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.
London Sights of Good Omens
It doesn’t take long to realize that Good Omens is a British novel set in London and the surrounding areas. Having traveled to London before, I pick up on the places that are mentioned within Good Omens and in many cases can visualize what place is being discussed. In some cases, I have pictures from these places.
The first place I noticed was Buckingham Palace that was on page 31. This instance was used as a reference to the royal family as Buckingham Palace is the London residence (Windsor Castle is another residence of the royal family, located outside of London) of the King or Queen. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II resides there.
Classic London Doubledecker: not hard to find zipping around all of these mentioned streets.
For me, finding places within the book that I had been not only had the book a lot more interesting and fun to read, but it also made it easier to understand. I always like to know where things are going on at, and since I've been to these places, I can visualize better how they happen.
*All of these pictures were taken by me in March of 2008 and were not copied from any other source.
The first place I noticed was Buckingham Palace that was on page 31. This instance was used as a reference to the royal family as Buckingham Palace is the London residence (Windsor Castle is another residence of the royal family, located outside of London) of the King or Queen. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II resides there.
Buckingham Palace on a wet, snowy March day.
After Buckingham Palace, St. James Park was mentioned. In the book-page 44 to be exact-, Crowley and Aziraphale are feeding the ducks at the park. St. James Park is next to Buckingham Palace and is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the royal parks. On my trip, we didn’t spend very much time there but the park is definitely on my list of places to visit when I do get to visit London again.
Overlooking St. James Park and the pond.
The next ‘spot’ I noticed is not a place in the book, but in actuality it is. On page 49 it is stated the “Charing Cross Bible”. After spending several days navigating the London Underground, or Tube, Charing Cross is a street and has a stop on the Underground. In addition, Charing Cross eventually turns into Tottenham Court Road.
Tottenham Court Road is mentioned in the footnotes of page 67, referring back to the line “of the old school” and saying that this old school, or night school rather, was located just off Tottenham Court Road. This is a road in central London. It’s a busy place with a fair amount of shops and places to eat. The underground station is just as busy as the actual road since several lines stop there.
Soho, page 52’s “book shop on Soho” is a district within London. Soho is a district known for its entertainment, both appropriate and inappropriate. This makes me wonder just what kind of books could be found here. The inappropriate (which I’d rather not discuss, just google Soho London England and you should come up with it) is being run out by more upscale establishments.
Oxford is a city north of London, probably about a two hour drive unless Crowley’s driving! In the book, Oxford is mentioned as a location of the hospital where the baby switch took place. In real life Oxford is the location of the famous Oxford University. Unfortunately I was unable to visit Oxford so I have no pictures of any of the university’s historic buildings.
Oxford Street, on the hand, is not located in Oxford, although if followed long enough it will go there. It is what is can be assumed it is from the book, a busy street in central London. This is the case, though technically it is Westminster that the road is going through. Almost every kind of store imaginable can be found here. On a lighter note, Oxford Street can also be a bear to cross, especially if you’re new to England and which way the traffic runs (luckily no one was injured in this discovery).
Oxford Street, on the hand, is not located in Oxford, although if followed long enough it will go there. It is what is can be assumed it is from the book, a busy street in central London. This is the case, though technically it is Westminster that the road is going through. Almost every kind of store imaginable can be found here. On a lighter note, Oxford Street can also be a bear to cross, especially if you’re new to England and which way the traffic runs (luckily no one was injured in this discovery).
Classic London Doubledecker: not hard to find zipping around all of these mentioned streets.
The traditional British phone 'box', now only found in Central London, specifically around Westminster (ie: Oxford St. )
For me, finding places within the book that I had been not only had the book a lot more interesting and fun to read, but it also made it easier to understand. I always like to know where things are going on at, and since I've been to these places, I can visualize better how they happen.
*All of these pictures were taken by me in March of 2008 and were not copied from any other source.
Temptation After the Fall
After the fall in Book 11, Michael shows Adam a vision of men working with metals and beautiful women appearing from tents. Adam has not been used to seeing other beautiful wommen other than Eve. This opens up temptation to Adam. He should remain faithful to Eve. Upon seeing the women, Adam says, "True opener fmine eyes, prime angel blest, / Much better seems this vision and more hope / Of peaceful days portends than those two past: / Those were of hate and death or pain much worse, / Here Nature seems fulfilled in all her ends (11. 598-602). Now that there are going to be more people onthe Earth, temptation to refrain from remaining chaste and faithful becomes stronger. Before their faill, Adam was the only male and Eve was the only female. They had each other and God. It was impossible for any means of aduultery. They fought over the little things. However, after the fal, sine and death seeped the Earth. There was still going to be temptation on Earth. Now that there was ging to be more beautiful women like Eve on Earth, for a moment there in Adam's quote, it seemed as if he was already falling for worldly pleasures rather than thinking of only Eve.
