Oroonoko: Civil or Savage?

When we discussed the civility and savageness of the characters in Oroonoko a few classes ago,I think that most of the groups agreed that the king and captain were savage, and that Imoinda was one of the more civilized of the characters. Oroonoko's place on the chart in all of the groups seemed to fall in the Most Civil to Neutral range. I forgot to write it down and my memory is hazy, but I believe that my group placed Oroonoko closer to the most civilized end of the spectrum.

After our class discussion, it did not seem so clear to me where all the characters should be placed, especially Oroonoko himself because he has changed so much by the end of the story. By our society's standards, it would be agreed that slavery is bad, and therefore the English should be considered savage in this story as they are trading, and killing, African Americans as slaves. But in the time period that this story takes place, slavery was a common and mostly accepted thing, wouldn't the English be considered civilized as an organized society?

In Oroonoko's case, he at first seems to be one of the most civilized characters, and one of the reasons being that he fell in love with Imoinda and decided that he wanted to be with her and only her. Though this appears to be civilized to us, in his culture, it was common for men to take many girlfriends, so Oroonoko was actually going against his society's standards. At the end of the book, when he realizes that he will never escape and that his son will be born into slavery, Oroonoko decides to, with her permission, kill Imoinda and later allow himself to be killed. By the end, Oroonoko seems to have lost all civility, but when you look at it from his perspective, he did the only thing he felt was right in his situation. He did not want his child to live his life enslaved, and felt that it would be better to die than live a life without freedom. This may come across as selfish, for taking the lives of not only himself, but also Imoinda and their unborn child, however, he genuinely believed that there was no other way out. Imoinda also agreed with Oroonoko's plan, so he did not commit these acts without her consent, so he cannot be definitely described as completely savage towards the end. It is difficult to clearly define a character as civilized or savage in this story, because it really just depends on the perspective of the reader, as well as the characters.

Welcome to Hell where we have golden castles

Writing the second essay for this class has brought me back into Paradise Lost and thinking about Satan's grand palace.
I just remember that all I could think was, "Dang this place sounds nice." Which I guess at the end of the day was the point, really.
But I mean, if you ignore all the fire and molten lakes, how is this NOT appealing?

I mean, living in this fiery Underworld is definitely out of the question, but I think it would be totally interesting to go see or to go walk into. It's a palace made completely of gold, defying all chemical laws (that junk should melt or break or SOMETHING in that crazy heat), and Milton even described it as rivaling anything on Earth.

But therein lies the problem, right? You can't see anything like this on Earth and it seems to be an attempt to rival what's in Heaven, so how do we see it?

Well of course we have to go to Hell. And as we know from Faustus, once you've sold your soul and once you're in Hell, you're not getting out. It kind of shows just how tricky Satan is and how enticing anything can sound. It really plays toward his character, especially in Paradise Lost and it makes me see how it can potentially make a lot of sense that Eve fell for his temptation.

When I was reading the description of this golden palace, I almost forgot I was in Hell and that this was being built for Satan and all the demons. All I could think about was how I got one of my own.

From poem to prose

     Paradise Lost is an amazing poem that requires much analysis and trying to figure out what the subject of the sentence is can be tough, but the close reading we did in class really helped me grasp the meaning of it as a whole. It would be neat if we could continue reading it, but alas there is not enough time in the year. Now as we are reading Oroonoko, it seems easier to read than especially the poem of Paradise Lost.
    Taking a step back from the prose though, I have to think that it cannot be as easy as it seems. There seem to be a bunch of hidden meanings that one has to keep an eye open for, and I cannot wait to see how we analyze this in class.
     However interesting prose can be, I sometimes find more enjoyment in the analysis of poetry because there can be so much more depth within one line of poetry than sometimes one book itself. Poetry is rhythmic and beautiful and although harder to grasp, it is easier to memorize when rhyme scheme comes into play. I love poetry, but I also love reading prose as well.
     As a general consensus and as a poet on the side, I want to ask the class your opinion on which is easier to read: prose or poetry?
    And... does that opinion differ from what you enjoy reading more: prose or poetry?





Reference: http://www.poetrysansonions.com/2012/11/a-post-title-without-prose.html


Blog Challenge: 3 of 5 :)

Insightful Class Discussions

I thought the group discussions we had during our class on Wednesday regarding the first book of Paradise Lost were quite informative. Usually when you are grouped in a class the majority of the group either hasn't read or doesn't care enough about the class to contribute to the conversation. With our class, I found it to be refreshingly quite the opposite. Everyone was really involved with their respective topic. I was in the group that got to focus on the loveliness that is Satan. Each group really got into the assigned topic and it showed when we had to share our findings with the class. Which, I found to be really helpful when I continued my reading of Paradise Lost on Monday.

I’m not even going to lie, the minute the group I was in got assigned Satan, I sort of figured the conversation was going to end with the group being divided based on how we felt towards Satan as a whole and not necessarily the character that Milton presents. Man was I wrong! The entire group agreed on our opinion of Satan and the choices he makes. We all felt that he didn't care where it ended up as long as two things remained the same, he wasn't in Heaven being forced to follow God's way and that he was the ruler of where ever he was. 

Rather than focusing on every passage that we were assigned, we focused on one line, line 263 "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven!". Dr. Mitchell-Buck came around she asked a question that I found quite interesting. She asked whether or not the line would be taken the same way if it was not said by Satan. If this line was said by anyone other than Satan, it would be absolutely be taken in a different manner! I mean lets face it, most of what (if not everything) we are taught growing up shows Satan in a light that is anything but positive. If this line were to be said by any other character in Paradise Lost, the meaning would change drastically. I find it quite interesting that Milton put in a character as complex as Satan. He not only gives us great detail about who is he was in Heaven, but also what his intentions are in hell. But the back story alone is a book in and of itself. It is packed with information that without the reader would be completely lost.Perhaps the reason for the back story is to put a picture, like the one below, into the readers mind. You have the Jesus arm wrestling with the Satan for control. I think we all know how that ended. 

http://onlyhdwallpapers.com/high-definition-wallpaper/god-devil-jesus-christ-satan-good-vs-evil-lucifer-statan-arm-wrestle-desktop-hd-wallpaper-258224/

How Milton composed Satan's back story by only speaking it is beyond me!

Things Could Be Worse

Even though Belial is clearly a lazy, but also clever, demon, I actually kind of agree with what he says. On line 109, it says that he is both graceful and humane before his speech. This isn't something I would think of a demon even potentially being called. It then continues to say that afraid and slothful. Throughout his speech, he is referred as slothful multiple times.

He says that the demons of Hell should not siege war on Heaven for multiple reasons: Heaven is way too fortified for even an attempt to infiltrate. Belial knows the power of God and that is should not be tested, especially so quickly after their recent failure. He continues to say "what is the point?". We are in Hell with some potential opportunities, why go risk angering God so that it can all be taken away. His go to phrase would be "things could be worse". The demons could still be chained to the fiery lake with no where to go or nothing to do. Why go out of their way to take over Heaven when they all know that there is no chance of winning. 

Things could be worse

Ultimately, Belial thinks they should stay put. Wait it out. He wants to stay slothful and try to make the best out of the shitty situation that they've all been put in. Even though his words are only wrapped in garments of reason and don't hold any actual meaning, he has a point. If I would be down there with them, his idea would have gotten my vote. I would actually be more comfortable with Belial's and Mammon's ideas combined. The labor/attempt for redemption and keeping to myself sounds like a way better idea than pissing off the most powerful being in the universe. 

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