the poem and how the roles they played in that relationship lead to their fall from Paradise. I had begun to explore this topic as a result of my third paper however I did not manage to go into such depth as Bowers did in this article.
One of the most intriguing arguments that Bowers made in this article dealt with the roles that the two played in their marriage but more importantly how those roles affected the other. According to Bowers, Eve was the passion, the matter, the body and the inferior participant in the marriage while Adam was the opposite. Bowers believed Adam to be the superior figure in their marriage; he was the governing one to Eve's passion, the spirit to her matter, and the soul to her body. ( Adam, Eve, and the Fall in "Paradise Lost", Fredson Bowers, PMLA, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Mar., 1969), pp. 265)
One of the most intriguing arguments that Bowers made in this article dealt with the roles that the two played in their marriage but more importantly how those roles affected the other. According to Bowers, Eve was the passion, the matter, the body and the inferior participant in the marriage while Adam was the opposite. Bowers believed Adam to be the superior figure in their marriage; he was the governing one to Eve's passion, the spirit to her matter, and the soul to her body. ( Adam, Eve, and the Fall in "Paradise Lost", Fredson Bowers, PMLA, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Mar., 1969), pp. 265)
Bowers mentions the philosophy of Plato that says man was created as a perfect sphere and then spilt in half in order to make woman and it is the challenge to find the one that makes you a whole sphere again. Together Adam and Eve are "two parts joining reason to passion to create "one flesh, one heart, one soule.""(pp. 265). However, Adam is warned not to let Eve's beauty fool his reason. He is told that he is to lead and guide Eve and whatever he does she will in turn do; whatever he believes she will do the same. Bowers says in the article that if Adam does not lead, Eve will not follow. (pp. 266)
It is said later on that man [Adam] was in fact created perfectly despite his mistakes however when he was created perfectly he was not created immutably. (pp. 268) This hold true as we see Adam become subservient to Eve. Bowers says in the article that, "the fall occurs when reason, stronger in the person in Adam relinquishes its sovereignty over judgment, or decision, to passion, which is stronger in the person Eve"(pp. 265). Here Adam has allowed passion to overtake him and as a result he places his love for Eve over his love for God.
The article claims that Eve too was deceived however not by passion nor reason but pride, the worst of the 7 deadly sins. Bower remarks that,"Eve's weaker reason falls victim to more powerful passion and under this influence she makes a decision that seals the fate of them both." (pp. 265). I believe that the more powerful passion that Bower references is the pride that comes to Eve as a result of Satan whispering in her ear as she slept. This pride is what allows the serpent to get to Eve and tempt her with the apple. At that point Adam tells her that they should stay together mainly because he cares for her but she believes that he doubts her abilities and her faith and therefore insists on separating. Eve's pride, according to Bower, caused "not only a breach in the chain of being, it was a breach of their love. . ." (pp. 272).
In the end, Bower drew a conclusion that I had not truthfully considered before. He said that even though Eve was so deceived that Adam himself was not deceived by Satan directly however he still places the blame on Adam. When I first read this I again thought of the quote, "" He for God only, she for God in Him" (4.299) however I thought of it in a different way. In a sense I believe that this quote could be reversed to depict that at a certain point the order changed and it was now Eve for the God she saw in Satan and Adam for the God he saw in Eve.
I also thought it was interesting as to how Bower rationalized the fall as being Adam's fault because he failed to lead, protect, and guide Eve as God instructed him to. It is this that allows her to become deceived by Satan. (pp. 273) Bower also believes Adam to be more a fault than Eve because he turned his back on reason and all that he knew to be right in order to please Eve as he was deceived by her passion and her beauty when he should have been the stronger one who should have governed the relationship. I think that this article had many valid arguments and overall forced me to reconsider this key relationship.
Em
First Blog Revisited!!
In my first blog post I compared two different interpretation of Hell and how they compared to the poem "Paradise Lost". To reference my blog:
I first realized that it seems as though Milton has a clear picture in his mind of what hell is. He often describes it throughout the poem as a "burning mark" (1.296), a convex of fire (2.433), and a "fiery gulf" (1.50). There is not a point in which Milton stresses the greatness of the Hell and its positive attributes. The hell created in "Paradise Lost" is one that no one could possibly want to have to deal with. The notion that hell is a fiery pit filled with suffering and misery is one that has held true for centuries. It was this that made me wonder how people other than Milton at the same time had viewed Hell and how that compares to a different interpretation.
In my initial blog I referenced two videos found on youtube. However after going back and reviewing them, I have realized that they are not accredable sources. They hold no scholarly value seeing as how one is a comedic skit and the other a film created by a youtube user who is for as far as we know is an unreliable provider of facts. Therefore I decided to go and look for new interpretations.
The first one that I found was a painting done in the 16th century. To view it go to: then select the painting by Albrecht Dürer entitled "Suffering of Hell"
This painting is accurately titled, "Sufferings of Hell". It is even clear immediately to notice the tribulations and agony that the habitants of Hell are enduring. There are demons being beaten by others as we see in the lower right hand corner. We can see painful expressions on the fallen angels faces, flames from the "convex of fire" (2.433), and some mutant animals flying around. For example the creature that is flying at the top of the painting. He is obviously inflicting pain on another however we see one of the affects of Hell was mutation. This was also apparent later in the poem as Satan returns to hell after being on Earth in the garden with Adam and Eve and he is met by the demons. It is here that instead of receiving the cheers that he anticipates, he is met by hissing. It is not that the demons do not wish to cheer for him but they have been reduced to just making hissing noises. (Milton,John. "Paradise Lost", 10.504-09).
The next painting that I found was done in the twentieth century by John Grosz called "Pandemonium". A link to this picture is:
I thought this painting was a great one to reference because it was a more modern image of how people viewed hell and yet it still held true to Milton's original standards of hell. As I looked at the drawings I realized that there were many meanings to this drawing. I have noticed people attacking one another, strangling each other, stealing, and raping and exploiting the women. This is without a doubt what seems to be a hellish terror. However, I have noticed that there are school buses and churches and many other things that one would not expect to find in hell but rather on earth. It is this that made me question whether or not this was supposed to reflect an Earth that has turned into hell. This I think is an interesting viewpoint on hell. There are many similarities between the hell that Milton created in his poem "Paradise Lost", the hell created in the painting by Dürer, and the one that Grosz created on Earth.
I wonder if it is possible that Grosz has used a technique that Milton himself used. Here in this drawing, Grosz used his surroundings as a model for his drawing. It seems that he is commenting on the dissatisfaction that he has for the environment around him through his drawing. This is something that is similar to the idea that Milton has used the political struggle that he faced in his every day life with Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. I think this is strengthened by the idea raised earlier in the poem "Paradise Lost" regarding the notion that one can make a hell out of heaven or a heaven out of hell. I think that people have the ability to create a hell from whatever is around them however it has seemed that throughout time, the idea of just what exactly hell is has remained constant.
I first realized that it seems as though Milton has a clear picture in his mind of what hell is. He often describes it throughout the poem as a "burning mark" (1.296), a convex of fire (2.433), and a "fiery gulf" (1.50). There is not a point in which Milton stresses the greatness of the Hell and its positive attributes. The hell created in "Paradise Lost" is one that no one could possibly want to have to deal with. The notion that hell is a fiery pit filled with suffering and misery is one that has held true for centuries. It was this that made me wonder how people other than Milton at the same time had viewed Hell and how that compares to a different interpretation.
In my initial blog I referenced two videos found on youtube. However after going back and reviewing them, I have realized that they are not accredable sources. They hold no scholarly value seeing as how one is a comedic skit and the other a film created by a youtube user who is for as far as we know is an unreliable provider of facts. Therefore I decided to go and look for new interpretations.
The first one that I found was a painting done in the 16th century. To view it go to: then select the painting by Albrecht Dürer entitled "Suffering of Hell"
This painting is accurately titled, "Sufferings of Hell". It is even clear immediately to notice the tribulations and agony that the habitants of Hell are enduring. There are demons being beaten by others as we see in the lower right hand corner. We can see painful expressions on the fallen angels faces, flames from the "convex of fire" (2.433), and some mutant animals flying around. For example the creature that is flying at the top of the painting. He is obviously inflicting pain on another however we see one of the affects of Hell was mutation. This was also apparent later in the poem as Satan returns to hell after being on Earth in the garden with Adam and Eve and he is met by the demons. It is here that instead of receiving the cheers that he anticipates, he is met by hissing. It is not that the demons do not wish to cheer for him but they have been reduced to just making hissing noises. (Milton,John. "Paradise Lost", 10.504-09).
The next painting that I found was done in the twentieth century by John Grosz called "Pandemonium". A link to this picture is:
I thought this painting was a great one to reference because it was a more modern image of how people viewed hell and yet it still held true to Milton's original standards of hell. As I looked at the drawings I realized that there were many meanings to this drawing. I have noticed people attacking one another, strangling each other, stealing, and raping and exploiting the women. This is without a doubt what seems to be a hellish terror. However, I have noticed that there are school buses and churches and many other things that one would not expect to find in hell but rather on earth. It is this that made me question whether or not this was supposed to reflect an Earth that has turned into hell. This I think is an interesting viewpoint on hell. There are many similarities between the hell that Milton created in his poem "Paradise Lost", the hell created in the painting by Dürer, and the one that Grosz created on Earth.
I wonder if it is possible that Grosz has used a technique that Milton himself used. Here in this drawing, Grosz used his surroundings as a model for his drawing. It seems that he is commenting on the dissatisfaction that he has for the environment around him through his drawing. This is something that is similar to the idea that Milton has used the political struggle that he faced in his every day life with Charles I and Oliver Cromwell. I think this is strengthened by the idea raised earlier in the poem "Paradise Lost" regarding the notion that one can make a hell out of heaven or a heaven out of hell. I think that people have the ability to create a hell from whatever is around them however it has seemed that throughout time, the idea of just what exactly hell is has remained constant.
Repeated
Sorry for the last post being repeated!!
I can't figure out how to delete the blog...
I clicked it, the screen said there was an error, so I reposted and bam, there were 2 blogs.
Double the fun, I suppose!
I can't figure out how to delete the blog...
I clicked it, the screen said there was an error, so I reposted and bam, there were 2 blogs.
Double the fun, I suppose!
Scholarly Blog
I had to read Nyquist's "Gendered Subjectivity in Paradise Lost" for my scholarly blog. Though I have read it several times, I am still really unsure what she is saying about feminism in Paradise Lost. When she first speaks about the differences between the Yahweh and Priestly account of creation. The Priestly account focuses on equality between the sexes by relying on the fact of God creating ALL genders in God's image. The Yahweh account relies on God making man from dust and then woman from man's rib. This difference obviously impacts views of individuals on creation accounts and on feminism. Nyquist says that these two different versions can be very problematic due to this reason.
Mary Nyquist speaks about mutuality between Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. She uses the example of Adam being given the task of naming the animals, while also Eve being told to name the flowers. Since both tasks require naming, she sees this as relevant to feminism. However, one argument against this statement is that when Adam names the animals, he does it rationally. However, when Eve names the flowers, it seems as if it is done in "lyrical utterance," which only enforces the idea of tending to nature as a gendered activity (Nyquist, 505). The care Eve provides further enforces a domestic sphere. The author uses this quote as an example: "O flow'rs/....which I bred up with tender hand/ From the first opening bud, and gave ye names" (6. 273-278).
Nyquist also says that the reliance on each other from both Adam and Eve is seen in their chores, speech, and course of events in Eden, including the fall. Though at first they blamed each other, and Adam continued to blame Eve, they realized that it was their own fault and they took the blame for the fall. I think what she fails to focus on is the fact that Adam DID blame Eve for a very long time even after Eve admitted her part in the fall. Also, Eve seemed to take her consequences much more seriously considering she did not believe she even deserved to be the mother of all kind. I feel that Eve repents, feels guilty, and takes the blame much more than Adam ever does.
Mary Nyquist questions why Eve tells her story of creation first considering she was created second. I think what she says about her conclusion is that the fact that Eve tells her creation story almost liberates her because she had no connection or commitment to Adam. It is in her speech regarding creation that she does not speak of Adam and is self sufficient without having to rely on gaining knowledge through Adam. Creation is instead, Eve's own story to tell, as well as her own personal learning experience. Basically, I think this statement is pretty interesting. I can understand the argument Nyquist, as well as other feminists, put forward.
Overall, I'm sure I missed a lot because this source was actually sort of confusing and hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it.
Mary Nyquist speaks about mutuality between Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. She uses the example of Adam being given the task of naming the animals, while also Eve being told to name the flowers. Since both tasks require naming, she sees this as relevant to feminism. However, one argument against this statement is that when Adam names the animals, he does it rationally. However, when Eve names the flowers, it seems as if it is done in "lyrical utterance," which only enforces the idea of tending to nature as a gendered activity (Nyquist, 505). The care Eve provides further enforces a domestic sphere. The author uses this quote as an example: "O flow'rs/....which I bred up with tender hand/ From the first opening bud, and gave ye names" (6. 273-278).
Nyquist also says that the reliance on each other from both Adam and Eve is seen in their chores, speech, and course of events in Eden, including the fall. Though at first they blamed each other, and Adam continued to blame Eve, they realized that it was their own fault and they took the blame for the fall. I think what she fails to focus on is the fact that Adam DID blame Eve for a very long time even after Eve admitted her part in the fall. Also, Eve seemed to take her consequences much more seriously considering she did not believe she even deserved to be the mother of all kind. I feel that Eve repents, feels guilty, and takes the blame much more than Adam ever does.
