My first post on this blog tied the book we were reading (Paradise Lost, by John Milton) to The Lord of the Rings. For my last post on this blog, I will again be tying the current text (this time Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett) to The Lord of the Rings, but in a different way. The first time, I pondered whether scenes in the films by Peter Jackson could possibly have been directly influenced by Milton. Tonight, I will talk about how a specific group of characters in Good Omens is not like a group found in The Lord of the Rings.
What am I talking about? For as long as I can remember, I always visualized the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as appearing very much like the Nine Ringwraiths in The Lord of the Rings: armored riders cloaked all in black on black steeds with fiery red eyes. I'm not exactly sure why I imagined them this way, but that was my image and I was sticking to it. However, while reading Good Omens and encountering the Four Horsemen (riding motorcycles!), I did a bit of exploring. Apparently, Gaiman and Pratchett were closer to the correct image than I was.
In Good Omens, the Four Horsemen appear all decked out in different colors, with motorcycles to match. In looking at The Bible, both Zechariah and Revelations make reference to the Four Horsemen, and it turns out that the colors end up corresponding: War is red, Pestilence (Pollution) is white, Famine is black, and Death is pale green. Indeed, even their names match (Famine's chosen first and last names, Raven Sable, are both shades of black), and the parcels they recieve correspond to things they are reputed to carry in Revelations: War the sword, Pestilence (Pollution) the crown, Famine the scales, and Death just himself.
I think it's very interesting how, in addition to not actually looking like I imagine, The Horsemen in Good Omens have evolved to come almost unnoticed into the present day. War takes the form of an arms dealer, spreading and perpetuating armed conflict throughout the Third World; Pollution has replaced Pestilence since the invention of penicillen and through industrial waste is choking the environment; Famine is creating a worldwide sensation by making people think they're actually eating healthy when in reality they are inducing death by starvation; Death blends in amongst the crowds and is everywhere at all times. This was a really clever way of re-casting and depicting these ancient harbingers of the Apocalypse, and it makes you wonder if perhaps they're riding among us today.
(For more, check out Emily's post.)
Monday, December 1, 2008
What's in a name?
A few other people have posted on the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" debate that goes on throughout Good Omens. Basically, the argument centers around the question of whether or not Adam will end up being the Antichrist who brings about Armageddon just because he is the offspring of Satan. After the babies get switched, it turns out that Adam grows up to be a fairly normal eleven-year-old who would much rather go play with his friends and his dog than go perform an act of evil. Likewise, Aziraphale and Crowley often wonder to themselves if, being angel and demon, they can only end up doing good and evil, respectively. We end up seeing that both of them are able to make choices which are sometimes independent of what one might believe to be the stereotypical angelic or demonic thing to do.
However, in the posts I've seen on all the blogs, nobody has yet addressed a third instance of this debate: Dog. On his eleventh birthday, the child who is the Antichrist is sent a hell-hound as a companion in doing evil and bringing about the end of the world. Because of the fact that Adam knows nothing about his true origins, we obviously know how that puts a wrench in the plan. The hell-hound is to be given a name that "would give it its purpose, its function, its identity." And his master ends up naming him "Dog" of all things. At the exact instant when the hell-hound receives this name, he is permanently changed, and much of the evil within him is extinguished, a process which will continue little by little through the end of the world.
Now, as I've stated before, I believe the main message of Good Omens is that our individual choices define who we are. If this is the case, and I think it is, why would Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett create a character who is unwillingly molded into what he ultimately becomes: a normal dog and man's (well, "boy's" actually) best friend?
I think that Dog is really meant to show the ability of anyone and anything to be redeemed, especially by the power of innocence. I know that sounds a bit trite, but bear with me here. Dog is sent to earth as a hell-hound, a pure-bred evil canine from the fiery pits of the Inferno whose purpose is to serve the Prince of Darkness in carrying out dastardly and devilish deeds of discord. However, in being named Dog by his master, that becomes his purpose: to be a just a regular dog. Adam was raised with no knowledge of his true origins, thinking himself the natural product of Mr. and Mrs. Young. He's just a normal boy, and through coming into contact with Dog, he is able to turn Dog from a evil hell-hound into force of good. Perhaps this is meant to show that through the power of good and pure intentions, even the most vile creature can be turned into something decent and wholesome.
