Hey there! So I'm Molly and I finally get to write my own wiki...*woot*. I typically think these bio things are kinda awkward, since you can't really tell much about how someone REALLY by reading how they describe THEMSELVES....(theres a reason why no one reads biographies and there's memes about this sort of thing).
Anyhow, for the most part I find myself getting involved in too many things, but I love them all! I'm pretty much obsessed with anything Irish, Scottish...Celtic in general...so I guess it's not much a surprise that I Irish Dance and started Celtic Club at Wren. I'm into acting and I like to write. I love being outside when I get the chance, and I and I hope to be an archaeologist one day...I know it's kind of out there, but hey, somebody's got to do it!
I play around on the fiddle and piano a bit...and yes...I'm pretty much an upcoming manga nerd (thanks to my peer pressuring friends...just kidding :b ). I constantly quote a Knight's Tale (much to the chagrin of people who have no idea what I'm talking about), and I always fall in love with supporting roles...those actors nobody knows the names of. I have some pretty weird music tastes, but for the most part I like some Folky, Indie, Singersongwriter stuff, Alt, Punk, some Celtic, and a little Gypsy music too (Lumineers, Beta Radio, White Stripes, The Outside Track, Flogging Molly, Mumford and Sons, The Decemberists... all that good stuff) . My friendsthink I'm a little...eh...eccentric? off-the-wall?...well, maybe they're right but I couldn't ask for anyone better and I love them to death...same for my family too. :D
So that enough about what I generally DO, but who you think I AM, I'll leave up to you, but if this Bio is all you really know about me...well, then...I love to get to know better. :)
Genesis 1-3 Assignment : After another controversial class yesterday and reading Genesis, I started asking myself more questions and thinking a little out of the box. I've heard the Creation Story practically all my life, but I feel like I've simply taken it in and "digested" it without giving it much thought, if you know what I mean. It can be really beneficial to look at things from other perspectives, even if it's not what you personally believe, and even questioning worldviews that you've grown used to sometimes.
I've always been amazed at God's work in his creation, but the more I learn about it, the more I am in awe. There's no way that all of this was created without a plan or just spontaneously by itself. Things would never have ended up so incredibly organized and detailed if it wasn't for a master overseer but sometimes I question HOW God did it. Like I said, I've always grown up with the exact 7 days story, but I wonder why the earth appears to be much older than the approximate age given in the Bible. Where those 7 days a lot longer than 7 literal days, or did God create the earth to appear older? It would make sense for God to create earth with age, because he didn't create man as a baby. On the other hand, sometimes I play around with the idea that maybe evolution DID occur- as the whole process seems pretty plausible - but it was instigated and intervened. Is Genesis literal, or should be taken slightly allegorically like Revelations?
Then it comes to the question: Why did God create sin and know that man was going to bring sin into the world. God is omniscient and is able to see everything, but I believe absolutely everything serves a greater purpose-whether we see it from the upstart or not. God didn't directly create sin, as it is not in him, but he DID create Satan and he did create man. Many people get distressed when you start telling them this, as they have a hard time seeing a perfect God creating an eventual imperfect world, but I believe he did it to strengthen our relationship with him. People wouldn't be able to recognize their need for him if we were sinless, and we wouldn't realize our purpose for our creation-to be with Him. Besides, people don't realize the beauty of something until they've been able to compare it to the ugly.
Caitlin Epperson's response: Nice opener! I totally agree with that. If we don't respect other people's opinions and beliefs, how can we expect our own to be respected? That's something that has become more and more prevalent to me just recently. I'm the exact same way. Every time I read Genesis, I'm hit with how wonderful God's power is. I agree that Evolution does exist in certain ways, and I love how you said that the Creator oversaw it. There is absolutely NO WAY that this universe was an accident; it was designed and created by One greater than we could ever dream to be! I think that Genesis can be taken literally because not only is that the way I was raised, but I would never put it past my God to see that he couldn't actually make everything in six days. I like that point about making Earth with age, and how God didn't make man as a baby. I had never thought of it that way. Revelations is my favorite book of the Bible, don't you agree? :) Oh wow. I love that last sentence! That's so true. I mean, I know I'm that way. It's hard to see how beautiful something really is until we see it next to something outrageously hideous. It's hard for me to process that God intended for sin to enter the world, but it's also hard for me to process that God has no beginning. I guess those are questions that can only be answered when we get to Heaven and can ask the Lord himself!
