Just some thoughts...

What really interested me about Part 1 of Paradise Lost was Miltion's ability to portray God as this merciful, benevolent power. By giving Lucifer free will he looks even more like the God you would not want to betray because he bestows goodness and grace; he gives his creations free will and the ability to make all their own choices. Because of God's portrayal, Lucifer's choice to rebel looks a little silly. I mean why be chained and have to live your life in God's disfavor when you can enjoy his generosity and compassion? Lucifer's choice reminded me of Doctor Faustus. Why commit your soul to forever burning in hell so you can play silly, cruel jokes when you could have just lived in the favor of God (after repenting) and went to Heaven? It seems so pointless. Maybe Milton did this to emphasize Adam's and Eve's decision to disobey God. He contrasts the goodwill of God with the Lucifer's evil machinations. Anyway these are just some thoughts to wrap our discussion from this past week.

Post 3 of 4

Trying to decipher Milton's universe

     Although I do not know very much about Milton's religious practices, by reading Paradise Lost I imagine him to be as devout of a Christian as Thomas More. (But then again Utopia is not a religious novel, so Milton's actual beliefs may not have aligned perfectly with his work either.) Whatever the case may be, it is a bit confusing to follow the layout of the universe through Milton's eyes.
     Starting with what we do know... There is definitely a heaven and a Hell, and they are as far away from each other as they possibly can be.  Also, we get the sense that Hell is below Heaven because after all, the angels, Lucifer included, "fall." (Interesting side note: the use of the word "fall" is present in Christianity when one talks about one-third of the angels from heaven as well as the first sin of mankind. Both relate to Lucifer...) Anyways, the confusing part about Milton's universe is this idea of chaos separating Heaven and Hell, and where does earth come into the picture too. The only way to truly picture this is with a picture so...


Reference: http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~felluga/geo.gif

     This is a pretty good way to depict Milton's universe, and I have found that this knowledge helps me also understand the plot in a more visual way. It is interesting to take into account just how massive Heaven and Hell are compared to the earth. Not only does this help us picture how huge Gad and Satan are, but it also plays an important role in the storyline. Paradise Lost starts out as a story focused on the world and one guy, but then it blossoms into a story of the battle between God and Satan about earth. Therefore, earth is not as important and therefore not as "big" in the picture of the universe.  I hope this helps visual learners better understand this book. 

Blog Challenge: 2 of 5!!!

Angelo Did Not Handle All This Well…..

I want to go back to Measure for Measure, to a discussion that has stuck with me about Angelo. A question was asked as to how could the people think that Angelo was a good person, and then when he took the place of the Duke, he behaved as he did? My thinking on this matter is that his position changes him or brought the worst out in him. I agree with everyone that Angelo is a terrible person, but I think that if he had stayed a “commoner” the likelihood that he would behave the way he did would be less likely. The reason I believe that Angelo would not behave in the way he does towards Isabella is because he would not have been in the position to behave in that way. As a commoner he is expectations and behaviors are different because he is a follower to his government, but when he becomes in charge, people become responsible to meet his expectations, which in his mind gives him the right to behave in anyway he wants. As cliché as this idea is, this image sums up my feelings of Angelo’s behavior…..

So, this idea of “with great power comes great responsibility” (thanks Stan Lee) screams Angelo to me because he was not able to use his position responsibly. He didn’t behave in the interest of the people, but rather in the interest of himself.

Post 2/5

Image: www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk 

Measure for Measure

I'm going to return to Measure for Measure real quick. I just wanted to say how I feel bad for Isabella, and that I do not think that the ending was all around satisfactory. I'm not even going to get into my feelings about Angelo, because what he asked of Isabella was wrong all around and I cannot express enough how much he creeps me out.

I think Isabella's decision to not give up her virginity to save her brother's life was definitely justified. Although Claudio's crime may not have been as bad as some others, which were ignored, Isabella still believed that her brother committed a sin. As much as she wanted to save his life, she did not want to do so by committing the same sin herself by giving up her virginity to Angelo. At first Claudio was cool with this, but then he changed his mind and saw her as being selfish.

I do not think that Isabella was being selfish. Isabella sincerely believed that her brother was going to hell for his actions; she didn't want to have to condemn herself just to extend his life for a little while, especially since she wanted to become a nun. Nobody should ever be forced or guilted into sleeping with somebody.