For more on this "Nature vs. Nurture" concept, here are the other blog posts:
"Nature and its Role", by Lauren at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Nature vs. Nurture in Good Omens", by Merideth at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Where English meets Psychology", by Sarah at Forbidden Fruit (Group 4)
However, in the posts I've seen on all the blogs, nobody has yet addressed a third instance of this debate: Dog. On his eleventh birthday, the child who is the Antichrist is sent a hell-hound as a companion in doing evil and bringing about the end of the world. Because of the fact that Adam knows nothing about his true origins, we obviously know how that puts a wrench in the plan. The hell-hound is to be given a name that "would give it its purpose, its function, its identity." And his master ends up naming him "Dog" of all things. At the exact instant when the hell-hound receives this name, he is permanently changed, and much of the evil within him is extinguished, a process which will continue little by little through the end of the world.
Now, as I've stated before, I believe the main message of Good Omens is that our individual choices define who we are. If this is the case, and I think it is, why would Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett create a character who is unwillingly molded into what he ultimately becomes: a normal dog and man's (well, "boy's" actually) best friend?
I think that Dog is really meant to show the ability of anyone and anything to be redeemed, especially by the power of innocence. I know that sounds a bit trite, but bear with me here. Dog is sent to earth as a hell-hound, a pure-bred evil canine from the fiery pits of the Inferno whose purpose is to serve the Prince of Darkness in carrying out dastardly and devilish deeds of discord. However, in being named Dog by his master, that becomes his purpose: to be a just a regular dog. Adam was raised with no knowledge of his true origins, thinking himself the natural product of Mr. and Mrs. Young. He's just a normal boy, and through coming into contact with Dog, he is able to turn Dog from a evil hell-hound into force of good. Perhaps this is meant to show that through the power of good and pure intentions, even the most vile creature can be turned into something decent and wholesome.
For more on this "Nature vs. Nurture" concept, here are the other blog posts:
"Nature and its Role", by Lauren at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Nature vs. Nurture in Good Omens", by Merideth at Writers Lost (Group 3)
"Where English meets Psychology", by Sarah at Forbidden Fruit (Group 4)
What's the deal with apples, anyway?
On Group 5's blog "Introduction to Authors", Sheryl wrote a post about how the end of Good Omens is essentially a direct connection to Adam and the Fall of Mankind by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. In her post entitled "Apples....Again" she writes:
In class we've often talked about how John Milton's purpose in writing Paradise Lost was to explain the ways of God to man. As I was reading Good Omens, I kept trying to look for what Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's purpose was, and whether it was similar or different to Milton's. As I stated in my previous post about choices, as I was approaching the end of the novel I came to the conclusion that choices were the central point of the novel; that our choices were what defined us, not who we were born to be. But I think, in the end, there's a little bit more to it than that.
After I got to the end of the book and I read the above quotation, I came to amend my theory on what Gaiman and Pratchett are trying to get across through Good Omens. I think what they're trying to say is that even when we might get in trouble for the choices we make, and even when those choices might directly contradict mandates from the powers which directly affect our lives, when push comes to shove the end of the world will probably take place when we least expect it, so we should make every choice according to what we believe to be right in our hearts because it could be the last decision we make on earth.
"There were numerous quotes from Good Omens that stick out in my mind, but one that is particularly humorous and thought-provoking to me comes right at the end of the novel. The quote goes, "And there was never an apple, in Adam's opinion, that wasn't worth the trouble you got into for eating it."I, too, was really struck by this quote. But in addition to the humor which it provides, it struck me for another reason.
To me, this quote pretty much sums up the views of the Adams of both Good Omens as well as Paradise lost."
In class we've often talked about how John Milton's purpose in writing Paradise Lost was to explain the ways of God to man. As I was reading Good Omens, I kept trying to look for what Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's purpose was, and whether it was similar or different to Milton's. As I stated in my previous post about choices, as I was approaching the end of the novel I came to the conclusion that choices were the central point of the novel; that our choices were what defined us, not who we were born to be. But I think, in the end, there's a little bit more to it than that.
