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.
Monday, December 1, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)