Molly's Response for On the Marioneet Theatre:
For one, I found this to be kind of answer to the question from earlier: Why would God have created us, knowing we were going to be sinful and imperfect? I don't think this is what the author meant for his audience to get out of it, but it led me to think a little more on the subject. For me, the marionette represents an either mankind as it was first created or how God could've created us if we were to remain sinless until the end of time. The marionette is without sin, blameless, and the "most graceful of all dancers", but it is no better than a mindless robot, serving its master without a second thought. The puppet doesn't love its master or "its dance." I believe that God ultimately has dominion over all the decisions we make, but He gives us a sense of free will. While he might have predestined each descion to fit into his plan, in our minds, we make the choices. A puppet and his puppeteer do not have a relationship like the human student and his master. How could God truly enjoy a relationship with a people that were "automatically programmed" to do his will? Love is not simply obeying someone, but choosing to because respect them and want to make them happy.
Caitlin's Response: I like to think of free will as the potential turning point for mankind. We can use it to either obey God or to disobey him. I think that it was God's greatest gift to us; I fully agree with you on the fact that the relationship between the puppeteer and the puppet is completely different from the one between the human student and his master. God very well could have decided to make us His servants, mindless people who just did all of His bidding and asked no questions. But isn't it a wonder that He didn't? That He wanted to allow us to make our own decisions, even if they dishonored Him? It always blows my mind when I think about what God could have done. I think that this gift of free will proves His love to us even more, because He knew we would be happier that way.
I appreciate that last statement a lot, because loving someone and obeying them are two completely different things. One can fall in with the other, but they're not synonyms. I think a way of showing someone you love them is to obey them, but disobeying someone doesn't necessarily mean that you don't love them. Am I making any sense? Anyway, I think this story really opens up the readers' eyes, showing them the difference between God's possibilities and what He ended up deciding to do. It took me a little while to grasp the whole meaning, but reading your response and thinking about it myself has led me to appreciate a lot more that I had originally.
Molly's Response to Paradise Lost-Book 1:
Wow, this is some pretty deep stuff! I know there would be a lot more to pop out at me, if I was able to read into it more, but considering it took us about 15 minutes per line in class to do that... okay just kidding.
I really like the way Milton interprets the overall story, it reminds me a lot of something from an epic or mythology with descriptions like, "Nine times the Space that measures Day and Night" and images of a great war brewing between God and Satan. He creates images that overwhelming, even for Genesis. Milton must've been pretty confident in himself, to take on the Bible with such a creative license though! I mean not everybody tries to make the Creation story an even "bigger" story than it is. He also brings in a backstory and perspective that you wouldn't normally find in most Genesis interpretations, when he writes from the point of view of Satan (or at least what Satan says to his "minions"). I know Genesis describes Satan being thrown out of Heaven, but then what? What brought him from being the Archangel to Satan? It's interesting that Milton seems to describe that all of the sins of Satan first came out of one: rebelling against God ( maybe that's foreshadowing for Adam and Eve's rebellion against God?), and two: jealousy and a desire for revenge. It even shows the conscious point where Satan makes the decision that the best way to gain strength against God is to " do ill our sole delight, as being the contrary to his high will Whom we resist. If then his Providence out of our evil seek to bring forth good, our labor must be to pervert that end, and out of good still to find means of evil." I've never really pictured Satan as really revengeful necessarily, or even of Satan simply "putting up with hell". He already knows that he loses in the end, but that doesn't stop him from to foil God's plans. I find it ironic that Satan realizes that God seeks "out of our evil seek to bring froth good", continues to stop this from happening, and still can't.
You can also see a lot of political references in this, and even though Milton says he is going to "justifie the wayes of God to men", it almost appears as though he is sympathizing with Satan's rebellion. Milton isn't very generous in his description of God, at least not in untyrannical terms: "Throne and Monarchy of God", "Empyreal (empirical?) substance", etc. He depicts him unforgiving and powerhungry. So if Milton was a supporter of the Revolution, was he justifying Satan's actions to justify rebellion against monarchy in general?
