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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)