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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)