Caitlin's Response: I totally agree; we needed more time to read this thing! I mean it's so incredibly complex. I've probably never read something that has forced me to pay so close attention to it while I'm reading. Yeah Milton's narration reminded me of Greek epics or even fantasy novels. I think that's what kept me interested enough to pay attention to it because I've always enjoyed that kind of page-turner, action/adventure writing. I appreciated his use of imagination to create this entirely new kind of "in-betweener" for the story of Satan, because you're right: we're never really told what happens to Satan after his Fall from Heaven, just that he becomes the ruler of Hell. I actually had some questions about this, and Milton's story satisfied some of them. I also admired his courage to write this, because let's face it, I'm sure not everyone was too happy about Paradise Lost. It's thought-provoking and it introduces a lot of new concepts, so I'm sure many people weren't too comfortable being brought out of, well, their comfort zones. I really like that point about all of Satan's sins stemming from his first one: rebellion against God. I've never thought about it, but that's what all of our sins stemmed from as well: Adam and Eve's decision to rebel and eat the fruit. And doesn't all sin fall under the category of rebellion? Each one is something we've been commanded not to do, but we do it anyway. So in a sense, all sin is rebellion. You have to wonder what Milton's opinion of God was. I mean he hated monarchy; he jumped at the chance to overthrow the King. Does he see God as a tyrannical King who doesn't care for His people and has thoughts only for His own ambition? Milton's choice of the words that you pointed out, like monarchy and empyreal give a negative connotation when you know his back story like we do. I really can't answer that last question, but I sure hope not. However, it would make sense because of his actions in the past.
Molly 's Response to Book 2: I didn't like this Book quite as much as the other one, as the so-called debate just seems to go in circles even though Satan has already made up his mind anyway (but I guess that is the whole point). It is interesting though to find out more about the other archangels and their outlook on the decision. I wonder how much Milton based these characters on individuals (like Satan and Cromwell), or if they just represent ideas or stereotypes. Moloch is definitely a character that is hell-bent (hehehe...gotta love puns) on a direct attack on heaven, but I think he differs from Satan in that he seems to be much more intent on the act of rebellion than the personal revenge it enacted. He is not conspiring or manipulative like Satan either. This leads me to think, if he represents a stereotype, it would be the hothead leader during a rebellion that simply rebels for the sake of it- not necessarily for the ideas behind it. Satan is impulsive, but he has been scheming behind the scenes a lot more than in the time frame of the book, I think. He is like a girl with a grudge, which is much scarier than someone who is quick to anger but then cools off or finds someone else to take their anger out on.
Belial is definitely the politician type, the guy that wants to persuade people (or demons in this case) of his views by appearing to not offend anyone and making his "speech" as confusing as possible. He doesn't appear to have clear views on the matter and can be easily influenced, but he obviously has an agenda.
Caitlin's Response: I didn't like this Book as much either. It just kind of felt like a filler, something whose sole purpose is to move readers on from one big point to the next. But you're right, that's exactly how Milton wanted it to be. He wanted to exhibit the fact that Satan already knew exactly what he wanted to do, he just wanted to enjoy his manipulative powers. I agree, I liked hearing from the other demons and seeing how they interpreted all of these events. You could definitely see the different personality types of each one, and I had the same thought about Belial! I hardly understood his little speech, and I had a feeling that that was exactly what he wanted. It reminded me of a politician, someone who wants to do a certain something but not let on too much about it or share too many of his personal ideas. I think Milton wanted these characters to represent more than just stereotypes. If he simply meant to do that then I think he would have made it more obvious and less complex. I think he wanted his readers to clearly see the parallels between these demons and their real-life mirrors (Satan and Cromwell). But, if we're talking about stereotypes, then you certainly see the applications. Satan is that typical leader who loves to make it sound like their job is so hard, for the sole purpose that no one else will compete with them for it. I get the feeling that these demons don't necessarily fall for that act; they just have no desire for his job. But Satan doesn't seem to care; he wants to be the head monarchical figure, but still promote a "democracy." I look forward to seeing what else Milton has in store for us. He's already opened my mind to so many different theories and never fails to interest me.