As for the Duke, it just annoyed me endlessly how he proposed to Isabella at the end. Was he planning this all along, or did he just happen to notice that she is a strong, independent woman and decide that he wanted her, just as Angelo did? We don't really know for sure, and we never find out what her answer to him is in the end because she has no dialogue. I like that this gives directors of different productions of this play freedom the play around with this and decide how they want Isabella to react through expression. However, I did not like that the Duke did not seem to give her much of a chance to answer, and that he asked for her hand in marriage even though he knew that she was going to become a nun. Even though in the end her brother's life was spared because of the Duke's master plan, I just don't see how Isabella would even consider marrying him after he lied about Claudio's death and tricked her.

Paradise Lost: Why the Backstory?

In class the other day we all had some really great discussions about Paradise Lost and our three groups' respective topics. The group that I was in was assigned the character Satan as a topic of discussion. We all had some interesting things to say about the specific quotes from the book that we were told to look at. The one that interested us the most was the "better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" quote, and what this said about Satan in particular.

One thing that Dr. M-B told us to think about, that none of us really went over after our discussions, was why Milton decided to include this back-story behind how Satan fell from Heaven and became this evil entity as we know him today. Obviously a lot of Paradise Lost has to do with Adam and Eve and how they eat an apple and, like, that's where sin comes from and stuff? Basically this whole telling of how Satan becomes Satan is to provide a behind the scenes look to the reader at how things came to be the way they are when Adam and Eve enter into the story.

In class, my group and I came up with an interesting analogy for what happens within the first two books of Paradise Lost. In the first Star Wars, C-3PO and R2D2 escape from the Imperial scum in an escape pod and crash land in the middle of Tatooine. From there, they go on to meet Luke and yeah, everything else in the Star Wars universe ends up happening. If C-3PO and R2D2 had been destroyed by Vader, they never would have met Luke, Luke would have never met Obi-Wan, and everything that ended up happening in the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi simply wouldn't have happened and the tyrannical Empire would have been left to its own devices. So yeah. Lots of similarities, am I right? If Satan hadn't fallen from Heaven and convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, the "world," according to Milton and the Bible and what-not, would be much different. However, Satan convincing Eve to eat the apple was most definitely a bad thing, while the two droids meeting Luke turns out to be a very good thing in the end. So there are some differences but they're pretty similar, heheh. Just a thought. What does everyone else think? Why do you think Milton included Satan's back-story other than to simply provide some background info before Adam and Eve enter into the whole ordeal?

A Letter to the King

A Letter to the King

Look, Satan - do you mind if I call you Satan? I mean, it’s pretty safe to say that “Lucifer” isn’t exactly the right name for you any longer. That name literally means Light-Bearer, and you’re not exactly bearing a lot of light anymore. In fact, you kind of do a really great job of doing the exact opposite of bearing light. I don’t want you to get too upset with me, because I’ve seen what you can do with entities far more powerful than myself, but I gotta ask, at what point in time did you go completely insane?

Was it when you thought that you could stand up to God himself, and overthrow the very literal creator of all things? Was it when you got the idea to name your palace “All Demons” like some kind of strip club? Did seeing your bestie, Beelz, all funnylooking and different what did it to you? I’m concerned, Satan. I’m really, genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of this entire organization.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m honored that you’re taking into consideration the voices and concerns of your peers - it’s why I’m not afraid to voice my own concern that you’re completely insane - but don’t you think this whole democracy thing you’re going to try out is just going to get in the way of whatever it is you ultimately plan to do?

And you know what? I just want to say before you blast me with all kinds of fire and pain, that I really do like your outlook on a few things. I like that you’re willing to concede that sometimes, victory isn’t required to get revenge. I like that. I like that you’re willing to say “If I can’t win, I’m going to spoil their fun.” That is the best kind of sportsmanship. Rather than just give up and walk away, you keep playing. I salute you, good sir.

But… please, for the sake of a loyal, lowly imp, can you maybe, just maybe, try to be a little less… I dunno. Evil? I guess? You can still be the ultimate enemy of mankind, but why do you have to wage war on God to do it? It seems like a losing battle.