Mary Nyquist questions why Eve tells her story of creation first considering she was created second. I think what she says about her conclusion is that the fact that Eve tells her creation story almost liberates her because she had no connection or commitment to Adam. It is in her speech regarding creation that she does not speak of Adam and is self sufficient without having to rely on gaining knowledge through Adam. Creation is instead, Eve's own story to tell, as well as her own personal learning experience. Basically, I think this statement is pretty interesting. I can understand the argument Nyquist, as well as other feminists, put forward.
Overall, I'm sure I missed a lot because this source was actually sort of confusing and hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it.
Scholarly Blog
I had to read Nyquist's "Gendered Subjectivity in Paradise Lost" for my scholarly blog. Though I have read it several times, I am still really unsure what she is saying about feminism in Paradise Lost. When she first speaks about the differences between the Yahweh and Priestly account of creation. The Priestly account focuses on equality between the sexes by relying on the fact of God creating ALL genders in God's image. The Yahweh account relies on God making man from dust and then woman from man's rib. This difference obviously impacts views of individuals on creation accounts and on feminism. Nyquist says that these two different versions can be very problematic due to this reason.
Mary Nyquist speaks about mutuality between Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. She uses the example of Adam being given the task of naming the animals, while also Eve being told to name the flowers. Since both tasks require naming, she sees this as relevant to feminism. However, one argument against this statement is that when Adam names the animals, he does it rationally. However, when Eve names the flowers, it seems as if it is done in "lyrical utterance," which only enforces the idea of tending to nature as a gendered activity (Nyquist, 505). The care Eve provides further enforces a domestic sphere. The author uses this quote as an example: "O flow'rs/....which I bred up with tender hand/ From the first opening bud, and gave ye names" (6. 273-278).
Nyquist also says that the reliance on each other from both Adam and Eve is seen in their chores, speech, and course of events in Eden, including the fall. Though at first they blamed each other, and Adam continued to blame Eve, they realized that it was their own fault and they took the blame for the fall. I think what she fails to focus on is the fact that Adam DID blame Eve for a very long time even after Eve admitted her part in the fall. Also, Eve seemed to take her consequences much more seriously considering she did not believe she even deserved to be the mother of all kind. I feel that Eve repents, feels guilty, and takes the blame much more than Adam ever does.
Mary Nyquist questions why Eve tells her story of creation first considering she was created second. I think what she says about her conclusion is that the fact that Eve tells her creation story almost liberates her because she had no connection or commitment to Adam. It is in her speech regarding creation that she does not speak of Adam and is self sufficient without having to rely on gaining knowledge through Adam. Creation is instead, Eve's own story to tell, as well as her own personal learning experience. Basically, I think this statement is pretty interesting. I can understand the argument Nyquist, as well as other feminists, put forward.
Overall, I'm sure I missed a lot because this source was actually sort of confusing and hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it.
Mary Nyquist speaks about mutuality between Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost. She uses the example of Adam being given the task of naming the animals, while also Eve being told to name the flowers. Since both tasks require naming, she sees this as relevant to feminism. However, one argument against this statement is that when Adam names the animals, he does it rationally. However, when Eve names the flowers, it seems as if it is done in "lyrical utterance," which only enforces the idea of tending to nature as a gendered activity (Nyquist, 505). The care Eve provides further enforces a domestic sphere. The author uses this quote as an example: "O flow'rs/....which I bred up with tender hand/ From the first opening bud, and gave ye names" (6. 273-278).
Nyquist also says that the reliance on each other from both Adam and Eve is seen in their chores, speech, and course of events in Eden, including the fall. Though at first they blamed each other, and Adam continued to blame Eve, they realized that it was their own fault and they took the blame for the fall. I think what she fails to focus on is the fact that Adam DID blame Eve for a very long time even after Eve admitted her part in the fall. Also, Eve seemed to take her consequences much more seriously considering she did not believe she even deserved to be the mother of all kind. I feel that Eve repents, feels guilty, and takes the blame much more than Adam ever does.
Mary Nyquist questions why Eve tells her story of creation first considering she was created second. I think what she says about her conclusion is that the fact that Eve tells her creation story almost liberates her because she had no connection or commitment to Adam. It is in her speech regarding creation that she does not speak of Adam and is self sufficient without having to rely on gaining knowledge through Adam. Creation is instead, Eve's own story to tell, as well as her own personal learning experience. Basically, I think this statement is pretty interesting. I can understand the argument Nyquist, as well as other feminists, put forward.
Overall, I'm sure I missed a lot because this source was actually sort of confusing and hard to follow, but I think I got the gist of it.
"It's the end of the world as we know it"
I found a perfect movie trailer for Good Omens on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9iZcnGncA
And this acctually reminds me of the theme of the Apocalypse in Good Omens. It seems a little strange that just because Adam didn't want the apocalypse to happen, it didn't. Granted, he is the anti-christ, but if it was meant to happen then wouldn't it happen anyway, regardless of anyone else's power? They make this big deal out of the war between angels and demons, and then it just does not happen. Adam did not want the apocalypse to happen because he was raised as a normal human being, not as the anti-christ. If it were not for his switch at birth, then maybe the apocalypse would have occured. Yet, I also wonder what exactly happened to Crowley? If something went wrong, he was responsible. I don't recall reading anything that told us what happened to him in the end.
Any thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9iZcnGncA
And this acctually reminds me of the theme of the Apocalypse in Good Omens. It seems a little strange that just because Adam didn't want the apocalypse to happen, it didn't. Granted, he is the anti-christ, but if it was meant to happen then wouldn't it happen anyway, regardless of anyone else's power? They make this big deal out of the war between angels and demons, and then it just does not happen. Adam did not want the apocalypse to happen because he was raised as a normal human being, not as the anti-christ. If it were not for his switch at birth, then maybe the apocalypse would have occured. Yet, I also wonder what exactly happened to Crowley? If something went wrong, he was responsible. I don't recall reading anything that told us what happened to him in the end.
Any thoughts?
God?
Throughout Good Omens, the book focuses on a number of different characters,but most notably Crowley and Aziraphael. They are supposed to represent good and evil. One thing I noticed throughout the book is that God never makes an appearance. Satan's presence is lacking too, but he at least sort of appears every time Crowley is being scorned for something. However, that is masked behind the voice of Freddie Mercury in a number of different Queen songs.
"THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, CROWLEY, AND IF IT GOES WRONG, THEN THOSE INVOLVED WITH SUFFER GREATLY. EVEN YOU, CROWLEY, ESPECIALLY YOU."
(Good Omens, page 22).
Does this means that Crowley and Aziraphael are supposed to represent God and Satan in Paradise lost? If Good Omens is supposed to be a reference to that book, why arn't the key characters represented more closely? Crowley and Aziraphael posses characteristic elements of both sides, and there is no distinct line between good and evil between them like there is in Paradise Lost. The war that is supposed to be taking place is also sort of muffled in the background, where in Paradise Lost there was a whole book on it.
But what about God? The only reference I saw towards him in Good Omens was when Sable recieves a scale in a package. In Paradise Lost God put the scales in the sky in order to show Satan a sign. The package Sable recieved may have also been a sign, but other than that i see the forces of so called "evil" much more prevelent in Good Omens.
"THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, CROWLEY, AND IF IT GOES WRONG, THEN THOSE INVOLVED WITH SUFFER GREATLY. EVEN YOU, CROWLEY, ESPECIALLY YOU."
(Good Omens, page 22).
Does this means that Crowley and Aziraphael are supposed to represent God and Satan in Paradise lost? If Good Omens is supposed to be a reference to that book, why arn't the key characters represented more closely? Crowley and Aziraphael posses characteristic elements of both sides, and there is no distinct line between good and evil between them like there is in Paradise Lost. The war that is supposed to be taking place is also sort of muffled in the background, where in Paradise Lost there was a whole book on it.
But what about God? The only reference I saw towards him in Good Omens was when Sable recieves a scale in a package. In Paradise Lost God put the scales in the sky in order to show Satan a sign. The package Sable recieved may have also been a sign, but other than that i see the forces of so called "evil" much more prevelent in Good Omens.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Response and Ideas
Andrea wrote a blog titled "Adam vs Adam," where she compared the Adam of Paradise Lost to the Adam of Good Omens. One point she brought up was how Adam from Good Omens was nurtured since he was given to the wrong family as a baby. This reminded me of a statement made by Crowley in Good Omens. "He was left alone! He grew up human! He's not Evil Incarnate or Good Incarnate, he's just human incarnate--" (Gaiman/Pratchett, 366).
This brings up the idea of nature vs. nurture. Are individuals naturally Good or Evil? Or does it really depend on how they were nurtured? While Crowley in Good Omens is saying that it really depends on how children are raised, others consider the possibility of being created or born on one side. It seems that since God gave us free will to choose, you'd think that people have a choice to be Good or Evil. Most likely, if you grew up with good morals, you'd probably choose to continue those good deeds. However, at the same time, you might lean towards good deeds despite a bad childhood because you either recognize that things in your past are wrong, or because you have the "good" built into you already.
Are you meant to be bad or good? There are some truly evil people out there, but it's hard to say if it's because of how they were raised or if they were made to be evil (for example, serial killers tend to either have bad childhoods or start off killing cats...). Also, Satan was good at one point too. He just allowed his pride and greed to get the better of him. In a way, both sides can argue that Satan CHOSE to be evil, or that he was already destined to be evil.
Anyway, back to Adam. Adam of Good Omens was raised by apparently decent parents, though he is the spawn of Satan. Though a trouble maker, he ended up deciding not to destroy the world because his morality kicked in. This supports the idea of nurture, as Crowley states.
However, Adam from PL is different- he starts off innocent and child like, gaining his knowledge through Raphael and God. He knew that to eat the forbidden fruit would mean death, but he ate it anyway. Is this because there was no nurturing figure throughout his life? If he had been taught by someone not to disobey God instead of just being told, would he have still eaten from the tree?
Both Adams rely on gaining their knowledge from other sources and/or individuals. Adam of GO acquires knowledge from Anathema while Adam from PL gains knowledge from Raphael, Michael, and God. The difference between the two is that Adam of GO reads his knowledge and learns a lot on his own. Adam from PL learns by listening to someone else speak. Both their desire and need for knowledge is present in both books as both Adams seem fascinated by their source's information. I thought that this was a connection that Andrea had glazed over and I felt it was just something to point out.
Annnddd Merideth kind of mentioned the irony that I was going to speak about, but that's okay.
At least we agree! :)
This brings up the idea of nature vs. nurture. Are individuals naturally Good or Evil? Or does it really depend on how they were nurtured? While Crowley in Good Omens is saying that it really depends on how children are raised, others consider the possibility of being created or born on one side. It seems that since God gave us free will to choose, you'd think that people have a choice to be Good or Evil. Most likely, if you grew up with good morals, you'd probably choose to continue those good deeds. However, at the same time, you might lean towards good deeds despite a bad childhood because you either recognize that things in your past are wrong, or because you have the "good" built into you already.
Are you meant to be bad or good? There are some truly evil people out there, but it's hard to say if it's because of how they were raised or if they were made to be evil (for example, serial killers tend to either have bad childhoods or start off killing cats...). Also, Satan was good at one point too. He just allowed his pride and greed to get the better of him. In a way, both sides can argue that Satan CHOSE to be evil, or that he was already destined to be evil.
Anyway, back to Adam. Adam of Good Omens was raised by apparently decent parents, though he is the spawn of Satan. Though a trouble maker, he ended up deciding not to destroy the world because his morality kicked in. This supports the idea of nurture, as Crowley states.
However, Adam from PL is different- he starts off innocent and child like, gaining his knowledge through Raphael and God. He knew that to eat the forbidden fruit would mean death, but he ate it anyway. Is this because there was no nurturing figure throughout his life? If he had been taught by someone not to disobey God instead of just being told, would he have still eaten from the tree?
Both Adams rely on gaining their knowledge from other sources and/or individuals. Adam of GO acquires knowledge from Anathema while Adam from PL gains knowledge from Raphael, Michael, and God. The difference between the two is that Adam of GO reads his knowledge and learns a lot on his own. Adam from PL learns by listening to someone else speak. Both their desire and need for knowledge is present in both books as both Adams seem fascinated by their source's information. I thought that this was a connection that Andrea had glazed over and I felt it was just something to point out.
Annnddd Merideth kind of mentioned the irony that I was going to speak about, but that's okay.
At least we agree! :)
Adam vs. Adam response
This post is in response to Andrea’s post Adam vs. Adam.
While I tend to agree with Andrea’s response to both Adams in their respective books, I think that they are strikingly similar as well. I agree that Adam from Good Omens is more adult-like, and Adam from Paradise Lost is more child-like, which seems ironic. While both Adams are dominant in their surroundings, they have different reasons for that. Both of these characters have very similar characteristics and personalities, though they have very different purposes... or do they?
I think it is very important to look at why Adam in Good Omens was placed in the wrong house to begin with, and how it has affected him. The young baby who is supposed to be the anti-Christ is sent to the wrong home to live with the wrong family. The child is named Adam by his new family, and is supposed to bring the Apocalypse. Adam is supposed to bring down mankind. While Adam in Paradise Lost was supposed to do the opposite and populate the world, God knew that wouldn’t happen. God knew that Adam [from Paradise Lost] would be tempted, sin and fall. When that is factored in, Adam and Adam are pretty similar. Adam from Paradise Lost wasn’t exactly supposed to bring about the end of the world, but he was the downfall of mankind. In itself, his sin DID cause the Apocalypse. Not directly, and not for a long time, but because he and Eve sinned, the world and the human race were doomed. In time, everything would die, and the end of the world would come anyway. So thanks Adam from Paradise Lost.