M's response to Book 9-12: Wow! Once again, there is some really cool stuff in these chapters (okay, I'll just call them chapters for now), and I wish I had more time to read into it. I was especially intrigued by Ada.m and Eve's conversation at the beginning of the Book 9. I find Eve as more of a logical thinker in a way and I seemed to relate to her thoughts as some of my own. I guess that could be because she appears to have a much more "humanistic" mindset than Adams, and she also has a great deal of human pride when she thinks she will be able to hold out through any temptation (however, later on I came to think that she was planning to taste the fruit even before Satan tempted her...I'm still not sure). She mentions that it is better to live to meet temptation than to live in fear of it, and that its trials help better define their true relationship and happiness with God. She already guesses that Eden is imperfect, and that it's potential for imperfection is part of God's greater plan. She desires independence from Adam and sometimes God and thinks that eating the fruit will achieve this. She is far from the ignorant "child" that we talked about earlier, however misguided she can be at times. Adam on the other hand, does appear to be more "wisely obtuse" (?) in his thinking at times, but maybe this is because he hasn't reached his "fall" to humanity yet (I think Milton depicts the fall to humanity as more of a gradual process like a child loosing his innocence or at least that it does not occur at the Tree of Knowledge itself). I kept finding myself trying to find one opinion that was right and one that was "wrong", but things like this aren't so black and white! Even though both opinions seem to oppose each other, they actually coincide-even if their individual desires might contradict what they say. Adam says that God created everything to perfection, but also that in it he created a potential for sin. Reason is good, but it has the potential for corruption. However, one does not have free will until they are able to respond to their own reasoning, and one cannot appreciate something until they are able to choose it themselves. This I relate to both Eve's relationship with Adam and God. To be honest, I have not particularly liked Adam in this (He is so needy!), but it was just heartbreaking when Adam goes up to give Eve this crown he made for her of flowers and he sees she ate the fruit! It's so sad! It also takes quite a different twist then Genesis and shows that he "stoops down" to take the fruit out of love for her and her well being. This made me think that this paralleled God's relationship with mankind in a way, especially when it mentioned Eve being part of him ("being created in his image"). Eve is unable to appreciate Adam's love (and dependence upon him) until he puts himself on her level in a way and "sacrifices himself for her". Later on, I found it ironic that when they are about to leave the garden that Eve is overjoyed to see Adam and spend the rest of her life with him, and this is what made me see how the event really changed her. While I think that this shows that imperfection is necessary and can be most definitely for good, God within the story was disappointed that Adam and Eve (Adam choose Eve over his relationship with God) wasn't able to choose him without sin entering the world. Sin was used within his plan to strengthen his relationship with them, but there was a possibility that it could've occurred without it.
Sorry if this got really confusing and contradictory, I was kind of brainstorming...
C's Response: So yours was the response Mr. Alexander read in class! I had my suspicion because it sounded like something you would say. I really like how you stated that, Molly. It's not necessarily the reason itself that is bad; the reason can just lead to a downfall. And I especially like what you said about opinions! I've never understood why people can't stop thinking in terms of black and white. Everyone interprets things differently. What I get out of a certain passage is never going to be a carbon copy of what you get out of it, and vice versa. These responses are a prime example of that. No one will ever truly see exactly eye to eye with someone else, and the minute they do is when they lose their individuality. Individuality is a gift, and we should see it as such, not use it as an excuse to argue with someone else over what they believe. I didn't like Adam either. He seemed kind of spineless, to be honest. I think Milton wrote him this way to ironically mirror the fact that men were considered stronger than women during his time, due to the much higher education they received. Also, Adam had to be somewhat weaker than Eve to eat the fruit (in this case) for her. I found that scene incredibly sad as well, when he crops the garland he had made for her out of shock and disappointment. I didn't necessarily like Eve in this though, either. I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the portrayal of either of them! I suppose I understand why she wanted freedom, but I don't understand why she would want to give up what she had in Eden. I get that you never fully appreciate something until you don't have it anymore, but what about the relationship with God? Milton doesn't say much (at least in the books we read) about Adam and Eve having a close relationship with God. I feel that had this relationship been more prominent, Eve would not have felt such a powerful urge to be free. She would have been more satisfied to remain in Eden with God. That's how I feel it is in a Christian's every day walk now. The closer your relationship is with God, the more protected you are from temptation. Then again, even the strongest Christians can be susceptible to sin. I feel like every single one of my responses are contradictory! So you can join the club, I guess. But I always think that the best kind of arguments are the ones that exhibit both sides in an intelligent light, and as long as they don't have too much contradiction, they're the ones that allow those to see the most.
