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! :)