Adam from Good Omens was supposed to be the anti-Christ and cause all of the doom, destruction and end-of-the-world madness, but is being brought up ignorant of that fact. Ignorant of the truth of his life. Sound familiar? Adam from Good Omens is supposed to be the anti-Christ, while Adam from Paradise Lost is supposed to be the father of the human race. Neither of them really seemed to live up to their respective reputations or expectations. Both of them seem to damn the human race one way or another. It’s actually rather ironic.
While I tend to agree with Andrea’s response to both Adams in their respective books, I think that they are strikingly similar as well. I agree that Adam from Good Omens is more adult-like, and Adam from Paradise Lost is more child-like, which seems ironic. While both Adams are dominant in their surroundings, they have different reasons for that. Both of these characters have very similar characteristics and personalities, though they have very different purposes... or do they?
I think it is very important to look at why Adam in Good Omens was placed in the wrong house to begin with, and how it has affected him. The young baby who is supposed to be the anti-Christ is sent to the wrong home to live with the wrong family. The child is named Adam by his new family, and is supposed to bring the Apocalypse. Adam is supposed to bring down mankind. While Adam in Paradise Lost was supposed to do the opposite and populate the world, God knew that wouldn’t happen. God knew that Adam [from Paradise Lost] would be tempted, sin and fall. When that is factored in, Adam and Adam are pretty similar. Adam from Paradise Lost wasn’t exactly supposed to bring about the end of the world, but he was the downfall of mankind. In itself, his sin DID cause the Apocalypse. Not directly, and not for a long time, but because he and Eve sinned, the world and the human race were doomed. In time, everything would die, and the end of the world would come anyway. So thanks Adam from Paradise Lost.
Adam from Good Omens was supposed to be the anti-Christ and cause all of the doom, destruction and end-of-the-world madness, but is being brought up ignorant of that fact. Ignorant of the truth of his life. Sound familiar? Adam from Good Omens is supposed to be the anti-Christ, while Adam from Paradise Lost is supposed to be the father of the human race. Neither of them really seemed to live up to their respective reputations or expectations. Both of them seem to damn the human race one way or another. It’s actually rather ironic.
Re-post
This is my revised first post. Here's the link to the first one.
"There is a place,/If ancient and prophetic fame in Heav'n/Err not, another world, the happy seat/Of some new race called Man about this time/To be created like us though less/In pow'r and excellence but favored more/Of Him who rules above. So was His will/Pronounced among the gods and by an oath/That shook Heav'n's whole circumference confirmed./Thither let us bend all our thoughts to learn/What creatures there inhabit, of what mould/Or substance, how endued and what their power/And where their weakness, how attempted best/By force or subtlety. Though Heav'n be shut/And Heav'n's high Arbitrator sit secure/In His own strength, this place may lie exposed,/The utmost border of His kingdom left/To their defense who hold it. Here perhaps/Some advantageous act may be achieved/By sudden onset, either with hell fire/To waste His whole creation or possess/All as our own and drive, as we were driven,/The puny habitants, or if not drive/Seduce them to our party that their God/May prove their foe and with repenting hand/Abolish His own works. This would surpass/Common revenge and interrupt His joy/In our confusion and our joy upraise/In His disturbance when His darling sons/Hurled headlong to partake with us shall curse/Their frail originals and faded bliss--/Faded so soon! Advise if this be worth/Attempting or to sit in darkness here/ Hatching vain empires." [Book II, Lines 345-378]
After having talked with Satan about a plan of revenge against God, Beelzebub stands in front of the council of fallen angels to speak his piece. Following impressive performances by Moloch, Belial and Mammon, Beelzebub speaks Satan’s words in a sweeter tone. Satan, the self-proclaimed ruler of Hell, set up a pretend democracy, so none of the other angels would challenge his position. He then used Beelzebub to throw his idea to the council. Satan had already made up his mind about what was going to happen; what the plan for revenge was. However, instead of laying down the law as newfound King of Hell, or being the brilliant dictator who always has a better idea, he had one of the other fallen angels introduce the idea. Beelzebub’s speech intrigued the fallen angels, who agree with Satan/Beelzebub’s idea. Satan’s plan worked perfectly.
And how crafty! It’s even hard to be mad about this one. Satan’s brilliant schemes seem to work too perfectly. In the end, they all fall apart, but he doesn’t know that yet! Instead of waging war against Heaven, or sitting back and doing nothing, the demons decide to wage a subtle war on God’s new creation; Man. This would hurt God the most, and could force him to abandon and destroy mankind due to their disobedience. Satan believes that this will not only be most harmful to God, but will also leave the fallen angels protected, because they didn’t actually attack God.
Unfortunately for Satan, his brilliant plan falls to pieces when God refuses to destroy Adam and Eve, and he and his followers were turned into snakes. God knows the inner workings of everything, and knew Satan and his followers were going to tempt Adam and Eve. He knew this would eventually lead to their fall, but tried to prevent it anyway. However, he could not stop them from eating the apple, or stop Satan from tempting them, because they had free will, and were able to exercize it, which was very important. And in the end, it showed Adam and Eve just how great and merciful God really was, which was the main intention of the story in the first place – to justify God’s ways to man.
"There is a place,/If ancient and prophetic fame in Heav'n/Err not, another world, the happy seat/Of some new race called Man about this time/To be created like us though less/In pow'r and excellence but favored more/Of Him who rules above. So was His will/Pronounced among the gods and by an oath/That shook Heav'n's whole circumference confirmed./Thither let us bend all our thoughts to learn/What creatures there inhabit, of what mould/Or substance, how endued and what their power/And where their weakness, how attempted best/By force or subtlety. Though Heav'n be shut/And Heav'n's high Arbitrator sit secure/In His own strength, this place may lie exposed,/The utmost border of His kingdom left/To their defense who hold it. Here perhaps/Some advantageous act may be achieved/By sudden onset, either with hell fire/To waste His whole creation or possess/All as our own and drive, as we were driven,/The puny habitants, or if not drive/Seduce them to our party that their God/May prove their foe and with repenting hand/Abolish His own works. This would surpass/Common revenge and interrupt His joy/In our confusion and our joy upraise/In His disturbance when His darling sons/Hurled headlong to partake with us shall curse/Their frail originals and faded bliss--/Faded so soon! Advise if this be worth/Attempting or to sit in darkness here/ Hatching vain empires." [Book II, Lines 345-378]
After having talked with Satan about a plan of revenge against God, Beelzebub stands in front of the council of fallen angels to speak his piece. Following impressive performances by Moloch, Belial and Mammon, Beelzebub speaks Satan’s words in a sweeter tone. Satan, the self-proclaimed ruler of Hell, set up a pretend democracy, so none of the other angels would challenge his position. He then used Beelzebub to throw his idea to the council. Satan had already made up his mind about what was going to happen; what the plan for revenge was. However, instead of laying down the law as newfound King of Hell, or being the brilliant dictator who always has a better idea, he had one of the other fallen angels introduce the idea. Beelzebub’s speech intrigued the fallen angels, who agree with Satan/Beelzebub’s idea. Satan’s plan worked perfectly.
Response to The Problem of Satan by Balachandra Rajan
This article’s main theme is to try to figure out what purpose Satan played in Milton’s life, as well as through history. The author touches upon the idea that Satan is portrayed as either a hero or a fool, and has been tossed between both roles for centuries. Satan’s history has brought him from being an admirable hero to “a personified self-contradiction,” (page 407). Satan’s image keeps shifting as new interpretations of him and the work that portrays him arise. This is very apparent in Paradise Lost because Satan goes from seeming heroic in trying to bring down a tyrannous monarchy to being shown as a narcissistic tempter, foolish enough to think he can outwit God.
Throughout Milton’s poem, Satan’s role shifts many times. He seems to be the victim of a horrible tyranny at first, but then it becomes apparent that he is a conniving, deceiving fallen angel fighting against all that is good because he has sinned. He is even shown claiming the throne of Hell under the false impression that he was doing it for all the other fallen angels. He was the one who would be punished if God went after them again. He then convinces the fallen angels not to retaliate against him because they will still have a democracy, but that is far from what actually happens. Satan is still shown as evil, but still portrays heroic qualities mixed with traits that caused his downfall. Satan is brilliant and persuasive, and instead of using that for good, he uses them it for his own betterment, which actually only hurts him.
While trying to determine if Satan is either a hero or a fool, the author then states that, “given certain ethical systems, Satan is ultimately heroic and given others he is ultimately farcical,” (page 408). This just helps to show how conflicted and contradictory Satan is. His entire being is one of complications. The author says that Satan is thought of as either “an abstract conception or else, more immediately, someone in whom evil is mixed with good but who is doomed to destruction by the flaw of self-love,” (page 408). This is very true. Satan is an angel, and he was once good. Milton tells us that Satan never really lost his sense of good, and was never all-evil. However, he is tainted by greed and self-love, which is why he fell in the first place.
Throughout Milton’s poem, Satan’s role shifts many times. He seems to be the victim of a horrible tyranny at first, but then it becomes apparent that he is a conniving, deceiving fallen angel fighting against all that is good because he has sinned. He is even shown claiming the throne of Hell under the false impression that he was doing it for all the other fallen angels. He was the one who would be punished if God went after them again. He then convinces the fallen angels not to retaliate against him because they will still have a democracy, but that is far from what actually happens. Satan is still shown as evil, but still portrays heroic qualities mixed with traits that caused his downfall. Satan is brilliant and persuasive, and instead of using that for good, he uses them it for his own betterment, which actually only hurts him.
While trying to determine if Satan is either a hero or a fool, the author then states that, “given certain ethical systems, Satan is ultimately heroic and given others he is ultimately farcical,” (page 408). This just helps to show how conflicted and contradictory Satan is. His entire being is one of complications. The author says that Satan is thought of as either “an abstract conception or else, more immediately, someone in whom evil is mixed with good but who is doomed to destruction by the flaw of self-love,” (page 408). This is very true. Satan is an angel, and he was once good. Milton tells us that Satan never really lost his sense of good, and was never all-evil. However, he is tainted by greed and self-love, which is why he fell in the first place.
The Good Omens Lexicon
For everyone's benefit, I don't know if anyone came across this website yet, but it had some interesting articles and illustrations on Good Omens.
http://goodomenslexicon.org/
One of my favorites is the article on Mr. Young and Crowley, and the artwork of Death. These articles also clear up some background bibliographical information that may have been looked over before.
http://goodomenslexicon.org/
One of my favorites is the article on Mr. Young and Crowley, and the artwork of Death. These articles also clear up some background bibliographical information that may have been looked over before.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Desires
So I know you're all probably going to shoot me for my Charmed references (except for Merideth), but I have another good one, really. There are SOO many episodes I think of when we discuss Paradise Lost, and I think it has something to do with Charmed dealing with so many different types of things. In season 6, the episode "My Three Witches" grasps the concept of desire that is seen in Paradise Lost.
Attached episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FTbuELYjeA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9psQpfcBDU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG7nhOzCjv4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIKR37_Yvv8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-56DdNAq44&feature=related
In this particular episode, the three charmed ones are focusing more on their personal lives than on their fight for the "greater good." Their new whitelighter (a guardian angel basically), Chris, tries to warn them that their desires cannot get in the way of their duties. Piper, the eldest sister, wants more of her social and non-magical life since magic and demons keep getting in the way of her having one, Paige wants to focus on her magic and would love a world in which she could be accepted as a witch, and Phoebe is dealing with her love life. These desires are put before their charmed duties, where a vortex demon is trying to kill them (I know, it all sounds bizarre, but it's a really good show). Chris however, is trying to keep them on focus with demons and their job. This reminded me of Raphael and Michael in Paradise Lost.
Adam tells Raphael that he is mesmerized by Eve's beauty and that his passion for her often overwhelms him. In response to this, Raphael says that reason and love for God must always come before his love for Eve (8. 560). Raphael's explanation of reason depicts God's view of reason, where he holds reason as a governing authority. This is similar to Phoebe's situation. Phoebe, in this episode, is dating her boss Jason, who she really believes she loves. However, he seems to be pulling away and this worries her. Her focus is on Jason, instead of a recent demon who attacked her sister Piper. Chris says that she should stop focusing on him right now because she has "wiccan duties" and must stop the demon first. He tries to remind the Charmed One's that personal gain and personal problems must come after their jobs as witches. This echoes Raphael's views as he too says that Adam's love for God, and his reason, must also come before his passion for Eve.
It turns out that this particular demon thrives on people's desires. He places them into an alternate reality, where their greatest desires dominate their new world. However, in these alternate worlds, their greatest desires bring about their downfall. The demon, named Gith, says, "They'll die, you know. Victims of their own desires." This idea of having a downfall based on your desires is seen in Paradise Lost as well. Adam, lost in his love for Eve, ultimately eats the fruit to fall with her. In this situation, the temptation for Eve overrides Adam's ability to reason, and brings about his fall from Paradise as well.
Adam is not the only one to fall because of his desires, however. Satan allows pride and his need for power to overwhelm his rationality. He falls to his desires when he tries to rebel against God.