Hey there! So I'm Molly and I finally get to write my own wiki...*woot*. I typically think these bio things are kinda awkward, since you can't really tell much about how someone REALLY by reading how they describe THEMSELVES....(theres a reason why no one reads biographies and there's memes about this sort of thing).
Anyhow, for the most part I find myself getting involved in too many things, but I love them all! I'm pretty much obsessed with anything Irish, Scottish...Celtic in general...so I guess it's not much a surprise that I Irish Dance and started Celtic Club at Wren. I'm into acting and I like to write. I love being outside when I get the chance, and I and I hope to be an archaeologist one day...I know it's kind of out there, but hey, somebody's got to do it!
I play around on the fiddle and piano a bit...and yes...I'm pretty much an upcoming manga nerd (thanks to my peer pressuring friends...just kidding :b ). I constantly quote a Knight's Tale (much to the chagrin of people who have no idea what I'm talking about), and I always fall in love with supporting roles...those actors nobody knows the names of. I have some pretty weird music tastes, but for the most part I like some Folky, Indie, Singersongwriter stuff, Alt, Punk, some Celtic, and a little Gypsy music too (Lumineers, Beta Radio, White Stripes, The Outside Track, Flogging Molly, Mumford and Sons, The Decemberists... all that good stuff) . My friendsthink I'm a little...eh...eccentric? off-the-wall?...well, maybe they're right but I couldn't ask for anyone better and I love them to death...same for my family too. :D
So that enough about what I generally DO, but who you think I AM, I'll leave up to you, but if this Bio is all you really know about me...well, then...I love to get to know better. :)
Genesis 1-3 Assignment : After another controversial class yesterday and reading Genesis, I started asking myself more questions and thinking a little out of the box. I've heard the Creation Story practically all my life, but I feel like I've simply taken it in and "digested" it without giving it much thought, if you know what I mean. It can be really beneficial to look at things from other perspectives, even if it's not what you personally believe, and even questioning worldviews that you've grown used to sometimes.
I've always been amazed at God's work in his creation, but the more I learn about it, the more I am in awe. There's no way that all of this was created without a plan or just spontaneously by itself. Things would never have ended up so incredibly organized and detailed if it wasn't for a master overseer but sometimes I question HOW God did it. Like I said, I've always grown up with the exact 7 days story, but I wonder why the earth appears to be much older than the approximate age given in the Bible. Where those 7 days a lot longer than 7 literal days, or did God create the earth to appear older? It would make sense for God to create earth with age, because he didn't create man as a baby. On the other hand, sometimes I play around with the idea that maybe evolution DID occur- as the whole process seems pretty plausible - but it was instigated and intervened. Is Genesis literal, or should be taken slightly allegorically like Revelations?
Then it comes to the question: Why did God create sin and know that man was going to bring sin into the world. God is omniscient and is able to see everything, but I believe absolutely everything serves a greater purpose-whether we see it from the upstart or not. God didn't directly create sin, as it is not in him, but he DID create Satan and he did create man. Many people get distressed when you start telling them this, as they have a hard time seeing a perfect God creating an eventual imperfect world, but I believe he did it to strengthen our relationship with him. People wouldn't be able to recognize their need for him if we were sinless, and we wouldn't realize our purpose for our creation-to be with Him. Besides, people don't realize the beauty of something until they've been able to compare it to the ugly.
Caitlin Epperson's response:
Nice opener! I totally agree with that. If we don't respect other people's opinions and beliefs, how can we expect our own to be respected? That's something that has become more and more prevalent to me just recently.