After I got to the end of the book and I read the above quotation, I came to amend my theory on what Gaiman and Pratchett are trying to get across through Good Omens. I think what they're trying to say is that even when we might get in trouble for the choices we make, and even when those choices might directly contradict mandates from the powers which directly affect our lives, when push comes to shove the end of the world will probably take place when we least expect it, so we should make every choice according to what we believe to be right in our hearts because it could be the last decision we make on earth.
The Element of Choice
I think one of the major themes of both Paradise Lost and Good Omens is that of choice. The most critical events of both these works have to do with a character making a conscious decision about whether or not to take a certain action.
In Paradise Lost, Satan makes the choice to rebel against God, taking his followers with him on a course that leads to expulsion from Heaven and damnation to Hell. Among those followers is the angel Abdiel, who chooses to repent of his errant ways and return to the folds of Heaven. Later, Eve makes the choice to obey the serpent and eat of the Tree of Knowledge, thereby willingly disobeying God. And when she goes to Adam and tells him what she did, he makes the choice to follow her in sin and also eats of the Forbidden Fruit.
In Good Omens, the whole idea of choices defining who we are is revisited. There are several instances where Crowley and Aziraphale go against what they believe might be expected from them by their superiors in order to carry out what they see fit to be the right order of things. For example, Aziraphale chooses to give the Flaming Sword to Adam and Eve because he takes pity on them, even though he's supposed to be using the sword to guard the gates of Eden. Much later in the book, Crowley actually defies the demons sent to capture him (including the Duke of Hell) in order to go find Aziraphale and see what's actually happening. Perhaps the most striking example of choice in Good Omens is the one involving the boy named Adam, who's namesake was part of the choice which brought about the Original Fall. Instead of doing evil deeds and undertaking hellish endeavours, Adam chooses to do things that he and his friends believe to be the nice thing for the world, like growing rainforests and freeing the wales. More importantly, Adam makes the conscious choice not to destroy the world with his awesome powers.
In both of these works, choices are the crux on which are formed the main events of the stories. All three of the authors want to stress the importance of the fact that our choices define us, for better or worse, not who we were born or the name that is given us.
In Paradise Lost, Satan makes the choice to rebel against God, taking his followers with him on a course that leads to expulsion from Heaven and damnation to Hell. Among those followers is the angel Abdiel, who chooses to repent of his errant ways and return to the folds of Heaven. Later, Eve makes the choice to obey the serpent and eat of the Tree of Knowledge, thereby willingly disobeying God. And when she goes to Adam and tells him what she did, he makes the choice to follow her in sin and also eats of the Forbidden Fruit.
In Good Omens, the whole idea of choices defining who we are is revisited. There are several instances where Crowley and Aziraphale go against what they believe might be expected from them by their superiors in order to carry out what they see fit to be the right order of things. For example, Aziraphale chooses to give the Flaming Sword to Adam and Eve because he takes pity on them, even though he's supposed to be using the sword to guard the gates of Eden. Much later in the book, Crowley actually defies the demons sent to capture him (including the Duke of Hell) in order to go find Aziraphale and see what's actually happening. Perhaps the most striking example of choice in Good Omens is the one involving the boy named Adam, who's namesake was part of the choice which brought about the Original Fall. Instead of doing evil deeds and undertaking hellish endeavours, Adam chooses to do things that he and his friends believe to be the nice thing for the world, like growing rainforests and freeing the wales. More importantly, Adam makes the conscious choice not to destroy the world with his awesome powers.
In both of these works, choices are the crux on which are formed the main events of the stories. All three of the authors want to stress the importance of the fact that our choices define us, for better or worse, not who we were born or the name that is given us.
Where English meets Psychology
When reading page 58 of Good Omens I had flashbacks to previous PSYC 1100 lectures and a reading assignment here at UConn. No, Crowley was not attempting brain surgery (although that could be entertaining) and Aziraphale was not preaching of the great thinkers and their opinions. No, instead the two bring up what I learned in pysc to be the nature/nurture debate.
This discussion starts when Aziraphale asks Crowley what would become of the young anti christ if he is not raised in a Satanic home. Crowley responds with "probably nothing." Aziraphale then mentions genetics. Crowley responds back saying that they mean nothing, that it's all about how this child is raised.