Paradise Lost Comes to an End
As Paradise Lost came to an end many of its readers thought that the conclusion seemed a bit anti-climactic. This may be because it lacked the creative edge the rest of the poem possessed.
“...The gate
With dreadful faces thronged and fiery arms.
Some natural tears they dropped but wiped them soon.
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide.
They hand in hand with wand’ring steps and slow
Through Eden took their solitary way,” (12. 643-649).
Adam and Eve simply left the gates of Eden after Michael tells them of their future and what is expected of them. The reader would have anticipated a similar banishment to that of the angels being thrown down from Heaven into Hell. The reader I feel had also hoped to see Adam and Eve’s reactions to their new world.
I would have liked to see the poem end a little less generically by including a sudden twist or previously unseen insight or side of Adam and Eve as Milton’s used so often through out any of his previous descriptions of them. I would have liked to see more of the changes in their characters such as Eves new found sense of responsibility and Adam’s lack there of. I would have been pleased with seeing some of Eve’s independent side or Adam’s commitment (or now lack of commitment) to Eve.
All in all I can see the difficulty in bringing this poem to an en since we are here today and know that it can only end one way. I understand that there is a sequel to the poem and would be curious to know how this text addressed the issue of Adam and Eve’s failing marriage or their struggle with their new form of worship of God, knowing that they have created the rest of the human race and we still believe in God today so they must have gotten past this issue some how. -Megan
Paradise Lost vs. Twilight
As many of my classmates have found I have found similarities between Paradise Lost and the recent movie Twilight. If you are unfamiliar with the movie or books then you may want to view the attached website and trailer (http://www.twilightthemovie.com/).
In both Paradise Lost and Twilight we are instantly allowed to feel that both Satan and the character Edward Cullen are both of a form that as human beings we are made to fear and hate. Both demons and vampires pose a threat to our lives and afterlives. This is something we are taught out of basic survival. Then why is it that we are drawn to view these characters as the protagonist and want to see them succeed? This is because of a carefully plotted plan on the writer’s part to allow the reader to be swept up in the characters emotions and sympathize for them. This allows us to see the other side of the story. Without this viewpoint we would never trust or follow these characters and would not understand the poet/author’s purpose.
Where do these characters differ? Through the progression of the text and movie our alliance with Satan’s character diminishes while our bond with Edward Cullen grows. This is part of the overall plan of the author because while Milton wishes to justify God’s actions to people Meyer wishes to justify Bella’s devotion to Edward. Both writers have a common purpose however Milton wishes to show the fault in Satan while Meyer wishes to show the good in Edward Cullen.
Both characters require the reader/viewer to take a leap of faith in trusting them and to view an unconventional character as the protagonist in the story. -Megan
Guardian Angels
In both Paradise Lost and Good Omens the angels can be witnessed helping out the humans and watching over them. In Paradise Lost, the Angels are given the task of warning and helping the humans. The angels share deep bonds with Adam and hold many deep and meaningful conversations with him. The angels serve as a line of communication with God and also as a means of understand the past and future. The angels become a means of protection to Adam and Eve as they warn them about faults they are making and serve as mentors to help them become closer to God. After the fall they comfort Adam by telling him that the world will be ok and that God will provide a means of absolution.
In Good Omens we are shown the role of an angel through Aziraphale’s actions. Aziraphale has the ability to directly step into the human’s lives through miracles. This is a power that Milton’s angels do not possess. Gaiman and Pratchett’s angels walk amongst humans and have very little direct contact with God. However both types of Angels have a deep nurturing attitude towards the humans and want to protect them and sympathize with them. Aziraphale also possesses a human body while he is immortal the body he possesses is not. This makes him more like a human and thus he can identify with their feeling and needs.
The angels are presented in different ways because Gaiman and Pratchett wish to show how good will always prevail in the world while Milton wishes to justify the actions of God to man. This is why Milton’s angels are viewed more as servants to God while Gaiman and Pratchett’s angels are meant to be a positive influence and equal protector of the humans.
The different angels share common responsibilities and values because they are both working in the effort to protect the souls of the humans however their method in fulfilling this differs between texts because of the limitations and physical representations of the angels. -Megan
God and Satan
Even though God and Satan are still themselves in both Paradise Lost and Good Omens they hold very different roles and are expressed in very different ways.
In Paradise Lost, Satan is known to be evil while God is known to be pure and good. However as discussed in class, Satan and God hold a very active role in this text while in good Omens they are seen as distant figures with less direct involvement into the lives of their followers.