Hugs and Kisses,

Imp  #46823

---

1 of 5

Spoiled Children, Homilies Against Disobedience, and other Milton Musings

I'm a mom and have spent most of the last ten years at home raising two boys. This dimension of my life colors my perceptions and translates into my literary interpretations with alarming regularity. Because of this, what struck me the most from Book I of "Paradise Lost" was the parent/child relationship portrayed between God and Heaven's most infamous fallen angel. God, of course, is firmly entrenched in Christian dogma as the Father of mankind, however; I hadn't considered the idea that this paradigm could extend from the realm of Heaven to the depths of Hell.
Satan is introduced as he is awakening to the consequences of his failed attempted coup. Literally stunned from falling from this unimaginable height, he is also shocked that he has failed, as well as hurt and angered by his expulsion from Heaven. His response is anything but mature. After comforting his troops, he assuages his himself with a demonic version of "Fine! I didn't need you anyway!" Instead of seeking forgiveness and possible reconciliation, he vows to devote his existence to thwart God. He will subvert good and spread evil for all of eternity. God's response is, of course, brilliant and benevolent. Instead of heaping further punishments on Satan, he shines mercy upon all who stray to evil. Satan's actions continue to heap pain and confusion upon his own soul. Much like a parent will give a rebellious child just enough room to learn a lesson, God extends free will to the devil, but he refuses to learn.
Another thing that gave me reason to pause, was the repeated use of the word "rebel" in all its various forms. I was immediately reminded of the "Homily Against Disobedience" which is also liberally sprinkled with the word. Given the history it seems highly likely that Milton makes Satan's mistake that of rebellion to reenforce state propaganda. Whether Book II confirms my hunch or not remains to be seen.



3 of 5

Paradise Lost

The close reading assignment that was completed today in class was very useful! I absolutely loved it! It made the reading of Paradise Lost so much easier.I absolutely love this reading, John Milton is a brilliant writer. The fact that he verbally told this poem is amazing. According to Book I of Paradise Lost, John Milton is focusing on the fact that God gives all of us free will. We have the choice of how we want to use this free will. God already knows how the scenario will play out, but he gives us the choice to make the right decision. Also, I feel that Milton focuses on the idea that God never turns his back on us. In this poem, Satan constantly forces himself into damnation. God never told Satan he had to do this, it was Satan using his free will. The use of imagery and other literary concepts Milton uses in his work is creative. Like Dr. MB stated, you can definitely get lost in Milton's creative words and miss the meaning of the whole text.

In addition, I love how Milton starts from the very beginning with Adam, Eve, and the forbidden tree. Then he goes into how Satan chose to leave Heaven and he turns against God. Resulting back to free will, Adam and Eve had free will and used it to make a bad decision. With this being said, God makes each of them pay for their consequences. This just results back to the fact that every action that we complete has a consequence. However, in Paradise Lost Satan does not care about his consequences and asking God for forgiveness. He simply rebels against God and tries to take God's authority. Satan says "To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven!" (Lines 262-263). These lines are very powerful, Satan is saying it is better to rule as a king in hell then to be a servant in Heaven.
Finally, overall I absolutely love this book although it is very difficult to read. However, with a little close reading and the Oxford Dictionary I believe I will get there! haha :)

The Many Faces of Satan

One thing I noticed through all of our many readings this year was how much people loved to include Satan in their works. Dr. Faustus, Utopia, and Paradise Lost all had some character that either was directly Satan or was somewhat symbolic of Satan. One could also argue the comparison between Grendel/Grendel's mom from Beowulf and Satan, but that's so far back in the past it's not really worth spending much time on.

What I thought was cool is that even all those years ago, people love to make scary things funny and what could possibly be scarier than Satan?! Sure, he may not be that threatening or imposing by modern day standards, but back in those days Satan was the realest form of evil ever!

Even today, there have been countless songs, TV shows, movies, etc. that have all included Satan in some way. Stephen Lynch, one of the funniest guys alive in my book, even wrote a pretty funny song about Satan that automatically makes me think of the version of Satan/Mephistopheles/whatever portrayed in Dr. Faustus because of how serious and foreboding the song sounds in the beginning, but it then turns around and is silly and ridiculous the rest of the way through, which I think summons up part of what  Dr. Faustus was getting at: Satan is only really scary if you chose that path. If you are on the good side, there really isn't any harm in poking some fun at something as serious and scary as Satan.