I'm the exact same way. Every time I read Genesis, I'm hit with how wonderful God's power is. I agree that Evolution does exist in certain ways, and I love how you said that the Creator oversaw it. There is absolutely NO WAY that this universe was an accident; it was designed and created by One greater than we could ever dream to be! I think that Genesis can be taken literally because not only is that the way I was raised, but I would never put it past my God to see that he couldn't actually make everything in six days. I like that point about making Earth with age, and how God didn't make man as a baby. I had never thought of it that way. Revelations is my favorite book of the Bible, don't you agree? :)
Oh wow. I love that last sentence! That's so true. I mean, I know I'm that way. It's hard to see how beautiful something really is until we see it next to something outrageously hideous. It's hard for me to process that God intended for sin to enter the world, but it's also hard for me to process that God has no beginning. I guess those are questions that can only be answered when we get to Heaven and can ask the Lord himself!
Molly's Response for On the Marioneet Theatre:
For one, I found this to be kind of answer to the question from earlier: Why would God have created us, knowing we were going to be sinful and imperfect? I don't think this is what the author meant for his audience to get out of it, but it led me to think a little more on the subject. For me, the marionette represents an either mankind as it was first created or how God could've created us if we were to remain sinless until the end of time. The marionette is without sin, blameless, and the "most graceful of all dancers", but it is no better than a mindless robot, serving its master without a second thought. The puppet doesn't love its master or "its dance." I believe that God ultimately has dominion over all the decisions we make, but He gives us a sense of free will. While he might have predestined each descion to fit into his plan, in our minds, we make the choices. A puppet and his puppeteer do not have a relationship like the human student and his master. How could God truly enjoy a relationship with a people that were "automatically programmed" to do his will? Love is not simply obeying someone, but choosing to because respect them and want to make them happy.
Caitlin's Response:
I like to think of free will as the potential turning point for mankind. We can use it to either obey God or to disobey him. I think that it was God's greatest gift to us; I fully agree with you on the fact that the relationship between the puppeteer and the puppet is completely different from the one between the human student and his master. God very well could have decided to make us His servants, mindless people who just did all of His bidding and asked no questions. But isn't it a wonder that He didn't? That He wanted to allow us to make our own decisions, even if they dishonored Him? It always blows my mind when I think about what God could have done. I think that this gift of free will proves His love to us even more, because He knew we would be happier that way.
I appreciate that last statement a lot, because loving someone and obeying them are two completely different things. One can fall in with the other, but they're not synonyms. I think a way of showing someone you love them is to obey them, but disobeying someone doesn't necessarily mean that you don't love them. Am I making any sense? Anyway, I think this story really opens up the readers' eyes, showing them the difference between God's possibilities and what He ended up deciding to do. It took me a little while to grasp the whole meaning, but reading your response and thinking about it myself has led me to appreciate a lot more that I had originally.
Molly's Response to Paradise Lost-Book 1:
Wow, this is some pretty deep stuff! I know there would be a lot more to pop out at me, if I was able to read into it more, but considering it took us about 15 minutes per line in class to do that... okay just kidding.
I really like the way Milton interprets the overall story, it reminds me a lot of something from an epic or mythology with descriptions like, "Nine times the Space that measures Day and Night" and images of a great war brewing between God and Satan. He creates images that overwhelming, even for Genesis. Milton must've been pretty confident in himself, to take on the Bible with such a creative license though! I mean not everybody tries to make the Creation story an even "bigger" story than it is. He also brings in a backstory and perspective that you wouldn't normally find in most Genesis interpretations, when he writes from the point of view of Satan (or at least what Satan says to his "minions"). I know Genesis describes Satan being thrown out of Heaven, but then what? What brought him from being the Archangel to Satan? It's interesting that Milton seems to describe that all of the sins of Satan first came out of one: rebelling against God ( maybe that's foreshadowing for Adam and Eve's rebellion against God?), and two: jealousy and a desire for revenge. It even shows the conscious point where Satan makes the decision that the best way to gain strength against God is to " do ill our sole delight, as being the contrary to his high will Whom we resist. If then his Providence out of our evil seek to bring forth good, our labor must be to pervert that end, and out of good still to find means of evil." I've never really pictured Satan as really revengeful necessarily, or even of Satan simply "putting up with hell". He already knows that he loses in the end, but that doesn't stop him from to foil God's plans. I find it ironic that Satan realizes that God seeks "out of our evil seek to bring froth good", continues to stop this from happening, and still can't.