What does this mean to the intent of the text? Paradise Lost is designed to justify the ways of God to man. This means that the reader must fully understand the personalities and intents of Both God and Satan. While in Good Omens the intent, in my opinion, is to show the prevalence of nurture over nature and that the good in people will always prevail (even in some demons). For this purpose Satan and God do not need to have such an upfront role and in fact are never seen directly. This is because God and Satan are the two exceptions that can never be swayed to see the other side. While angels, demons, and humans are all in a constant battle between right and wrong.
The lack of the physical presence of God and Satan in Good Omens allows the reader to focus on the purpose at hand while the constant view of both the thoughts and actions of God and Satan in Paradise Lost make it very easy for the reader to see he true purposes of their actions.
Does this influence the pleasure in reading both texts? I believe that for me personally this is one of the key factors that make Good Omens a more pleasurable text to read because the reader has an easier time of personally identifying with the characters and can find pieces of themselves within the text. The reader can then find answers to their own personal struggle between the forces that surround us on our earth. -Megan
Hope Found Revised
Paradise Lost by John Milton
“This horror will grow mild, this darkness light,/Besides what hope the never-ending flight/Of future days may bring, what chance, what change/ Worth waiting since our present lot appears/For happy though but ill, for ill not worst,/If we procure not to ourselves more woe,” (book #2, 220-225)
After blogging about this quote previously I learned in class discussion that my previous understanding of this quote was in fact false and I am writing now to correct myself.
The speaker of this quote was in fact Belial speaking. Belial is described I the test as “slothful” this is because Belial would rather stay in Hell and become accustomed to it than to try and fight God again. Belial believes that the fallen angels have received the punishment that they deserved and that they should remain in Hell and hope that God will forgive them after they have served their punishment. This act of sloth is one of the seven deadly sins that can b found in those who reside in Hell.
This quote still holds importance to show the overall presence of democracy in Hell because Belial is allowed to have this view that does not follow with the rest of the group yet he is not punished for his belief.
Is there any merit to Belial’s statement? I believe that demons and angels share many human qualities with us. And one of these qualities is the ability to adapt to their surroundings. I believe that given time the fallen angels would not view Hell as such a punishment because they would become adapted to it as they already have building an entire city in Hell. Where I do not believe Belial is in his belief that God will one day forgive them. I believe that when you are immortal then you have passed up your ability to make mistakes and repent for your sins. There is no knowledge of anyone ever being able to leave Hell and return to Heaven and regain Gods love and trust. This denial exhibited by Belial may be simply a symptom of his laziness. As the other angel’s do we should use this quote as a means to understand Belial’s character and Milton’s Hell but not as a means to understand God or to be a potential way to get back into Heaven.
By exhibiting a deadly sin so clearly we can understand the true motives of those who reside in Hell and their persuasive hold over the reader has begun to be stripped away. -Megan
Commentary on “Think Again” by Stanley Fish
In this article Stanley Fish, a well-known Milton critic, discusses Dennis Danielson’s recent translation of Milton’s paradise Lost into a prose that can be more easily understood and interpreted by the reader. (A link to the article is given at the bottom of the page.) Danielson’s intent is to provide a translation of John Milton’s Paradise Lost that would allow it to be widely read and understood. The author of this new translation understands that a prose would change some of the very purpose of Milton’s text however the stronger argument is that it could be used a learning tool when read along with the original Paradise Lost and would allow a greater number of readers to be able to read and understand Milton.
I believe that this new translation of paradise Lost would help to decrease the use of, “Classic Comics and Cliff Notes precedents; …designed for the students who don’t have time to, or don’t want to, read the book,” (Fish). I believe that this text would decrease the use of these unmerited sources and would help students understand the poem rather than giving up on it while still following the true text.
The other benefit of this text would be to bring in other non-academic readers of Milton who may not have been able to understand or have the desire to read Milton previously. I believe that this will help to draw in more readers in an electronic society where we struggle to grasp new readers to pick up a book.
Some people do not agree with Danielson’s translation because they feel that it ruins Milton’s purpose in writing Paradise Lost the way that he did. I disagree with this statement because t is simply on person’s interpretation of Milton’s text that anyone is entitled to read at his or her own will. The translation is coupled side by side with the original text which I believe gives it more merit because the reader does not need to go out of their way to reference back to Milton and make their own opinion as to what Milton meant.