Another, more serious portrayal of Satan I found in modern standards is Lucifer from the hit CW TV show Supernatural. Now, I'm not going to get into the plot of the show too much (seriously if you guys are interested just watch it on Netflix or something), but I will say that this version of Satan most closely parallels the Lucifer from Paradise Lost. Supernatural Lucifer is hell bent *badum tiss* on reclaiming his place in Heaven and destroying all the inferior humans, who he blames as the reason he fell in the first place because he wouldn't "bow to them" (which I think is the exact words from the show). At some points, you actually can feel some sympathy towards this fallen angel because his love for God (or "Father" as most of the angels in the show refer to him as) is still so strong. Also, he has some serious sex appeal.

Oh yeah, if you're wondering why his face is all scarred up it's because the man Lucifer is inhabiting in just a human vessel and not just any old human can be the vessel for the brightest of God's angels.

There are plenty of other examples too! Like Mephisto from many different issues of  Marvel's comics (Deadpool and Nightcrawler are the two I can think of off the top of my head) Lucifer from Constantine, or even Satan from South Park.

 (Mephisto)

 

 (Lucifer from Constantine)

 

 (Satan and Saddam from South Park)

 

Oh I could think of many, many, MANY more examples of Satan's many modern day forms, but that's not my reason for bringing all of this junk up. My point is that Satan is most always used as the extreme form of evil in almost every media he is portrayed in. He is the symbol of what you don't want to do, the guy you don't want to have any dealings with, and the guy who is paying the ultimate price for his own arrogance. There is almost always no contest when it comes to a work that includes Satan. You aren't going to be on his team no matter what and why? Because it has been ingrained in everyone's brains that Satan=Bad! There usually is no wiggle room and usually you won't have anyone disagree with you. Of course, I could be wrong. I mean, after all, my knowledge isn't infinite and I don't know all there is to know about the public opinion of Satan on a global scale....although I highly doubt the amount of Satan supporters are in the majority.



 

The reason I see for this is because as scary as hell and Satan may be upon first glance (take a look at "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" if you doubt me), but if your faith/morals/whatever makes you good is strong enough then using Satan in works isn't so bad. Also, using Satan can show the audience what not to be, what not to do, and so on and so forth.

 

Anyways, I'm exhausted both physically and of the subject of Satan. So, I'll just stop typing and see what it is that you guys have to say about the subject....if anything at all. Mkaybye!

 

Isabella and Claudio: Family Feud

I'm going to bring us back to Isabella and Claudio for a second because apparently I saved a draft and then assumed it fell off the face of the Earth.
Now that we've had class about this whole brotherly/sisterly love situation, I feel like my view may have changed a bit.

When I first read the scene where Isabella goes to tell her brother that she wasn't going to sleep with Angelo to free her brother, I was so irritated with her. I mean, Claudio was arrested for sleeping with the woman he loves, the woman he plans to marry. When I saw that Isabella wasn't going to do what Angelo wanted her to do, I was so upset that she was condemning poor Juliet to a life without a husband and her poor child would never have a father. I saw Isabella's decision as one that was keeping Claudio from the love of his life and Juliet from her happy ending.

Plus, if Angelo slept with Isabella, he would be committing the same crime he arrested Claudio for, so he would have to be sentenced to death too, right? Happy ending for everyone, right?

But after we discussed this scene in class, I realised that I wasn't really thinking about Isabella in all of this, and then I realised it wouldn't be a happy ending for everyone. If, after this tryst, Isabella gets pregnant, Lord knows Angelo's going to turn the other way on that one. Scum canoes just aren't built to be dads. Plus she was training to become a nun (do you train to be that or...Sister Act didn't prepare me for this) and sleeping with Angelo would essentially ruin that for her. Sure, Claudio would be free to be with Juliet, but Isabella would have no future, and I'm sure she wouldn't be able to marry after that point. I'm sure maybe there'd be someone somewhere, but her chances are slim.

Maybe I haven't changed my view fully but I am definitely a lot more conflicted about this scene then I originally was. At first I was like, "No no no, Isabella just sleep with that icky Angelo it'll be fine, Claudio needs to live!" And while I still believe that yeah, Claudio definitely needs to live (which he does, thankfully), I know understand that Isabella needs to consider her future in all of this.
And I agree with Jordan that, Isabella didn't get Claudio in this position so why should she throw away everything for him?