The fact that these alternate realities are "based on fantasies, desires, and dreams" (according to Chris), helps connect this show to Paradise Lost. Michael, at the end of the poem, says that temperance, and the destruction of reason (or reality) brings about one's fall. These alternate realities, created by Gith but based on the desires of the Charmed Ones, are no longer rational realities. In these "realities," the Charmed Ones face many dangers, where the over indulgence of their desires become their death. For instance, when Piper's son gets very sick, she has no magic to heal him with because she wanted a world with no magic. This extreme world of no magic leads from one terrible event to the next, ending in a dangerous car crash and a fight between a demon and Piper.
Phoebe's world (though actually Jason's due to a twist in plot in the show), based on fame (that she does not necessarily want) and popularity also comes to a deadly situation when her boyfriend, Jason, is shot. A man's wife read Phoebe's advice column and decided to leave him. Obviously angered, this man tries to shoot Phoebe but Jason leaps out in front to take the bullet. Since Phoebe has no active power (she gets premonitions), she is unable to really save Jason until another sister intervenes. The extreme side affect of fame ultimately leads to the shooting of a loved one.
Paige's world is based on magic. Everyone knows she is a witch and has powers. While she is able to save a man's life, she gets stuck in a demonic fight between her and demons that have fireballs. While fighting, Phoebe is transferred into Paige's world (watch the show to find out how because I don't want to focus on all the plot), where they are able to just barely survive. Although Paige's world does not have as bad as a turn out as Piper's or Phoebes, it is only because of Chris's interference that Paige survives her world of desire.
These alternate realities draw a similarity between Chris's and Raphael's/Michael's warnings. They both warn that allowing your desires to overcome rationality and your other duties can lead to dangerous and deadly situations. While all of the characters had ample warning, they chose to ignore the warnings and found themselves in terrible situations. I thought that this episode connected to Paradise Lost pretty well on the basic fact of having desires. Both the book and this episode is suggesting that one can have desires, but one must not allow those desires to be taken to an extreme.
Please feel free to add anything to this post-
Attached episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FTbuELYjeA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9psQpfcBDU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG7nhOzCjv4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIKR37_Yvv8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-56DdNAq44&feature=related
In this particular episode, the three charmed ones are focusing more on their personal lives than on their fight for the "greater good." Their new whitelighter (a guardian angel basically), Chris, tries to warn them that their desires cannot get in the way of their duties. Piper, the eldest sister, wants more of her social and non-magical life since magic and demons keep getting in the way of her having one, Paige wants to focus on her magic and would love a world in which she could be accepted as a witch, and Phoebe is dealing with her love life. These desires are put before their charmed duties, where a vortex demon is trying to kill them (I know, it all sounds bizarre, but it's a really good show). Chris however, is trying to keep them on focus with demons and their job. This reminded me of Raphael and Michael in Paradise Lost.
Adam tells Raphael that he is mesmerized by Eve's beauty and that his passion for her often overwhelms him. In response to this, Raphael says that reason and love for God must always come before his love for Eve (8. 560). Raphael's explanation of reason depicts God's view of reason, where he holds reason as a governing authority. This is similar to Phoebe's situation. Phoebe, in this episode, is dating her boss Jason, who she really believes she loves. However, he seems to be pulling away and this worries her. Her focus is on Jason, instead of a recent demon who attacked her sister Piper. Chris says that she should stop focusing on him right now because she has "wiccan duties" and must stop the demon first. He tries to remind the Charmed One's that personal gain and personal problems must come after their jobs as witches. This echoes Raphael's views as he too says that Adam's love for God, and his reason, must also come before his passion for Eve.
It turns out that this particular demon thrives on people's desires. He places them into an alternate reality, where their greatest desires dominate their new world. However, in these alternate worlds, their greatest desires bring about their downfall. The demon, named Gith, says, "They'll die, you know. Victims of their own desires." This idea of having a downfall based on your desires is seen in Paradise Lost as well. Adam, lost in his love for Eve, ultimately eats the fruit to fall with her. In this situation, the temptation for Eve overrides Adam's ability to reason, and brings about his fall from Paradise as well.
Adam is not the only one to fall because of his desires, however. Satan allows pride and his need for power to overwhelm his rationality. He falls to his desires when he tries to rebel against God.
The fact that these alternate realities are "based on fantasies, desires, and dreams" (according to Chris), helps connect this show to Paradise Lost. Michael, at the end of the poem, says that temperance, and the destruction of reason (or reality) brings about one's fall. These alternate realities, created by Gith but based on the desires of the Charmed Ones, are no longer rational realities. In these "realities," the Charmed Ones face many dangers, where the over indulgence of their desires become their death. For instance, when Piper's son gets very sick, she has no magic to heal him with because she wanted a world with no magic. This extreme world of no magic leads from one terrible event to the next, ending in a dangerous car crash and a fight between a demon and Piper.
Phoebe's world (though actually Jason's due to a twist in plot in the show), based on fame (that she does not necessarily want) and popularity also comes to a deadly situation when her boyfriend, Jason, is shot. A man's wife read Phoebe's advice column and decided to leave him. Obviously angered, this man tries to shoot Phoebe but Jason leaps out in front to take the bullet. Since Phoebe has no active power (she gets premonitions), she is unable to really save Jason until another sister intervenes. The extreme side affect of fame ultimately leads to the shooting of a loved one.
Paige's world is based on magic. Everyone knows she is a witch and has powers. While she is able to save a man's life, she gets stuck in a demonic fight between her and demons that have fireballs. While fighting, Phoebe is transferred into Paige's world (watch the show to find out how because I don't want to focus on all the plot), where they are able to just barely survive. Although Paige's world does not have as bad as a turn out as Piper's or Phoebes, it is only because of Chris's interference that Paige survives her world of desire.
These alternate realities draw a similarity between Chris's and Raphael's/Michael's warnings. They both warn that allowing your desires to overcome rationality and your other duties can lead to dangerous and deadly situations. While all of the characters had ample warning, they chose to ignore the warnings and found themselves in terrible situations. I thought that this episode connected to Paradise Lost pretty well on the basic fact of having desires. Both the book and this episode is suggesting that one can have desires, but one must not allow those desires to be taken to an extreme.
Please feel free to add anything to this post-
Nature and its Role
In Paradise Lost, the role of nature becomes important. Most obviously, nature is used as a weapon against Satan, as well as a way to portray the tones and attitudes toward nature throughout the poem.
This is first evident in the scene of Adam and Eve in the garden. Throughout book 4, lines depict the nature around Adam and Eve. Lines such as "whispering by a fresh fountain side" and "all trees of noblest kind for sigh, smell, taste, and all amid them stood the Tree of Life high eminent blooming ambrosial fruit," depict nature's beauty in the garden (4. 215-220). Though book 4 focuses on Adam and Eve, it does also focus on the nature and animals around them. While the description of paradise is important for setting, it also foreshadows or emphasizes the importance of nature in Milton's poem.
Both Adam and Eve tend the nature. For example, Adam is told to name the animals while Eve is told to name the flowers. Both individuals take care of the land, eat from it, and use it as a resource. It is even possible to say that they found nature beautiful. Right after Eve eats from the tree, Adam is creating a wreath of garland for Eve to give to her. This implies that the wreath will enhance Eve's beauty, or that Eve will appreciate the wreath. Either way, nature is probably appreciated by Adam and Eve, since they take care of it and create gifts out of it.
Nature becomes the weapons of God's angels in book 6. This book describes the war that takes place between Heaven and Hell. While the demons rely on cannons, the angels retaliate with mountains: and to the hills light as lightning glimpse they ran, they flew: From their foundations loos'ning to and fro they plucked the seated hills with all their load, Rocks, waters, woods, and by the shaggy tops uplifting bore them in their hands...The bottom of the mountains upward deep" (6. 642-645). In this scene, the weapon that causes the most damage to Satan's angels is nature. It is interesting that God's natural creations are used as a weapon of war, whereas spears and swords are useless in battle. God's resources are more powerful than the Angel's or the Demon's weapons. This helps show God's real power while also showing the lack of power of the demons against a natural, perfect, and non warped weapon. Clearly, "Good" views nature as valuable, whereas "Evil" might underestimate nature's power.
Nature also seems to react to events occurring in the book. When Eve finally takes a bite of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, "Earth felt the wound and Nature from her seat sighing through all her works gave signs of woe that all was lost" (9. 782-784). The fact that even nature reacts so powerfully to Eve eating from the tree shows that Eve had a great impact on the future by eating, while also showing that nature is almost a witness to the downfall. However, it seems funny that nature is watching Adam and Eve and knows what the eating of the fruit will bring. This scene stuck in my mind because I was able to envision the Earth sighing. This image completes the tone of the scene and provokes strong imagery regarding the nature surrounding Adam and Eve. While Adam and Eve tended to the nature and used it for good purposes, they sort of "let it down" when they ate the forbidden fruit.
After the fall, Sin and Death invade Paradise. When they do invade, the animals begin to eat other, which is something that had not happened before. The passage uses words such as "decay" and "carcass" to depict the destruction of animals (10). The diction in this book prove that with the fall, comes some of the destruction of nature's beauty and innocence. The deterioration of nature also underlines the fact that Adam and Eve sinned. In paradise, nature remained perfect. As soon as Adam and Eve fell (which allowed sin and death into the world), nature is corrupted and helps show the state that the world is in. It seems that nature had a rather large impact on the overall mood and imagery (as well as weaponry) in Paradise Lost.
I just did a basic interpretation of only some of nature's presence in Milton's poem, so if anyone else has anything to say, please feel free!
This is first evident in the scene of Adam and Eve in the garden. Throughout book 4, lines depict the nature around Adam and Eve. Lines such as "whispering by a fresh fountain side" and "all trees of noblest kind for sigh, smell, taste, and all amid them stood the Tree of Life high eminent blooming ambrosial fruit," depict nature's beauty in the garden (4. 215-220). Though book 4 focuses on Adam and Eve, it does also focus on the nature and animals around them. While the description of paradise is important for setting, it also foreshadows or emphasizes the importance of nature in Milton's poem.
Both Adam and Eve tend the nature. For example, Adam is told to name the animals while Eve is told to name the flowers. Both individuals take care of the land, eat from it, and use it as a resource. It is even possible to say that they found nature beautiful. Right after Eve eats from the tree, Adam is creating a wreath of garland for Eve to give to her. This implies that the wreath will enhance Eve's beauty, or that Eve will appreciate the wreath. Either way, nature is probably appreciated by Adam and Eve, since they take care of it and create gifts out of it.
Nature becomes the weapons of God's angels in book 6. This book describes the war that takes place between Heaven and Hell. While the demons rely on cannons, the angels retaliate with mountains: and to the hills light as lightning glimpse they ran, they flew: From their foundations loos'ning to and fro they plucked the seated hills with all their load, Rocks, waters, woods, and by the shaggy tops uplifting bore them in their hands...The bottom of the mountains upward deep" (6. 642-645). In this scene, the weapon that causes the most damage to Satan's angels is nature. It is interesting that God's natural creations are used as a weapon of war, whereas spears and swords are useless in battle. God's resources are more powerful than the Angel's or the Demon's weapons. This helps show God's real power while also showing the lack of power of the demons against a natural, perfect, and non warped weapon. Clearly, "Good" views nature as valuable, whereas "Evil" might underestimate nature's power.
Nature also seems to react to events occurring in the book. When Eve finally takes a bite of fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, "Earth felt the wound and Nature from her seat sighing through all her works gave signs of woe that all was lost" (9. 782-784). The fact that even nature reacts so powerfully to Eve eating from the tree shows that Eve had a great impact on the future by eating, while also showing that nature is almost a witness to the downfall. However, it seems funny that nature is watching Adam and Eve and knows what the eating of the fruit will bring. This scene stuck in my mind because I was able to envision the Earth sighing. This image completes the tone of the scene and provokes strong imagery regarding the nature surrounding Adam and Eve. While Adam and Eve tended to the nature and used it for good purposes, they sort of "let it down" when they ate the forbidden fruit.
After the fall, Sin and Death invade Paradise. When they do invade, the animals begin to eat other, which is something that had not happened before. The passage uses words such as "decay" and "carcass" to depict the destruction of animals (10). The diction in this book prove that with the fall, comes some of the destruction of nature's beauty and innocence. The deterioration of nature also underlines the fact that Adam and Eve sinned. In paradise, nature remained perfect. As soon as Adam and Eve fell (which allowed sin and death into the world), nature is corrupted and helps show the state that the world is in. It seems that nature had a rather large impact on the overall mood and imagery (as well as weaponry) in Paradise Lost.
I just did a basic interpretation of only some of nature's presence in Milton's poem, so if anyone else has anything to say, please feel free!
In the name
I saw a posting in Group 1's blog that I just wanted to add to. It was Corrie's post about Eve's name and its meaning to the story of The Fall. While I agree with her analysis, I also did some research on baby names and their meanings, which I believe may also have some sort of significance. Here is the blog, and the name of the original post is "Eve: A root word"
http://paradiselostcommonplace.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
This is the first website I used to look up possible name meanings http://www.parents.com/baby-names/eve/
According to that Website, "Eve" is of Hebrew origin and means "life giver". I may be mistaken, but I think that the time in which the bible was written everyone spoke Hebrew, and Jesus was Jewish and must have spoken it as well. But the term "life giver" is very appropriate because Eve was supposed to be the Mother of the Human Race. She is to give life to all other humans. I think she was given this name because its meanings and thats what she was supposed to do.
Another website that supports that definition is http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Eve.html
This site also emphasizes the maternal aspect of the name "Eve".