In conclusion I feel that what may be lost in translation will be made up for by the vast increased distribution, accessibility, and reading of Milton. I also believe that this is a valuable learning tool and agree with the publishing of this translation and feel that it would be a far more valuable tool than footnotes. -Megan
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/paradise-lost-in-prose/?ref=opinion
Enhancing Suggestions, Christopher Ricks
Found in the back of the edition of Paradise Lost that we are using for class can be found a variety of additional essays about Milton and his thoughts and works. A small article that I recently read was by Christopher B. Ricks within the Enhancing Suggestions section.
Ricks's main discussion or topic is Milton's use of words and his language used within Paradise Lost. This is a shorter article, but it goes through some of the recurring words and what they really meant. The word 'error' goes along with the Fall or fallen.
Ricks also explains and discusses Milton's Latinisms. If my understanding is correct, Ricks is trying to say that how a person understands that Latinism's depends on how they understand Milton. This makes sense. To understand what an author is saying sometimes, especially from centries ago, sometimes an understanding of them is required.
One of Ricks's statements that I thought helps to clarify Milton is "So one of the reasons why Milton often uses 'words in a proper and primary signification'( Newton) is because he thereby re-create something of the pre-lapsarian state language." I don't know what the pre-lapsarian state language is, but at least it gives me an idea of why Milton chooses the words he does.
Ricks made note of how the OED, Oxford English Dictionary, can help to understand Milton's words. Definitions have changed since Milton was alive. We may think he means the 21st century definition, but he could mean something completely different. How was he to know words would change and at the same time, how were we to know they were ever different? Bottom line is when in doubt, check the OED.
Ricks includes this line in his final paragraph and I've chosen to use it in mine, "It does not seem true that 'the mind that invented Milton's Grand Style had renounced the English language". To me, Ricks is telling us that Milton intended to take the English language to another level. I think he succeeded as Milton's work is on another level from anything I've ever read.
Ricks's main discussion or topic is Milton's use of words and his language used within Paradise Lost. This is a shorter article, but it goes through some of the recurring words and what they really meant. The word 'error' goes along with the Fall or fallen.
Ricks also explains and discusses Milton's Latinisms. If my understanding is correct, Ricks is trying to say that how a person understands that Latinism's depends on how they understand Milton. This makes sense. To understand what an author is saying sometimes, especially from centries ago, sometimes an understanding of them is required.
One of Ricks's statements that I thought helps to clarify Milton is "So one of the reasons why Milton often uses 'words in a proper and primary signification'( Newton) is because he thereby re-create something of the pre-lapsarian state language." I don't know what the pre-lapsarian state language is, but at least it gives me an idea of why Milton chooses the words he does.
Ricks made note of how the OED, Oxford English Dictionary, can help to understand Milton's words. Definitions have changed since Milton was alive. We may think he means the 21st century definition, but he could mean something completely different. How was he to know words would change and at the same time, how were we to know they were ever different? Bottom line is when in doubt, check the OED.
Ricks includes this line in his final paragraph and I've chosen to use it in mine, "It does not seem true that 'the mind that invented Milton's Grand Style had renounced the English language". To me, Ricks is telling us that Milton intended to take the English language to another level. I think he succeeded as Milton's work is on another level from anything I've ever read.
Comparison of Satan and Crowley as Protagonists
Comparison of Satan and Crowley as Protagonists
Upon the completion of both Paradise Lost and Good Omens I found many similarities between the two texts. The example I will discuss in this blog is the great likeness of Milton’s Satan and Gaiman and Pratchett’s Crowley as protagonist characters.
Paradise Lost is written I such a way that the reader instantly sympathizes with Satan and views him as the victim. The reader’s pre-notions of God are then tested as Satan uses his persuasive verbal skills to cause the reader to believe that God is in fact a tyrant. The reader then feels bad that Satan has been banished to Hell and is brainwashed into feeling that Satan has been unfairly treated. As the poem progresses this sympathetic feeling fades, however its strength within the poem must be duly noted.
The character, Crowley, in Good Omens also is viewed as a protagonist even though the obvious viewpoint of a demon would be that the reader would hope for his downfall. The reader instead becomes attached to Crowley and in scenes such as when Hastur and Ligur have been sent to retrieve Crowley and bring him back to Hell to be punished by Satan, the reader is found rooting for Crowley’s escape. The reader often sides with Crowley because like Satan he possesses many human like qualities.
Both characters are designed specifically to be protagonists of their works. I believe that this is because both writers want the reader to question all that they know about their faith and gain an understanding for the actions of others. One difference between the two characters that must be noted is that as time progresses Satan becomes more evil while Crowley feels more and more remorseful and even becomes willing to fight against Satan after seeing the wrong in Satan’s plan. However at the time when the reader is captured into the spell of both protagonists both characters are known to be against God. -Megan
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)