Aziraphale believes that the child must have some genes for him to be evil, that the child is naturally evil and won't have to learn the ways of evil from those who raise him. This puts Aziraphale on the nature side of the argument. He is in good company though, as Immanuel Kant also sided with the nature belief. This side in general thinks that a person is "destined" to be or do something.
Crowley tells Aziraphale that the child's upbringing is everything. "Look at Satan. Created as an angel, grows up to be the Great Adversary." he says. It's about potential to Crowley, "Potentially evil. Potentially good, too, I suppose. Just this huge, powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped." (p. 58). The child can be either or, it's all about how he is raised. Crowley, too, has some famous names who think the same way, John Locke and Sigmund Freud. This side is known as the nurture side, where they believe that things can be learned, such as the liking of something or the ability to do a task well.
So in the world of psychology, who is right? In the book, Crowley appeared to have won the dispute, but Aziraphale certainly isn't as forceful as he is when it comes to debating this idea.
Both are right.
According to the article that PSYC 1100 for Dr. Miller read (What Makes You Who You Are, aka, Article #6 in the book) both genes and upbringing are key. Author Matt Ridley tells readers that a nature can lead to a nurture. Using the fear of snakes as an example, he says that the fear is not inherited, but rather "a predisposition to learn a fear of snakes- a nature for a certain kind of nurture." Language is another strong example given in the article. Language must be learned from others who speak it, however "this capacity to learn is written into the human brain by genes...". This article tells how both nature and nurture cross over and that both can be critical when a child is being raised.
It will take both nature and nurture to raise the young anti christ to be what he is meant to be. Of course, it does help if he goes to the right family to be raised first...
This discussion starts when Aziraphale asks Crowley what would become of the young anti christ if he is not raised in a Satanic home. Crowley responds with "probably nothing." Aziraphale then mentions genetics. Crowley responds back saying that they mean nothing, that it's all about how this child is raised.
Aziraphale believes that the child must have some genes for him to be evil, that the child is naturally evil and won't have to learn the ways of evil from those who raise him. This puts Aziraphale on the nature side of the argument. He is in good company though, as Immanuel Kant also sided with the nature belief. This side in general thinks that a person is "destined" to be or do something.
Crowley tells Aziraphale that the child's upbringing is everything. "Look at Satan. Created as an angel, grows up to be the Great Adversary." he says. It's about potential to Crowley, "Potentially evil. Potentially good, too, I suppose. Just this huge, powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped." (p. 58). The child can be either or, it's all about how he is raised. Crowley, too, has some famous names who think the same way, John Locke and Sigmund Freud. This side is known as the nurture side, where they believe that things can be learned, such as the liking of something or the ability to do a task well.
So in the world of psychology, who is right? In the book, Crowley appeared to have won the dispute, but Aziraphale certainly isn't as forceful as he is when it comes to debating this idea.
Both are right.
According to the article that PSYC 1100 for Dr. Miller read (What Makes You Who You Are, aka, Article #6 in the book) both genes and upbringing are key. Author Matt Ridley tells readers that a nature can lead to a nurture. Using the fear of snakes as an example, he says that the fear is not inherited, but rather "a predisposition to learn a fear of snakes- a nature for a certain kind of nurture." Language is another strong example given in the article. Language must be learned from others who speak it, however "this capacity to learn is written into the human brain by genes...". This article tells how both nature and nurture cross over and that both can be critical when a child is being raised.
It will take both nature and nurture to raise the young anti christ to be what he is meant to be. Of course, it does help if he goes to the right family to be raised first...
Credits:
All Good Omens quotes come from page 58 of the text.
The article What Makes You Who You Are comes from Dr. Miller's Fall 2008 PSYC 1100 Student Manual. This article is by Matt Ridley and was originally printed in Time on June 2, 2003.
Crowley: Just Your Average 20th Century Fictional Bad Guy
Right from the start it's understood that Crowley (or formerly known as Crawley, because "he was thinking of changing it. Crawly, he decided, was not him" pg. 3) is the 'bad guy' in the book.