And according to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_(name) ), "Eve as an anglicized form of Gaelic Aoife "radiant, beautiful" in Scotland and Ireland." In the story, Eve is illustrated as being somewhat vain and absorbed in her beauty. She is very pretty, and even Adam cannot deny her good looks. More than anything though, her name always has something to do with life.
http://paradiselostcommonplace.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
This is the first website I used to look up possible name meanings http://www.parents.com/baby-names/eve/
According to that Website, "Eve" is of Hebrew origin and means "life giver". I may be mistaken, but I think that the time in which the bible was written everyone spoke Hebrew, and Jesus was Jewish and must have spoken it as well. But the term "life giver" is very appropriate because Eve was supposed to be the Mother of the Human Race. She is to give life to all other humans. I think she was given this name because its meanings and thats what she was supposed to do.
Another website that supports that definition is http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Eve.html
This site also emphasizes the maternal aspect of the name "Eve".
And according to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_(name) ), "Eve as an anglicized form of Gaelic Aoife "radiant, beautiful" in Scotland and Ireland." In the story, Eve is illustrated as being somewhat vain and absorbed in her beauty. She is very pretty, and even Adam cannot deny her good looks. More than anything though, her name always has something to do with life.
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The different views of "Paradise Lost" and Good Omens
In the description of the Apocalypse there are four horsemen that begin the End of the World. The four horsemen are Plague, Death, War, and Famine; a similar theme throughout all stories of the Second Coming. These horsemen have taken on both a metaphorical as well as a literal meaning in their abilities to usher in the Apocalypse. However there are many different ways to see view the coming of the Horsemen and then end of the world as we know it.
First, I found an artist's depiction of the four horsemen through the database ARTstor. This depiction was created in the year 1527, one of the closest I could find to the time in which Milton wrote the poem, "Paradise Lost", by the artist Erhard Schoen. To see this painting go to: http://vpn.uconn.edu/library/ ,DanaInfo=library.artstor.org+welcome.html#3|search| 1 | 22|the20four20horsemen20of20th20apocalyse22 |Multiple20Collection20Search| | | type 3D3126kw3D22the20four20horsemen20of20the20apocalypse2226id3Dall26name3D then select the depiction called "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" by Erhard Schoen (1527). In this depiction there are the four horsemen riding through complete with weapons as they triumphantly trample over humanity. The horsemen seem to be bringing the wrath of misery with them like an ocean that is overtaking the world around them. This storm of misery is one that seems to be fueled by the creature of hell that we see in the lower left hand corner. This shows the unnatural and evil connotations of the Apocalypse during the sixteenth century. This depiction of the Groomsmen and the Apocalypse has a serious tone; one that is specific to the time in which it was created an the beliefs of the people at that time.
Throughout the time that I was looking for an depiction of the literal meaning of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse I happened to find many satyrical depictions of the men. At first I brushed them off but then I realized that there may be a greater symbolism to these cartoons than I initially allotted them. I eventually came upon one that showed the horsemen on these small and rather dinky horses with less than mediocre weapons and no menacing presence as seen in the first depiction. In this cartoon, one horseman is making a joke to another one of his fellow horsemen and there is an overall feeling to this cartoon that does not invoke fear as the first one did. To see this image go to: http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ dba0024l.jpg
It seemed to me that the first depiction was more like Paradise Lost. It was serious and had an adherence to the traditional biblical story of the Apocalypse. This is in contrast to the cartoon that mocked the end of the world. This depiction poked fun at the concepts of the four horsemen, their forceful natures, and the overall concept of the end of the world. This seemed to parallel the book Good Omens. This book uses humor to put a twist on a traditional story in a satirical manner. It is interesting to see how the different time periods viewed the same story from the bible. The painting and the cartoon I believe help to further show the contrast between "Paradise Lost" and Good Omens through further outlining the difference in tone.
Adam vs. Adam
As I was reading Good Omens, I wondered if there were supposed to be certain parallels between Adam in Paradise Lost and Adam in Good Omens. Adam in Paradise Lost was the first human ever created, hence being the start of the creation of mankind. Adam in Good Omens is supposed to be the anti-Christ, and is ironically supposed to be the downfall and elimination of mankind. Funny then, that the anti-Christ is named Adam.
However, both him and Eve in
But Adam in the Them seems to be more of a leader and an adventurous child than the anti-Christ. This is probably due to the fact that he went to the wrong home and isn’t raised to bring the destruction of mankind. Adam in Paradise Lost was also considered a leader, because the only other person he had was Eve and he was there first. Both
“That’s where you’re wrong”, said Adam. “It’s not the Devil. It’s another god, or something. With horns”
“The Devil”, said Brian
“No”, said Adam patiently. “People just got ‘em mixed up. He’s just got horns similar. He’s called Pan. He’s half a goat” (pg 206).
And Adam in Paradise Lost is undoubtedly a leader of
While both
Both
Thursday, November 27, 2008
In class we briefly mentioned the quote in the beginning section of Good Omens that described the hell-hound given to the anti-christ on his birthday. The passage that stuck out in my mind was,
"Deep in it's diabolical canine brain it knew that something was wrong, but it was nothing if not obedient and its great sudden love of its Master overcame all misgivings. Who was it to say what size it should be anyway?
It trotted down the slope to meet its destiny. Strange, though. It had always wanted to jump up at people but, now, it realized that against all expectations it wanted to wag its tail at the same time." (pg 84)
I immediately thought of this passage as a parallel to Eve in "Paradise Lost". I figured this
based on the clear obedience to the master. Both the hell-hound and Eve were completely obedient to their respective masters. This was clear in "Paradise Lost" as we see Eve relies on Adam to inform her of everything. This has reminded me of the quote from "Paradise Lost" that says, " He for God only, she for God in Him" (4.299). Eve was expected to live accordingly to Adam's desires and saw herself only in terms of Adam. I thought of this especially after I noticed that Eve after eating from the tree thinks not of the effects that eating the forbidden fruit will have on her but how it will impact Adam and their relationship. She sees the consequences in terms of Adam, just as she sees every aspect of her life. This held such relevance to the part of the passage that said, ". . . sudden love of it's Master overcame all misgivings. Who was it to say what size it should be anyways?" (pg 85). This is similar to the criticism that I read that argued Eve oppression by Adam and by God. To reference my post on this article go to http://writerslost.blogspot.com/2008/10/from-eve-first-reflection.html .
This author had said that there was no way for Eve to know overcome the oppression as long as she was under the influence and control of God and Adam. (Walker, Julia. M "From Eve. . ." pg 519). I believe that this is true for the hell-hound. As long as it is under the control of the Anti-christ and the other demons of hell it was bound to do as it is told.
It again was clear to me that the hell-hound could be a metaphor for Eve because of the way that it begins with "deep within it's diabolical canine brain"(pg 85). I connected that to the way that Eve had first thought of eating from the tree of knowledge deep within her brain, through the dream. Also the passage exemplified how the dog had these inner desires to wag it's tail; something that also stems from its brain. I found this part to be interesting because so far it seemed to be a metaphor, the hell-hound for Eve but here I was confused as to what Gaiman and Pratchett were saying about Eve. The hell-hound was of an evil nature but had secret desires to go against it's purpose and be friendly or do good. Eve was thought to be good and had these desires to do bad but I have to wonder whether they were really desires or was she just deceived into following Satan. Did they think that truly she was an predestined to do evil but she appeared to be fair and beautiful to Adam? Or do the authors draw a connection to Eve through the hell-hounds just not one that is direct?
What do you think?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
In the book, Good Omen's the argument of nature verses nurture comes up as Crowley and Aziraphale are discussing the future of the anti-christ. Both Crowley and Aziraphale are fighting it out for the soul of this child, "the Adversary, Destroyer of Kings, Angel if the Bottomless Pit, Great Beast that is called Dragon, Prince of This World, Father of Lies, Spawn of Satan, and Lord of Darkness." (Gaiman & Pratchett. Good Omen's, pg 42). Crowley argues that, "". . . the birth is just the start. It's the upbringing that's important. It's the Influences. Otherwise the child will never learn to use its powers." He hesitated. "At least, not necessarily as intended."" (pg 58). Here they are more or less questioning the nature of a person which is something that I have noticed came up many times throughout the beginning of Good Omen's and even in the plot of the poem by John Milton, "Paradise Lost".
Right from the beginning, Crawly and Aziraphale question what would happen if Crawly, a demon pre-programmed to do wrong and evil had done the good thing and Aziraphale, an angel with a good-doing nature was the one who had committed the evil act in regards to the fall of Adam and Eve. Aziraphale tells Crawly that he is not even sure that Crawly even has the capacity to do good, after all he is a demon. (pg 4). It seems as though it is just expected that the demons are only capable of evil-doings and angels are only able to do good deeds. As though maybe there is a set model for angels to follow, and an even stricter one for the demons?
As I began to think of how one can define the nature of a person I immediately connected it to free will. I think that a person as was said in the poem, "Paradise Lost" is given free will by God and therefore is capable to make their own decisions and thus will determine their human nature. In the book Good Omen's Aziraphale says, "the whole point was that when a human was good or bad it was because they wanted to be."; nurture (pg 39). He goes farther to say that angels and demons are set in their ways from the beginning; nature. I believe this to be true, for the most part. I believe that humans are capable of being of both a good or an evil nature depending on the situation. This seems to revert back to one of my previous posts that talked about the book 19 Minutes (to revert back to this post: http://writerslost.blogspot.com/2008/09/eves-dream.html ).
Basically I was exploring the idea that just because people have thoughts and ideas does not mean that they will act upon these ideas. I think that this would go even further to question whether or not one's free will to act upon these dark thoughts would stem back to the type of person that they are. One of the ideas that the book addresses is whether a person who commits a heinous crime such as committing a mass murder was born a psychopath or if his environment growing up had shaped him into who he was when he decided to commit the crime.
I have to wonder whether one could call Eve's reasoning for eating from the Forbidden Tree a case of nature or nurture. One could argue that it was in her nature to be curious, naïve and vain; attributes that allowed her to be easily deceived by Satan. Or does the argument stand that Eve had been more or less oppressed by Adam for her entire existence that she subconsciously made the decision to eat the apple and thus destroy paradise.
"Free will for everyone. Ineffable right?" (pg 107) --- Crowley
However I have reservations concerning the notion that angels and demons are set in their ways right from the beginning. As I mention before, both Crawly and Aziraphale have questioned what the nature of their actions were: whether they were in-line with their pre-determined molds or if they had strayed and adapted the other's role. They both question whether this is possible which makes me believe that even though they have had many experiences this is something that they have not yet tested and are therefore relying on the information that is pumped to them as correct. I also find this to be in question because they are trying to rationalize and sway the actions of a demon child whom they believe is to be evil by nature but is instead a normal human child which would thus mean that even Warlock were to grow up to be evil that it would not be due to the nature that they believe it to be, but instead his nurturing and upbringing as a child. In many ways I believe it is up to a person's free will the determines their behavior: human, angel, or demon.
Please let me know what you think!
Emily
p.s. - what's with the hating on the Golden Girls on page 71?! I love that show and actually as sad as it is I'm actually watching it as I write this post :P
Adam vs. Adam
I just wanted to pull a lauren and say that I will go back to edit this post later. I want to do a compare and contrast to the Adam character in Paradise Lost and Adam in Good Omens if someone did not claim it already.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Whatever you Do, Don't Touch the Apple
I was reading Corrie's blog titled "Paradise Lost and Fairy Tales," in which she suggests the similarities between evil witches tempting vulnerable individuals with objects and Satan/Adam/Eve of Paradise Lost.
Link: http://paradiselostcommonplace.blogspot.com/2008/10/paradise-lost-and-fairy-tales.html
Though I think Corrie has several good points, I also find it fascinating that in many fairy tales, the APPLE has been a common item used for temptation. Since Genesis was probably written before these Fairy Tales, I'd say its safe to assume that the use of an apple may be based on the story of Adam and Eve.
What I am wondering is, why on earth (or paradise for that matter) would you ever pick an apple to tempt someone with? Perhaps it is the ripeness of the perfect skin of an apple, or maybe the anticipation of mouth watering, savory fruit juice...
Either way, it's somewhat interesting that the apple is used. After all, why not a banana? Or a kiwi? Maybe a papaya?
I don't seem to have an answer for this.
I reread Genesis and I came to the realization that there was no mention of an apple. It was always referred to as "the fruit." It is rather surprising that the assumption is indeed an apple. So many fairy tales and stories rely on the apple, yet, Genesis does not even mention what the fruit is. In a book I found online, Apples: The Story of the Fruit of Temptation by Frank Browning, it briefly states that apples had different roles in different religions and cultures. For example, Egyptians gave apples to their high priestess as a gift. According to the author, "no one thought to hang them on the tree of knowledge until the fourth or fifth century AD, when apple trees began appearing in woodcuts and ecclesiastical drawings." (Browning, 65). In the Eastern Church, the forbidden fruit was figs, whereas other churches argued that grapes were the forbidden fruit.
The apple is also seen in Norse mythology, suggested as a fruit that brings immortality and perpetual youth. After further research that consisted of trying to find scholarly articles in between articles about Apple Store and cooking books, I was able to find another book titled, The Story of the Apple. This book, besides addressing the history of the apple, discusses how iconic the apple has become and perhaps always been, in society.
