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!!!

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.

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.

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.

The Duke of Dork

I've struggled with this, but I just do not like the Duke. Whenever I picture him I see this:

Just ewww. 

So now that you have Tim Curry playing the ever sleazy Cardinal from "Three Musketeers" (the real one) in your head, I'm going to give you Sara's Top Ten Reasons The Duke Stinks

1. He forces Angelo to take on his job and then sneaks back in to spy on him.

2. He dresses as a friar and uses the disguise to manipulate Isabella and Marianna.

3. He tells Marianna that replacing Isabella is not a sin because she has a contract with Angelo - the same conditions under which Claudio has been condemned and Juliet imprisoned.

4. He manipulates Isabella and Marianna for pretty much the entire play.

5. He uses Claudio's death, or lack thereof, as leverage against Isabella - not telling her until just before he pops the question.

6. He punishes the daylights out of Lucio for things he says to/about him while he is disguised as the Friar. Yes, I get it, Lucio is really annoying but the punishment was petty and personal. Making an honest woman of the prostitute he left with child would have sufficed.

7. He doesn't solve anything! All of his worry about lax follow through of laws and his actions ends with a petty round of an eye for an eye or "Measure for Measure."

8. He uses his sneaky leverage to get the girl - I think. As far as I can tell, Isabella never says yes.

9. He expects Angelo to do the job he is not capable of and faults him for being as lecherous as himself (If Lucio is to be believed).

10. Well, number ten is  - All of this adds up to a Duke who is as much of a "scum canoe" as Angelo.


2 of 5

Wowie wow wow; In Which I Make a Strange Comparison

SO today in class (yesterday, really), when we started to talk about Angelo's scumminess and his general self-awareness, and his creepy lust for Isabella, I started to think about other characters with the same amount of ick and self-righteousness.

As per usual, my brain danced it's way to Disneyworld.

I hope that y'all remember "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". Because, to me, Angelo is definitely exhibiting some Frollo-like tendencies over here (Speaking of more Victor Hugo characters; I saw the Javert comparison, and that was GREAT).

The scumminess and righteous/just/cold Carl attitude, the crazy lust for a fairly innocent maiden who just wants to do her own thing, while trying to do the right thing... It's intense, man. Especially when I start to think of Angelo singing "Hellfire", because then things get weird but they start to make a whole bucketload of sense.

Frollo knows he shouldn't be lusting for Esmerelda, but he cannot stop himself. And if he cannot have her, than no one can. He even attempts to guilt her into having sex with him so she can 'save' the gypsy camp. Disney gets dark, man. I rewatched this in my history class in high school, and it was definitely not the same film I remember as a youngster. But that's okay.

So. What do y'all think?!

2 of 5