However he's a new breed of bad guy which can be seen in the beginning on pages 18 and 19 when the 'Deeds of the Day' are being discussed. Crowley goes for a more 20th Century approach to his bad deeds as he uses creativity and goes for as many people as possible. Meanwhile, Hastur and Ligur are "fourteenth- century minds."(pg 19) and would never use Crowley's methods as they tend to go for one person at a time.
This small portion of the book made me think of some of today's 'evil minds' from television and movies. They think quite a bit like Crowley and vice versa. When was the last time a hit crime show such as CSI had one simple murder, like a Hastur and Ligur approach? Not too recently. Lately TV has featured all sorts of creative plots that would be right up Crowley's alley. A series that I watched over break featured a bad guy that basically admitted that it's about creativity. I don't remember his exact words, but the point was that anyone can shoot someone, it takes creativity to have a guy choke on a hot dog or something similar to that.
Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Crowley is able to blend in fairly well with modern society. He had Mr. Young thinking he was one of the doctors at the hospital when he was really there to switch one of the babies with the anti-christ. Today's fictional bad guys also have a way with blending in with society. If they didn't blend in, these hour crime dramas would take half the time because it would take half the time to catch the guy if you could find them easily. Some TV shows or movies will even have their bad guy be known for their ability to blend in with society, as a car mechanic, a secertary or even the UPS man.
By actions and appearance, Crowley proves to fit in with the standard 20th century bad guy as seen in television, movies and even read about in other books. He goes for the creative route when doing his bad deeds as opposed to going after just one person. Crowley may be seen as an 'odd bird' to some Londoner's, he blends in better than Hastur and Ligur since he has adapted to these new times.
However he's a new breed of bad guy which can be seen in the beginning on pages 18 and 19 when the 'Deeds of the Day' are being discussed. Crowley goes for a more 20th Century approach to his bad deeds as he uses creativity and goes for as many people as possible. Meanwhile, Hastur and Ligur are "fourteenth- century minds."(pg 19) and would never use Crowley's methods as they tend to go for one person at a time.
This small portion of the book made me think of some of today's 'evil minds' from television and movies. They think quite a bit like Crowley and vice versa. When was the last time a hit crime show such as CSI had one simple murder, like a Hastur and Ligur approach? Not too recently. Lately TV has featured all sorts of creative plots that would be right up Crowley's alley. A series that I watched over break featured a bad guy that basically admitted that it's about creativity. I don't remember his exact words, but the point was that anyone can shoot someone, it takes creativity to have a guy choke on a hot dog or something similar to that.
Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Crowley is able to blend in fairly well with modern society. He had Mr. Young thinking he was one of the doctors at the hospital when he was really there to switch one of the babies with the anti-christ. Today's fictional bad guys also have a way with blending in with society. If they didn't blend in, these hour crime dramas would take half the time because it would take half the time to catch the guy if you could find them easily. Some TV shows or movies will even have their bad guy be known for their ability to blend in with society, as a car mechanic, a secertary or even the UPS man.
By actions and appearance, Crowley proves to fit in with the standard 20th century bad guy as seen in television, movies and even read about in other books. He goes for the creative route when doing his bad deeds as opposed to going after just one person. Crowley may be seen as an 'odd bird' to some Londoner's, he blends in better than Hastur and Ligur since he has adapted to these new times.
Bible Vs. Paradise Lost
Paradise Lost is a poem by Milton based on the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Milton did not follow Genesis in its entirety. There is a lot that he added like the name "Chaos" and the whole story about how Sin and Death came to be. There is no mention of this in the Bible. It annoys me though how Milton comes up with his own ideas on how the Earth was created and how Satan is portrayed not as demonic and evil like he should be! However, I guess that was why he wrote Paradise Lost. Even though Milton's thoughts on Heaven, God, Hell, Satan, Adam and Eve, and the angels were very interesting, speaking from a Christian stand point, it kind of pissed me off because i bet a lot of people who read this without any previous understanding or knowledge of the Book of Genesis in the Bible automatically assume that this was the actual story of how the Earth came to be. If this is not the case, then Paradise Lost can also question ones own beliefs because it gets you thinking. Paradise Lost was not my favorite thing to read so whenever I hear the word God, Satan, Hell, Heaven, Adam and Eve, i think of Paradise Lost. It is like a song you cannot get out of your head.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)