The author, Barrie Juniper, says that it is not just Adam and Eve who are associated with the apple. In fact, the Greek Goddess of Love and Beauty, Aphrodite, is known to carry an apple in her hands. Interestingly enough, the golden apple of Aphrodite has a huge impact on her story. It is said that on the wedding day, the Goddess of discord, Eris, wanted to ruin the wedding. She rolled a golden apple into the wedding halll with an inscription that said, "To the Fairest." The three goddesses wanted Zeus to decide which one of them should be able to get the apple, but instead, sent them to Troy to see Paris. Aphrodite, picked as one of the three fair Goddesses, told Paris that if he picked her as the most fairest, than she would give him a beautiful woman (who was Helen at the time) to have as his wife**. Paris gave Aphrodite the apple, and she is blamed to have started the Trojan war because of Paris's desire for Helen (Browning, 137). What is interesting is that the apple plays a role of temptation in this myth too. It tempts Aphrodite because she wants the title of being the most fair, but is also helps to tempt Paris. The downfall of receiving the apple is the start of the Trojan war, suggesting that the apple itself is a forbidden fruit.
Jupiter also mentions stories that include the apple such as the story of Muhammad, who inhaled eternal life through the scent of an apple, and the story of The Arabian Nights where a prince buys a magic apple that cures all diseases. Other writers, such as Michael Drayton and Andrew Marvel, refer to apples in their poetry and nature scenes (Juniper, 138). I am still researching this history as I have had some trouble finding really good sources, but I think it is rather fascinating how the apple has so many uses and meanings, especially among different religions and cultures. It is also used in sayings such as "the apple of one's eye." The apple represents many things: temptation, the fall, love, immortality, and beauty. Other symbols however, like the rose, are limited in what they are associated with. It's interesting to see how people come up with these associations, and how the apple has had an impact on so many stories today.
Even Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett mention the apple in their novel, "Good Omens." At the end of the book, this quote helped strike my interest in the apple: "And there was never an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it" (398). (I'm still analyzing this quote). Somehow I seem to think that people who added apples into myths didn't disagree with Adam's view.
I suppose no one knows for sure who decided that the apple brought about Adam's and Eve's fall, but one thing I do know for certain is that if I had been the one to decide on the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, I definitely would have made it the papaya. After all, no one ever suspects the papaya...
Browning, Frank. Apples: The Story of the Fruit of Temptation. Macmillan, 1999.
Juniper, Barrie. The Story of the Apple. Timber Press, 2006.
**Some basic information gathered from Wikipedia
Link: http://paradiselostcommonplace.blogspot.com/2008/10/paradise-lost-and-fairy-tales.html
Though I think Corrie has several good points, I also find it fascinating that in many fairy tales, the APPLE has been a common item used for temptation. Since Genesis was probably written before these Fairy Tales, I'd say its safe to assume that the use of an apple may be based on the story of Adam and Eve.
What I am wondering is, why on earth (or paradise for that matter) would you ever pick an apple to tempt someone with? Perhaps it is the ripeness of the perfect skin of an apple, or maybe the anticipation of mouth watering, savory fruit juice...
Either way, it's somewhat interesting that the apple is used. After all, why not a banana? Or a kiwi? Maybe a papaya?
I don't seem to have an answer for this.
I reread Genesis and I came to the realization that there was no mention of an apple. It was always referred to as "the fruit." It is rather surprising that the assumption is indeed an apple. So many fairy tales and stories rely on the apple, yet, Genesis does not even mention what the fruit is. In a book I found online, Apples: The Story of the Fruit of Temptation by Frank Browning, it briefly states that apples had different roles in different religions and cultures. For example, Egyptians gave apples to their high priestess as a gift. According to the author, "no one thought to hang them on the tree of knowledge until the fourth or fifth century AD, when apple trees began appearing in woodcuts and ecclesiastical drawings." (Browning, 65). In the Eastern Church, the forbidden fruit was figs, whereas other churches argued that grapes were the forbidden fruit.
The apple is also seen in Norse mythology, suggested as a fruit that brings immortality and perpetual youth. After further research that consisted of trying to find scholarly articles in between articles about Apple Store and cooking books, I was able to find another book titled, The Story of the Apple. This book, besides addressing the history of the apple, discusses how iconic the apple has become and perhaps always been, in society.
The author, Barrie Juniper, says that it is not just Adam and Eve who are associated with the apple. In fact, the Greek Goddess of Love and Beauty, Aphrodite, is known to carry an apple in her hands. Interestingly enough, the golden apple of Aphrodite has a huge impact on her story. It is said that on the wedding day, the Goddess of discord, Eris, wanted to ruin the wedding. She rolled a golden apple into the wedding halll with an inscription that said, "To the Fairest." The three goddesses wanted Zeus to decide which one of them should be able to get the apple, but instead, sent them to Troy to see Paris. Aphrodite, picked as one of the three fair Goddesses, told Paris that if he picked her as the most fairest, than she would give him a beautiful woman (who was Helen at the time) to have as his wife**. Paris gave Aphrodite the apple, and she is blamed to have started the Trojan war because of Paris's desire for Helen (Browning, 137). What is interesting is that the apple plays a role of temptation in this myth too. It tempts Aphrodite because she wants the title of being the most fair, but is also helps to tempt Paris. The downfall of receiving the apple is the start of the Trojan war, suggesting that the apple itself is a forbidden fruit.
Jupiter also mentions stories that include the apple such as the story of Muhammad, who inhaled eternal life through the scent of an apple, and the story of The Arabian Nights where a prince buys a magic apple that cures all diseases. Other writers, such as Michael Drayton and Andrew Marvel, refer to apples in their poetry and nature scenes (Juniper, 138). I am still researching this history as I have had some trouble finding really good sources, but I think it is rather fascinating how the apple has so many uses and meanings, especially among different religions and cultures. It is also used in sayings such as "the apple of one's eye." The apple represents many things: temptation, the fall, love, immortality, and beauty. Other symbols however, like the rose, are limited in what they are associated with. It's interesting to see how people come up with these associations, and how the apple has had an impact on so many stories today.
Even Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett mention the apple in their novel, "Good Omens." At the end of the book, this quote helped strike my interest in the apple: "And there was never an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it" (398). (I'm still analyzing this quote). Somehow I seem to think that people who added apples into myths didn't disagree with Adam's view.
I suppose no one knows for sure who decided that the apple brought about Adam's and Eve's fall, but one thing I do know for certain is that if I had been the one to decide on the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, I definitely would have made it the papaya. After all, no one ever suspects the papaya...
Browning, Frank. Apples: The Story of the Fruit of Temptation. Macmillan, 1999.
Juniper, Barrie. The Story of the Apple. Timber Press, 2006.
**Some basic information gathered from Wikipedia
Revision Blog: On the Quote Post
Hey all, this is my revision blog! (yayyy?). I am revising the first blog I ever wrote. Here's the link: http://writerslost.blogspot.com/2008/09/quote-post-for-paradise-lost.html
So, I want to explain that I have a lot of little post it notes laying around with different blog ideas that I have never gotten around to writing, so these posts may seem to cover a lot of older things that happened a really long time ago. So sorry.
"Nor failed they to express how much they praised/That for the gen'ral safety he despised/His own: for neither do the spirits damned/Lose all their virtue, lest bad men should boast/Their specious deeds on earth which glory excites,/Or close ambition varnished o'er with zeal." (II, 480-485)
This quote still stands out in my mind and it definitely seemed to relate to the rest of Milton's epic poem. Originally, I had said that it made sense that even demons maintained virtue. I still agree with my previous statement in that regard. However, I had begun to consider (a long time ago actually) another fact as to why Milton states that fallen angels maintain their virtue. In my first paper, I wrote about how these retained virtues seemed to make demons more human like, thus suggesting that demonic as well as angelic characteristics are found in man. I also suggested the idea that any individual/being can fall, given the right circumstances.
For example, I'm just going to touch on the idea of the seven deadly sins since I'm pretty sure I have already written a blog on that and other people have pointed out the same things. The characters of Belial, Moloch, and Satan retain the sins of sloth, greed, and pride. Humanity itself relates these sins into its own religions and views. Since humans can maintain sin, then obviously they possess traits of "evil." However, these traits are only seen as truly evil if they are taken to an extreme, which helps define the line between good and evil. Apparently Satan believes he can tempt Adam and Eve, which also shows that he believes evil is found in man as well.
God's knowledge of the Fall can also be seen as the knowledge of good and evil in Man. Since God predicts man's fall, it is reasonable to assume that He knows man can commit sin. However, since we are given free will, and people do choose to live under God's way, "good" traits are also shown in man. Ultimately, God created angels and humans the same way. He created them in His image. If God is good, then Man is good as well, even after they fall.
I think this quote is one that is worth really thinking about because I feel that it implies as well as applies to many things, especially Paradise Lost. I could go on and on about this, but I already wrote a paper on it so I'd rather not. I just decided to revise my first blog a little bit.
So, I want to explain that I have a lot of little post it notes laying around with different blog ideas that I have never gotten around to writing, so these posts may seem to cover a lot of older things that happened a really long time ago. So sorry.
"Nor failed they to express how much they praised/That for the gen'ral safety he despised/His own: for neither do the spirits damned/Lose all their virtue, lest bad men should boast/Their specious deeds on earth which glory excites,/Or close ambition varnished o'er with zeal." (II, 480-485)
This quote still stands out in my mind and it definitely seemed to relate to the rest of Milton's epic poem. Originally, I had said that it made sense that even demons maintained virtue. I still agree with my previous statement in that regard. However, I had begun to consider (a long time ago actually) another fact as to why Milton states that fallen angels maintain their virtue. In my first paper, I wrote about how these retained virtues seemed to make demons more human like, thus suggesting that demonic as well as angelic characteristics are found in man. I also suggested the idea that any individual/being can fall, given the right circumstances.
For example, I'm just going to touch on the idea of the seven deadly sins since I'm pretty sure I have already written a blog on that and other people have pointed out the same things. The characters of Belial, Moloch, and Satan retain the sins of sloth, greed, and pride. Humanity itself relates these sins into its own religions and views. Since humans can maintain sin, then obviously they possess traits of "evil." However, these traits are only seen as truly evil if they are taken to an extreme, which helps define the line between good and evil. Apparently Satan believes he can tempt Adam and Eve, which also shows that he believes evil is found in man as well.
God's knowledge of the Fall can also be seen as the knowledge of good and evil in Man. Since God predicts man's fall, it is reasonable to assume that He knows man can commit sin. However, since we are given free will, and people do choose to live under God's way, "good" traits are also shown in man. Ultimately, God created angels and humans the same way. He created them in His image. If God is good, then Man is good as well, even after they fall.
I think this quote is one that is worth really thinking about because I feel that it implies as well as applies to many things, especially Paradise Lost. I could go on and on about this, but I already wrote a paper on it so I'd rather not. I just decided to revise my first blog a little bit.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Replying to a Response about Perfection
This post is in response to Sheryl’s post about Marjorie’s post about Satan being more interesting than God, Sheryl states that she thinks God is no less interesting than Satan. Here's the link:
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/response-to-perfection.html
I tend to agree with this, because, when one thinks about the subject, God supposedly knows everything. He is the reason everything happens. Even just by reading the poem, one begins to question God and his reasons. Why would God let Satan tempt Adam and Eve? If he wanted them to have free will, why couldn’t he have simply let them have the tree as temptation and not allowed Satan to be any part of their lives? And why did God let Satan and the other angels fall in the first place? So many questions about this just seem to lead the reader in circles. While Milton tries to justify God’s ways to man, I feel that he is just as confused as everyone else as to what, exactly, God’s reasons were.
In Marjorie’s post, she says “Perfection is boring!!! What exciting thing ever happens from knowing everything? With Satan, it’s 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.” While I certainly agree with the majority of what she says, I don’t believe that perfection is boring. This is what I agree with Sheryl on. Satan is, without a doubt, very interesting. He seems like us, and he seems to be unpredictable. It seems that Satan is just as capable of making mistakes as we are, whereas God is not, because He is perfect. However, just because God knows everything doesn’t mean there is nothing interesting. Sure, I suppose much that happened wouldn’t surprise him, but he surprises everyone else based on what he does. God knows everything that has happened and will happen, according to Milton. If this is the case, one must think about how intriguing it is that he allows things to happen the way they do. It’s amazing that God lets Adam and Eve be tempted and fall. Why would God do this? Why would God allow these kinds of things to happen? If God is perfect and all-knowing, why wouldn’t he simply keep things perfect? Now, wouldn’t that be boring?
http://paradisetranslation1011.blogspot.com/2008/11/response-to-perfection.html
I tend to agree with this, because, when one thinks about the subject, God supposedly knows everything. He is the reason everything happens. Even just by reading the poem, one begins to question God and his reasons. Why would God let Satan tempt Adam and Eve? If he wanted them to have free will, why couldn’t he have simply let them have the tree as temptation and not allowed Satan to be any part of their lives? And why did God let Satan and the other angels fall in the first place? So many questions about this just seem to lead the reader in circles. While Milton tries to justify God’s ways to man, I feel that he is just as confused as everyone else as to what, exactly, God’s reasons were.
In Marjorie’s post, she says “Perfection is boring!!! What exciting thing ever happens from knowing everything? With Satan, it’s 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.” While I certainly agree with the majority of what she says, I don’t believe that perfection is boring. This is what I agree with Sheryl on. Satan is, without a doubt, very interesting. He seems like us, and he seems to be unpredictable. It seems that Satan is just as capable of making mistakes as we are, whereas God is not, because He is perfect. However, just because God knows everything doesn’t mean there is nothing interesting. Sure, I suppose much that happened wouldn’t surprise him, but he surprises everyone else based on what he does. God knows everything that has happened and will happen, according to Milton. If this is the case, one must think about how intriguing it is that he allows things to happen the way they do. It’s amazing that God lets Adam and Eve be tempted and fall. Why would God do this? Why would God allow these kinds of things to happen? If God is perfect and all-knowing, why wouldn’t he simply keep things perfect? Now, wouldn’t that be boring?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Real
After gaining sudden inspiration to add another paragraph to my latest paper, I decided that I would expand up on it for everyone to enjoy. That is, if you enjoy reading about Paradise Lost of course.
