Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jack Chick Passes Away
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="knasser" data-source="post: 7702339" data-attributes="member: 65151"><p>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: </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"there was nothing heroic about Milton's Satan". Statement of opinion without offered support. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"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..." </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"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.<br /> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><br /> </span></p> </li> </ul><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"She". And I do not think so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Percy Shelly wrote the following: "<span style="color: #003366"><em>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". </em></span>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's nothing to forestall, I wasn't going to make any arguments based on the person posting. Unlike yourself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="knasser, post: 7702339, member: 65151"] 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: [LIST] [*]"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. [LEFT][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/LEFT] [/LIST] 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. 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. "She". And I do not think so. 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: "[COLOR=#003366][I]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". [/I][/COLOR]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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. There's nothing to forestall, I wasn't going to make any arguments based on the person posting. Unlike yourself. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jack Chick Passes Away
Top