Plus let's be real, no one wants anything to do with this scum canoe, giving me the heebie jeebies. May God be with Mariana.

Claudio, yo!

    After reading through a few of the other blogs, it is obvious that the Duke is the most popular of all the characters. I think everyone's hatred for him has taken some of the attention off of the previously despised Angelo. After all of the drama though, I can't help but think of Claudio.

   I imagine that he is extremely confused, frustrated, and hurt by all of the actions taken thus far for his "trial." He was thrown in a prison for committing a crime which anyone could have committed. Taken away from his soon-to-be wife and unborn child, and forced to beg for his sister to take one for the team with her virginity. After all of that, the Duke pretended he was killed and he couldn't do anything about it. I imagine that Claudio feels a lot like he has been on an episode of Punked. Ashton really got him good!

   All jokes somewhat aside, I can't help but wonder how miserable he must be. He probably feels like a horrible brother for asking his sister to do such a thing. He probably feels like a horrible husband for not being able to help his wife (and they aren't even married yet!). And he also must feel at fault for the proposal of the Duke to Isabelle. He caused this entire mess. It was a mistake that anyone could have made. Yet, he was punished more harshly than anyone. He must be bitter that Angelo was not even tricked into thinking he would face the same fate. However, I get the vibe that Claudio is someone who could easily forgive. Being able to relate to sex before marriage has probably made it easier for him to see the entire situation more realistically.

   So, I don't have much to say about the Duke, Angelo, or Isabelle. Mostly I would just like to be able to tell Claudio that everything will be okay. Although the play revolved around his actions and punishment, I don't think he got enough credit.

Next On Jerry Springer: Do You Have A Duke Ruining Your City With His Self-Glory Plan???

This play is supposed to be a comedy. I was not amused! It had its funny parts but the humor is seriously comparable to Jerry Springer. I mean come on, name one other show that has just as much sex drama. Measure for Measure could seriously have its own episode. They need some professionals after the whole thing was over. 

If you've ever seen Jerry Springer, the Duke would definitely be the guy who comes out last that all the girls or guys try to beat up right when they get on stage. 

Why not Angelo? 

I'm sure he would have gotten his fair share before the Duke shows up, but I see that the Duke should get most of the blame. 

This entire play, the whole thing, the madness is caused by this single man. He doesn't want to be the "bad" guy and punish his people, so he hands all of his authority to Angelo with hopes he will take care of things. Then the Duke takes a "vacation, when he really just dresses up like a friar ready to start some shit.

We all know that Angelo takes his power to extremes and can be seen as a slimy hypocrite throughout the entire play. However, the duke the whole time was causing drama on his own. He made this entire plan to get Angelo for the same crime, he "saved" Claudio, and doesn't harshly punish any of his people for breaking the law (except Lucio). He was the hero! Yipee.

Not impressed.

This guy had this plan the entire time. He wanted to look good in his people's eyes and try to get the girl at the end. Poor Isabella. If I was her, I would have stayed just as silent. With my luck I would have said something that got my head and Claudio's head cut off real quick. 

It's kind of disgusting how the Duke got his attention and "glory". He caused all of that drama for people just to come out looking better than he did before. 

If I had a say, I would say off with his head.

Where is Isabella?

I know a lot of people on the blog have already been talking about the Duke but I wanted to throw in my two-cents as well. I don't understand why the Duke in Measure for Measure asked Isabella to marry him in the end of the play. What was even the purpose of that? Throughout the entirety of the play I had no reason to believe that he might want Isabella for himself. The Duke kind of just threw that statement in at the end of the play like, “Give me your hand and say you will be mine…” (Act V. Scene I. 564)…AND ISABELLA NEVER RESPONDS. More than anything else about this play, this is what annoyed and frustrated me the most. Isabella has this strong voice through every Act, she makes herself known as a strong and intelligent woman and in the end in the face of marriage she has no dialogue. I guess what I wanted to understand better was why the play ended that way? And if anyone from class had any theories as to why Shakespeare did this. Was it because of what Dr. Mitchell-Buck said? Was Shakespeare tired? Or was there an ulterior motive? If there was then I do not see it.