This may sound a bit harsh, but humans now can essentially be considered "broken". Thanks Adam and Eve. According to the poem, before the fall Adam, Eve, and thier offspring were eventually supposed to replace a third of the angels that were lost in Heaven from Satan's hissy fit. Like angels, they were immortal, and should posses certain angelic properties since they were eventually supposed to become them. Thier relationship was ideal too, but after gaining knowledge they became more relatable characters. I will quote my from my latest paper:
"Right before their fall, Eve wanted to do their work in a different way than Adam wanted to. They worked it through with little distress. Dealing with problems this way is an ideal way to handle a situation. Handing your loved one over to God to sanction, and then saving yourself is not an ideal way to tackle your problems. Then again, some humans are known to do some pretty radical things when they are upset. (Harrington, 7)."
Humans are exactly what they become. They were humans before, but the couple was more on the border of angelic and "perfect", and without sin. They did not sin before, but after sinning will now become inevitable. People today sin on a daily basis. We were originally not supposed to do that before, according to the story. If Adam and Eve did not sin, according to plan, we were not supposed to either. Another parallel to being angelic. But after the fall, humans now sin, are nolonger immortal, and can be a bit irrational. Not qualities that are supposed to be prevalent in angels. Thier relationship is prone to upset as well, but it is this that makes them more relatable and hence, human. They go from being the ideal example of a couple in which we are supposed to heed by, to a more modern and attainable example.
Harrington, Andrea. "Marriage, Interupted." 2008.
This may sound a bit harsh, but humans now can essentially be considered "broken". Thanks Adam and Eve. According to the poem, before the fall Adam, Eve, and thier offspring were eventually supposed to replace a third of the angels that were lost in Heaven from Satan's hissy fit. Like angels, they were immortal, and should posses certain angelic properties since they were eventually supposed to become them. Thier relationship was ideal too, but after gaining knowledge they became more relatable characters. I will quote my from my latest paper:
"Right before their fall, Eve wanted to do their work in a different way than Adam wanted to. They worked it through with little distress. Dealing with problems this way is an ideal way to handle a situation. Handing your loved one over to God to sanction, and then saving yourself is not an ideal way to tackle your problems. Then again, some humans are known to do some pretty radical things when they are upset. (Harrington, 7)."
Humans are exactly what they become. They were humans before, but the couple was more on the border of angelic and "perfect", and without sin. They did not sin before, but after sinning will now become inevitable. People today sin on a daily basis. We were originally not supposed to do that before, according to the story. If Adam and Eve did not sin, according to plan, we were not supposed to either. Another parallel to being angelic. But after the fall, humans now sin, are nolonger immortal, and can be a bit irrational. Not qualities that are supposed to be prevalent in angels. Thier relationship is prone to upset as well, but it is this that makes them more relatable and hence, human. They go from being the ideal example of a couple in which we are supposed to heed by, to a more modern and attainable example.
Harrington, Andrea. "Marriage, Interupted." 2008.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Paradise Lost/Pandora's Box
Toward the middle and end of Book XI, the scene where Michael is showing Adam all of the things that have been unleashed due to their sin reminded me greatly of the Greek myth of Pandora’s Box. Michael shows Adam (and Eve in a dream) how the world will no longer always be beautiful, and there will be more than just good. Because of their sin, God’s wrath will be unleashed on the world. Michael explains death and despair and the other awful things that will now be part of their once perfect world. Adam is shown all of the awful things that will now be in the world they live in. However, before Adam and Eve have to leave the garden, Adam tells the angel that he feels their temptation was a good thing. This allows God to be greater than before
In the Greek myth of Pandora, a young woman was created after Prometheus stole fire from Olympus. Pandora was the first woman, and meant to be a punishment for mankind. She was given a jar filled with several gifts from the Gods, but told to keep it closed. However, Pandora was given the gift of curiosity, which tempted her to open it. When she finally did, all things evil, including diseases and hard labor were released. She was able to close it, leaving only one thing left inside the box; Hope.
When Adam says temptation was a good thing because God will be shown as greater than ever before, it is very similar to the bottom of Pandora’s Box, where hope comes from. It seems to me that Adam, after being shown all things evil, finally finds hope that everything will be alright again; that mankind will be saved. The last thing that was in Pandora’s Box was Hope. This was what made all of the evils in life bearable.
In the Greek myth of Pandora, a young woman was created after Prometheus stole fire from Olympus. Pandora was the first woman, and meant to be a punishment for mankind. She was given a jar filled with several gifts from the Gods, but told to keep it closed. However, Pandora was given the gift of curiosity, which tempted her to open it. When she finally did, all things evil, including diseases and hard labor were released. She was able to close it, leaving only one thing left inside the box; Hope.
When Adam says temptation was a good thing because God will be shown as greater than ever before, it is very similar to the bottom of Pandora’s Box, where hope comes from. It seems to me that Adam, after being shown all things evil, finally finds hope that everything will be alright again; that mankind will be saved. The last thing that was in Pandora’s Box was Hope. This was what made all of the evils in life bearable.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"From Eve: The First Reflection"
The article, "From Eve: The First Reflection" by Julia M. Walker analyses the very important and sometimes overlooked role that Eve's image and self-awareness plays in the poem,"Paradise Lost". According to Walker, "She [Eve] submits to the arbitrary gender displacement, coming to see Adam as at once the generative image of and better than herself." (Walker, Julia. M, "From Eve: The First Reflection" pg 516) This is a common theme that Walker examines throughout the article. She often brings up the valid point that Eve is only able to see herself in terms of Adam. It is said that she is unable to function separately from her association with the earth and with her subservience to Adam. But what I found to be more interesting was the notion that Walker proposed which said that Eve, not knowing any other ways just excepts her role in society from God and Adam. Walker says, ". . . Adam seems to have no sense that it is from this feminine Earth from which he was formed. He draws his self-identity solely from his maker and not from matter, but expects Eve to privilege his absent rib above any other aspect of her being." (Walker, Julia. M. "From Eve: The First Reflection pg 518-19) I thought this was such an interesting point because here Walker seems to be saying that even though Adam was created from the Earth which has taken on a feminine connotation he disregards that fact and instead he gives homage to his masculine creator, God. The irony comes in when Adam expects Eve's constant gratification because she was created from Adam's rib, much like Adam was created from the Earth however instead of giving the credit to God, Adam expects it for himself.
When I first read this I asked myself why is it then that Eve subjects herself to this submissive behavior. Walker believes it to be the product of first of all, Eve's overall lack of knowledge, seeing as how she seems to know mainly what it is she is told and foremost, Eve's personal belief that if she were to challenge her position in Eden then Adam would replace her with ""another Eve" (9.827)" (Walker, Julia. M "From Eve. . . " pg 519). Eve like said before only knows what she is told and is therefore at the mercy of Adam and God.
This is why I found it to be interesting when Walker pointed out that Eve bears two names in the poem. She is called by a voice both Eve and Mother. Similarly to Andrea's infamous quote from her last paper that Eve was nothing but a "baby-maker"(Andrea Harrington, "Paradise Lost" Paper 2) Walker explorers the idea that Eve's main purpose was to yield. She says that Eve yields in many ways; one being to Adam and as Walker puts it, Eve will " ultimately yield, as does the earth, the fruit of her womb to "fill the World".
This article was very interesting and addressed many issues regarding Eve's role in Eden. I found it to be insightful as Walker made the argument that Eve not only defines herself in terms of Adam but that this is because of her setting and therefore she knows no other option. I agree with the sentiments of the article. I feel as though there are many times in which it is exhibited that Eve is viewed as the lesser in the relationship she has with Adam. It does seem that Eve would do anything for Adam, as we see in book 10 when she offers to go to God and tell him that it was her fault that they ate from the tree and not to blame Adam. Yet I must ask myself haven't there been times that we see Adam reciprocating this devotion? If not, then why else does Adam eat the apple after he learns that Eve has?
"From Satan"
William Empson’s critique, From Satan, is a short article that points out some character inconsistencies with Creation’s primary antagonist. The author claims that Satan starts off as a strong leader, a character with a lot of drive and ambition. Then he transforms from confident to doubtful, and eventually seems to be “rapidly rotting away”. Essentially, Satan is a dramatic character.
Empson briefly touches upon a point we discussed in class concerning Satan, the fallen angels, and their environment in hell. Like we discussed, the angels are suffering in hell, yet they are able to act freely. While the angels are discussing their current situation amongst themselves, Satan “expresses a rather self-indulgent pity for them and says he must bring upon them ‘death’ and ‘long woes’; but in Milton’s world death is a very subtle or almost meaningless term, and they might gain honor in the end as a reward for their long woes” (Empson). They are cut off from the pleasurable experiences they were able to have before their condemnation, which would explain why Satan became jealous of Adam and Eve’s sexual relationship and where they lived in Paradise.
The author believes that one can view Satan’s character in two ways; either as sincere, and you sympathize with him, or as the enemy. No matter which, Satan is both sincere and villainous. Empson argues that Satan partially believes that he can actually save Adam and Eve from the all-powerful tyrant that used to rule over him and his followers, but he also wants to use them to spite God. It is at this point where the author believes that Satan is “rotting away”.
I agree with the author’s brief assessment of Satan, because in Paradise Lost there are moments were he shows regret and remorse towards his actions. When he first saw Adam and Eve in Eden, Satan had wished God had made him a “lesser being”. He is certainly indecisive, switching back and forth between certainty and doubt with his actions. I am not sure if I would call this “rotting away”, but it could arguably be hypocritical. He wants to start trouble, but then later regrets it. Is he able to make up his mind? What does he want?
Empson briefly touches upon a point we discussed in class concerning Satan, the fallen angels, and their environment in hell. Like we discussed, the angels are suffering in hell, yet they are able to act freely. While the angels are discussing their current situation amongst themselves, Satan “expresses a rather self-indulgent pity for them and says he must bring upon them ‘death’ and ‘long woes’; but in Milton’s world death is a very subtle or almost meaningless term, and they might gain honor in the end as a reward for their long woes” (Empson). They are cut off from the pleasurable experiences they were able to have before their condemnation, which would explain why Satan became jealous of Adam and Eve’s sexual relationship and where they lived in Paradise.
The author believes that one can view Satan’s character in two ways; either as sincere, and you sympathize with him, or as the enemy. No matter which, Satan is both sincere and villainous. Empson argues that Satan partially believes that he can actually save Adam and Eve from the all-powerful tyrant that used to rule over him and his followers, but he also wants to use them to spite God. It is at this point where the author believes that Satan is “rotting away”.
I agree with the author’s brief assessment of Satan, because in Paradise Lost there are moments were he shows regret and remorse towards his actions. When he first saw Adam and Eve in Eden, Satan had wished God had made him a “lesser being”. He is certainly indecisive, switching back and forth between certainty and doubt with his actions. I am not sure if I would call this “rotting away”, but it could arguably be hypocritical. He wants to start trouble, but then later regrets it. Is he able to make up his mind? What does he want?
Just a Note: The Presence of Prayer
I know Patti thinks this quote is funny, but when I read book 11 when Adam and Eve are repenting, this quote came to mind. Ignoring the fact that Laurell K Hamilton's Anita Blake series is really about vampires, I was reminded of this quote.
"I felt that wave of calm I always get when I pray. It doesn't mean you'll get what you want, but it does mean that someone is listening." -Anita Blake [Blue Moon]
Eve describes her emotions while she is praying: "Persuasion in me grew/That I was heard with favor. Peace returned/Home to my breast and to my memoer/His promise that thy Seed shall bruise our foe,/Which then not minded in dismay yet now/Assures me that the bitterness of death/Is past and we shall live." (11. 152-158). In this quote, it seems that Eve is more reassured about the future after she prays. Eve remains calmer and hopeful after she begs for forgiveness and is heard by God. I think this sort of relates to the quote from Laurell K. Hamilton's book, Blue Moon. Anyway, that's just what those lines reminded me of. Read it, think about it, and you know, whatever.
Reading Book 11, Adam and Eve are praying. Since I am rather religious, I find this really cool and really fascinating that prayer now enters the epic poem. What's interesting is how they pray and that they only begin to pray AFTER they have fallen. As discussed in class, I think the las page of Book 10 really captures the beginning of the idea behind repentance.
"So spake our father pertinent, nor Eve/Felt less remorse. They forthwith to the place/Repairing where He judged them prostate fell/Before Him reverent and both confessed/Humbly their faults and pardon begged, with tears/Watering to the ground and with their sighs the air/Frequenting, sent from hearts contrite in sign/Of sorrow unfeigned and humiliation meek." (10. 1097-1105)
This passage was repeated twice in Book 10, but the first time these lines are stated, the passage ends with a question mark. After it is repeated, it ends with a period. I was wondering what everyone else thinks of this? To me it almost seems that Adam is at first asking what they can do to repent, but then decides to do exactly what he asked. The use of repetition brings the tone of the book to a close as they decide how they are going to repent.
