Let me first say this: dismissing my arguments as "reel[ing] of a handful of opinions as statements," despite being nonsensical (statements can be opinions without changing that they are statements) whilst demanding that I adhere to your arbitrary standards of politeness isn't something that is well tailored to achieve your stated ends. Firstly, I'm rather immune to your demands on how I respond -- I will respond as I expect you will listen: however we want. Secondly, a bit of self awareness might go a long way towards assisting you in achieving your goals. Delivering a poorly veiled insult whilst insisting on civility might work with your friends, but it's unlikely to be a winning strategy in general. Or maybe it has been for you, hence why you use it? I suppose your mileage my vary.
There was no "veiled insult". I wrote that your initial post was "reeling off a handful of opinions as statements" because it was. It contained no argument, no reasons why I was wrong - just argument by assertion. You told me I should re-read Paradise Lost to correct my misunderstandings and stated that:
- "there was nothing heroic about Milton's Satan". Statement of opinion without offered support.
- "He's portrayed as tragic, but it's clearly a screen for his self obsessing and a justification for all of his evil." Statement of opinion without offered support.
- "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein's monster is a clear callback to Milton's Satan." Yes, but something of a non-sequiteur. In so far as it does have significance, it supports my contention in that the creature alludes to Satan to elicit the reader's sympathy. Hardly something that would work if the reader did not regard Satan as a sympathetic character which is at odds with your view of "clearly a screen for self-obsessing and justification..."
- "Milton gave us a great template for sympathetic evil, yes, but the key there is that it's still evil" Statement of opinion without offered support and regardless does not support a statement that "there is nothing heroic" about Satan which is your contention.
So again, I wrote that your post was a reeling off of opinions presented as fact because there is no argument contained therein. Just statements and a dismissive tone.
This is clearly false, as I have both read Paradise Lost and do not think this.
I'm happy to concede that "anybody who reads it" was a figure of speech. Substitute "Most who read it" for my lawyer-position, then if you prefer.
Your instructor, if he taught you this, was a fool, and I apologize to you for your poor education.
"She". And I do not think so.
William Blake nor Percy Blythe Shelley thought this, despite your claims that they did,
Blake wrote: "the reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when he wrote of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it.". I.e. Milton was unknowingly championing the Devil in his great work. Does that not make Satan the hero in Blake's opinion? You will not concede such, but still it moves.
Percy Shelly wrote the following: "
Nothing can exceed the energy and magnificence of the character of Satan as expressed in Paradise Lost. It is a mistake to suppose that he could ever have been intended for the popular personification of evil. Milton’s Devil as a moral being is as far superior to his God, as one who perseveres in some purpose which he has conceived to be excellent in spite of adversity and torture is to one who in the cold security of undoubted triumph inflicts the most horrible revenge upon his enemy, not from any mistaken notion of inducing him to repent of a perseverance in enmity, but with the alleged design of exasperating him to deserve new torments". And you wish to claim that Shelly does not regard Satan as the hero of the piece? You wish to stick to your statement that "there is nothing heroic about Milton's Satan". Note, I do not say that you must agree with my views - such is the nature of literary criticism, but I say it is proven that your statements that Shelly, Blake and others do not share my views is wrong.
This means that Satan is more entertaining to read about, not that it is proper or expected to root for him (although you're welcome to).
I think any fair reading of my quote from Shelly above shows that you are incorrect to say that Shelly was merely saying Satan is more entertaining or doesn't think Satan should be rooted for.
And even this criticism is far from universal, as there's strong criticism against it and even for other interpretations (like that one that says that Milton intended Paradise Lost to be a criticism of the Church, or that the true meaning is that by seeing God as bad and Satan as good, we just reveal our fallen state). So, there's a huge chunk of academia that disagrees with you.
I'm fine with a huge chunk of Academia disagreeing with me. I do not consider my views definitive. What I do consider them is legitimate and supported by argument and shared by luminaries with outstanding credentials. Hell, one of Jefferson's contemporaries wrote a side by side comparison of the Declaration of Independence with Paradise Lost passages to show the similarity of ideas between them. There being an academic debate on the subject does not justify you making unsupported assertions that I am wrong, that my teacher was a fool or that I need to re-read it.
Milton's portrayal of God is hard to love for modern audiences, but not so much for the audience of his time. It wasn't until the Romantics (Blake and Shelley) that the line of criticism that says Satan is the better character between the two shows up, and the Romantics aren't exactly an example of paragons of virtue
I believe my earlier post actually stated that Satan was a hero when regarded with "modern sensibilities" so the above is really an attempt to cast my argument as something that it isn't. Secondly, I don't think the moral character of writers in the romantic movement (or to be precise your condemnation of their lifestyle or morals) is germaine to whether or not Satan is regarded as a hero. You appear to be trying to make the case that Satan appeared a hero to them because they were 'bad people' and therefore their take on the matter should be dismissed. In either case, their views have become the mainstream views and a character fighting against self-appointed authority is regarded as noble and courageous today. As, I think, it should be. And besides all that, my quote from Shelly above goes far beyond saying Satan is merely more entertaining. In essence, when you say something like "it wasn't until the Romantics that the line of criticism shows up..." you're trying to pull a move of older views being more authentic than newer views. That's meaningless and just an attempt to dismiss. And especially unfounded when what I wrote was "to modern sensibilities" as part of my argument.
he's not being honest, he's just playing a role.
So when Satan says "Is there no space for Repentence? None for Pardon left?" who is he playing that role to? Because he's alone in the void of the abyss at the time. In fact, frequently Satan is alone when speaking. And when God himself says that he created Satan to be evil and intended even before Satan was made that Satan should be cast down and suffer, how is that terrible inditement of God from the reader's perspective a result of Satan "not being honest"? Really the above is just another argument by assertion without reference to text of other support.
This is why Shelley's wife Mary took such great inspiration for Frankenstein's Monster from Milton's Satan. The Monster even quotes from Paradise Lost, and apes the same thinking that Satan does about how he's fighting against an injustice. But, the Monster is a Monster and his nature outs, just as Satan is Satan.
Frankenstein's monster is possibly the most sympathetic "monster" of all time! The echoes of Milton in Frankenstein are a creature created by 'god' as born evil. In any case, I don't see that discussing Frankenstein supports your contention that "there is nothing heroic about Milton's Satan."
If you take the passage quoted as a rah-rah speech and, after reflection, still think it so, then you've not pondered the central themes of the work very well.
The above is just returning to the patronizing opening post of yours, more on the same theme of asserting people who disagree with you haven't thought things through or are fools.
And, to forestall this line of challenge, I'm an agnostic and not invested in Christian theology.
There's nothing to forestall, I wasn't going to make any arguments based on the person posting. Unlike yourself.
I am, however, a fan of this tremendous and seminal piece of literature that still inspires passionate debate. I take issue with it being so cavalierly characterized as a boring book by an incompetent author
Not a view of the book I have espoused. There are interminable passages where God is going on about how good he and his number one son are, and I'll happily stand by that and invite bystanders who disagree to read the book and judge for themselves, but I've not called the book boring, I've not called Milton incompetent and nor would I do either. So please don't effect some moral high-ground when your first post and subsequent ones are dismissing people's opinions as just wrong or telling people they are fools because they don't share your own view.
than accidentally made the greatest evil in his belief structure this awesome hero character and that everyone thinks this. That's a shallow reading of the material and a grand usurpation of its criticism.
It is not and I believe that I have shown such. I consider this argument concluded as I've made my points to my own satisfaction, refuted multiple assertions of yours and don't like your tone.
