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