Prayer is explained in Book 11, where the prayers are heard by the Son and then presented to God. I really like the imagery in the beginning: "to Heav'n their prayers/Flew up nor missed the way be envious winds/Blown vagabond or frustrate. In they passed dimensionless through Heav'nly doors, then clad/With incense where the golden altar fumed/By their great Intercessor came in sight/Before their Father's throne" (11. 14-20).
I can definitely envision the prayers flying up to Heaven and being placed at God's throne, as if they were doves or something of the sort. The fact that these prayers withstand even the heaviest winds underlines the power behind prayer. It also seems that Eve is much more repentant than Adam is. Eve does not find herself worthy of being the mother of mankind (or, according to Andrea, the baby maker), and I think that Eve definitely takes a lot of the blame and guilt on herself more so than Adam does.
Anyway, this blog is rather short because I just wanted to point out the idea of total repentance and prayer in Paradise Lost. Any thoughts?
"I felt that wave of calm I always get when I pray. It doesn't mean you'll get what you want, but it does mean that someone is listening." -Anita Blake [Blue Moon]
Eve describes her emotions while she is praying: "Persuasion in me grew/That I was heard with favor. Peace returned/Home to my breast and to my memoer/His promise that thy Seed shall bruise our foe,/Which then not minded in dismay yet now/Assures me that the bitterness of death/Is past and we shall live." (11. 152-158). In this quote, it seems that Eve is more reassured about the future after she prays. Eve remains calmer and hopeful after she begs for forgiveness and is heard by God. I think this sort of relates to the quote from Laurell K. Hamilton's book, Blue Moon. Anyway, that's just what those lines reminded me of. Read it, think about it, and you know, whatever.
Reading Book 11, Adam and Eve are praying. Since I am rather religious, I find this really cool and really fascinating that prayer now enters the epic poem. What's interesting is how they pray and that they only begin to pray AFTER they have fallen. As discussed in class, I think the las page of Book 10 really captures the beginning of the idea behind repentance.
"So spake our father pertinent, nor Eve/Felt less remorse. They forthwith to the place/Repairing where He judged them prostate fell/Before Him reverent and both confessed/Humbly their faults and pardon begged, with tears/Watering to the ground and with their sighs the air/Frequenting, sent from hearts contrite in sign/Of sorrow unfeigned and humiliation meek." (10. 1097-1105)
This passage was repeated twice in Book 10, but the first time these lines are stated, the passage ends with a question mark. After it is repeated, it ends with a period. I was wondering what everyone else thinks of this? To me it almost seems that Adam is at first asking what they can do to repent, but then decides to do exactly what he asked. The use of repetition brings the tone of the book to a close as they decide how they are going to repent.
Prayer is explained in Book 11, where the prayers are heard by the Son and then presented to God. I really like the imagery in the beginning: "to Heav'n their prayers/Flew up nor missed the way be envious winds/Blown vagabond or frustrate. In they passed dimensionless through Heav'nly doors, then clad/With incense where the golden altar fumed/By their great Intercessor came in sight/Before their Father's throne" (11. 14-20).
I can definitely envision the prayers flying up to Heaven and being placed at God's throne, as if they were doves or something of the sort. The fact that these prayers withstand even the heaviest winds underlines the power behind prayer. It also seems that Eve is much more repentant than Adam is. Eve does not find herself worthy of being the mother of mankind (or, according to Andrea, the baby maker), and I think that Eve definitely takes a lot of the blame and guilt on herself more so than Adam does.
Anyway, this blog is rather short because I just wanted to point out the idea of total repentance and prayer in Paradise Lost. Any thoughts?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Errr... I forgot...
I think we're supposed to post our comments with a link as actual posts... Sorryy!
I posted this on Lauren's post. Here's the link
Lauren, I really like your idea in this post! I, too, am rather obsessed with Charmed, so I know what you're talking about. I don't think you're stretching it. Eve is acting like she should; she's offering to save the rest of mankind as opposed to just her [or just Adam].
I think that evil/sin/death operate in deception and trickery as well as... invisibility? [Sorry, sounds odd... not sure how to phrase that!]
Also, usually in Charmed, there's some bigger evil that the demons [in this instance, maybe the four horsemen] are doing the bidding for - the Source for instance. It's the same thing with this passage. Sin and Death are, in essence, doing Satan's bidding. He set everything up, tempting Eve and therefore Adam to eat the apple, sealing their fate as well. Usually in Charmed, the Source or some other evil plans things out, or sets something up, and then uses others to enact the plan. This could also show part of Satan's manipulative personality.
Anyway, great connection to "pop culture"! I think it works :)
I posted this on Lauren's post. Here's the link
Lauren, I really like your idea in this post! I, too, am rather obsessed with Charmed, so I know what you're talking about. I don't think you're stretching it. Eve is acting like she should; she's offering to save the rest of mankind as opposed to just her [or just Adam].
I think that evil/sin/death operate in deception and trickery as well as... invisibility? [Sorry, sounds odd... not sure how to phrase that!]
Also, usually in Charmed, there's some bigger evil that the demons [in this instance, maybe the four horsemen] are doing the bidding for - the Source for instance. It's the same thing with this passage. Sin and Death are, in essence, doing Satan's bidding. He set everything up, tempting Eve and therefore Adam to eat the apple, sealing their fate as well. Usually in Charmed, the Source or some other evil plans things out, or sets something up, and then uses others to enact the plan. This could also show part of Satan's manipulative personality.
Anyway, great connection to "pop culture"! I think it works :)
Eve grew up
In class today, we discussed Eve’s surprising attitude in Book 10, where she admits that it was her fault that she and Adam fell. In book 9, after eating the apple, Eve thinks about using the knowledge she now has over Adam so she will no longer be seen as his weaker. Instead, she offers him the apple, of which he eats, not wanting to live without her. He eats the apple because he loves her and doesn’t want to be without her. Later, Eve seems to have a change in character here, because she isn’t acting childish and blaming someone else, unlike Adam. Instead, Eve is willing to admit that it’s her fault. She doesn’t want Adam or her children to suffer because she committed a sin; so instead, she begins to think about suicide. When Adam talks her out of it, Eve offers to go to God and tell him that it was her fault, and only her. Adam talks her out of this as well. I think that Adam is not only whiny but selfish. He wants to keep Eve from doing the right thing because he doesn’t want to live without her. Eve loves Adam as well, but it seems that she would rather know that he’s safe from the wrath of God than make him suffer.
Throughout Paradise Lost, when Adam and Eve are shown, I think Eve is often portrayed as the “weaker,” being unequal to Adam. God assigns Adam to “rule” his wife, despite their obviously equal intellect. However, here Eve is showing her superiority when it comes to selflessness. She is more empathetic and does not want her husband nor their children to suffer for what she has done. Here, she seems to be the better person instead of Adam’s lesser. She is willing to sacrifice herself for someone else; she’s thinking about someone other than herself, and in a way, being heroic. Adam, on the other hand, seems to be flaky, childish and whiny, not wanting to live life without Eve. Instead, he blames God and Eve for why he ate the apple. Eve simply said that she was deceived by the snake, and she ate the apple. Adam doesn’t want to take responsibility for his actions, but Eve is more than willing to sacrifice herself for him. This, to me, makes Eve the better person.
Throughout Paradise Lost, when Adam and Eve are shown, I think Eve is often portrayed as the “weaker,” being unequal to Adam. God assigns Adam to “rule” his wife, despite their obviously equal intellect. However, here Eve is showing her superiority when it comes to selflessness. She is more empathetic and does not want her husband nor their children to suffer for what she has done. Here, she seems to be the better person instead of Adam’s lesser. She is willing to sacrifice herself for someone else; she’s thinking about someone other than herself, and in a way, being heroic. Adam, on the other hand, seems to be flaky, childish and whiny, not wanting to live life without Eve. Instead, he blames God and Eve for why he ate the apple. Eve simply said that she was deceived by the snake, and she ate the apple. Adam doesn’t want to take responsibility for his actions, but Eve is more than willing to sacrifice herself for him. This, to me, makes Eve the better person.
The Road to Paradise: Sin and Death Book 10
After the fall of Adam and Eve, Sin and Death, aware of Satan's success, decide to build a road leading from Hell to Earth.
This allows Sin and Death to infect the world, thus destroying God's paradise and continuing to corrupt mankind.
"Both to destroy or unimmortal make/All kinds and for destruction to mature" (10.611-612).
Clearly their mission is to continue to destroy Earth (as seen when animals begin to eat each other).
This image of Sin and Death entering Earth with plans of destruction reminded me of an episode of "Charmed," specifically the episode "Apocalypse, Not." Remember Charmed? It was an awesome supernatural TV series that ran for 8 years next to Buffy in the 90's and continued to run until 2006ish. I am particularly obsessed with the show, seeing as I have all 8 seasons on DVD, and this image of Sin an Death corrupting and destroying the world for pleasure and revenge definitely made me think of Charmed.
So, this episode is from season 2 (which is actually a long time ago, man I am feeling old..), and basically it's about the four horseman of the Apocalypse, Death, War, Famine, and Strife, invading Earth.
I have posted youtube links containing the full episode for your enjoyment...
The episode is divided up into a few different parts though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErMUil3oKI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDvoCNyxSaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtaVWTUqgC4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-zRqTtR96o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnSI8Eh91I4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GARMj6svoYU&feature=related
So, what's interesting is that this episode opens up with Phoebe, the youngest sister, asking her sisters the question, "What if a building is on fire? Do you save 5 strangers or 1 sibling?" This question sort of connects with Eve in Book 10. After Eve ate from the tree and the Son arrives, she offers to plead with God to punish only her so that mankind isn't. Here, Eve is willing to sacrifice herself in order to save mankind, people she doesn't even really know. In Charmed, the sisters realize that they should save 5 strangers instead of a sister because sometimes the greater good is more important than one sibling or person. I don't know if that is somewhat of a stretch for a connection, but I just thought it was interesting when I started to re-watch some of the episode.
The goal of the four horsemen is to bring about the end of the world by starting and creating war, strife, death, and famine by using their powers. In a way, their goal is similar to Sin's and Death's in Book 10. The beginning of this episode shows the four horsemen transferring into a different plane, which is sort of like Hell is for Sin and Death. This alternate world provides a safe haven for the horsemen, whereas Hell provides a haven for Sin and Death. While the four horsemen are corrupting the world, people do not see them (except for the Charmed Ones apparently). I would think it would be similar to how Sin and Death operate- that people/animals do not necessarily see them, but feel emotionally different instead. A concept of evil sometimes being invisible is kind of interesting. The four horsemen are more modern, yet relate to a very old plan to destroy the world. Even today, death, sin, and evil in general still exist and have the same motives as they did since their fall, just like the idea of the four horsemen.
I'm not sure what I'm going to add about this comment because I feel like this is somewhat of a brief topic, and once you see the episode, I think you may get the connection.
This allows Sin and Death to infect the world, thus destroying God's paradise and continuing to corrupt mankind.
"Both to destroy or unimmortal make/All kinds and for destruction to mature" (10.611-612).
Clearly their mission is to continue to destroy Earth (as seen when animals begin to eat each other).
This image of Sin and Death entering Earth with plans of destruction reminded me of an episode of "Charmed," specifically the episode "Apocalypse, Not." Remember Charmed? It was an awesome supernatural TV series that ran for 8 years next to Buffy in the 90's and continued to run until 2006ish. I am particularly obsessed with the show, seeing as I have all 8 seasons on DVD, and this image of Sin an Death corrupting and destroying the world for pleasure and revenge definitely made me think of Charmed.
So, this episode is from season 2 (which is actually a long time ago, man I am feeling old..), and basically it's about the four horseman of the Apocalypse, Death, War, Famine, and Strife, invading Earth.
I have posted youtube links containing the full episode for your enjoyment...
The episode is divided up into a few different parts though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErMUil3oKI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDvoCNyxSaU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtaVWTUqgC4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-zRqTtR96o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnSI8Eh91I4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GARMj6svoYU&feature=related
So, what's interesting is that this episode opens up with Phoebe, the youngest sister, asking her sisters the question, "What if a building is on fire? Do you save 5 strangers or 1 sibling?" This question sort of connects with Eve in Book 10. After Eve ate from the tree and the Son arrives, she offers to plead with God to punish only her so that mankind isn't. Here, Eve is willing to sacrifice herself in order to save mankind, people she doesn't even really know. In Charmed, the sisters realize that they should save 5 strangers instead of a sister because sometimes the greater good is more important than one sibling or person. I don't know if that is somewhat of a stretch for a connection, but I just thought it was interesting when I started to re-watch some of the episode.
The goal of the four horsemen is to bring about the end of the world by starting and creating war, strife, death, and famine by using their powers. In a way, their goal is similar to Sin's and Death's in Book 10. The beginning of this episode shows the four horsemen transferring into a different plane, which is sort of like Hell is for Sin and Death. This alternate world provides a safe haven for the horsemen, whereas Hell provides a haven for Sin and Death. While the four horsemen are corrupting the world, people do not see them (except for the Charmed Ones apparently). I would think it would be similar to how Sin and Death operate- that people/animals do not necessarily see them, but feel emotionally different instead. A concept of evil sometimes being invisible is kind of interesting. The four horsemen are more modern, yet relate to a very old plan to destroy the world. Even today, death, sin, and evil in general still exist and have the same motives as they did since their fall, just like the idea of the four horsemen.
I'm not sure what I'm going to add about this comment because I feel like this is somewhat of a brief topic, and once you see the episode, I think you may get the connection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)