You can also see a lot of political references in this, and even though Milton says he is going to "justifie the wayes of God to men", it almost appears as though he is sympathizing with Satan's rebellion. Milton isn't very generous in his description of God, at least not in untyrannical terms: "Throne and Monarchy of God", "Empyreal (empirical?) substance", etc. He depicts him unforgiving and powerhungry. So if Milton was a supporter of the Revolution, was he justifying Satan's actions to justify rebellion against monarchy in general?
Caitlin's Response:
I totally agree; we needed more time to read this thing! I mean it's so incredibly complex. I've probably never read something that has forced me to pay so close attention to it while I'm reading.
Yeah Milton's narration reminded me of Greek epics or even fantasy novels. I think that's what kept me interested enough to pay attention to it because I've always enjoyed that kind of page-turner, action/adventure writing. I appreciated his use of imagination to create this entirely new kind of "in-betweener" for the story of Satan, because you're right: we're never really told what happens to Satan after his Fall from Heaven, just that he becomes the ruler of Hell. I actually had some questions about this, and Milton's story satisfied some of them. I also admired his courage to write this, because let's face it, I'm sure not everyone was too happy about Paradise Lost. It's thought-provoking and it introduces a lot of new concepts, so I'm sure many people weren't too comfortable being brought out of, well, their comfort zones.
I really like that point about all of Satan's sins stemming from his first one: rebellion against God. I've never thought about it, but that's what all of our sins stemmed from as well: Adam and Eve's decision to rebel and eat the fruit. And doesn't all sin fall under the category of rebellion? Each one is something we've been commanded not to do, but we do it anyway. So in a sense, all sin is rebellion.
You have to wonder what Milton's opinion of God was. I mean he hated monarchy; he jumped at the chance to overthrow the King. Does he see God as a tyrannical King who doesn't care for His people and has thoughts only for His own ambition? Milton's choice of the words that you pointed out, like monarchy and empyreal give a negative connotation when you know his back story like we do. I really can't answer that last question, but I sure hope not. However, it would make sense because of his actions in the past.
Molly 's Response to Book 2:
I didn't like this Book quite as much as the other one, as the so-called debate just seems to go in circles even though Satan has already made up his mind anyway (but I guess that is the whole point). It is interesting though to find out more about the other archangels and their outlook on the decision. I wonder how much Milton based these characters on individuals (like Satan and Cromwell), or if they just represent ideas or stereotypes. Moloch is definitely a character that is hell-bent (hehehe...gotta love puns) on a direct attack on heaven, but I think he differs from Satan in that he seems to be much more intent on the act of rebellion than the personal revenge it enacted. He is not conspiring or manipulative like Satan either. This leads me to think, if he represents a stereotype, it would be the hothead leader during a rebellion that simply rebels for the sake of it- not necessarily for the ideas behind it. Satan is impulsive, but he has been scheming behind the scenes a lot more than in the time frame of the book, I think. He is like a girl with a grudge, which is much scarier than someone who is quick to anger but then cools off or finds someone else to take their anger out on.
Belial is definitely the politician type, the guy that wants to persuade people (or demons in this case) of his views by appearing to not offend anyone and making his "speech" as confusing as possible. He doesn't appear to have clear views on the matter and can be easily influenced, but he obviously has an agenda.
Caitlin's Response:
I didn't like this Book as much either. It just kind of felt like a filler, something whose sole purpose is to move readers on from one big point to the next. But you're right, that's exactly how Milton wanted it to be. He wanted to exhibit the fact that Satan already knew exactly what he wanted to do, he just wanted to enjoy his manipulative powers. I agree, I liked hearing from the other demons and seeing how they interpreted all of these events. You could definitely see the different personality types of each one, and I had the same thought about Belial! I hardly understood his little speech, and I had a feeling that that was exactly what he wanted. It reminded me of a politician, someone who wants to do a certain something but not let on too much about it or share too many of his personal ideas.
I think Milton wanted these characters to represent more than just stereotypes. If he simply meant to do that then I think he would have made it more obvious and less complex. I think he wanted his readers to clearly see the parallels between these demons and their real-life mirrors (Satan and Cromwell). But, if we're talking about stereotypes, then you certainly see the applications. Satan is that typical leader who loves to make it sound like their job is so hard, for the sole purpose that no one else will compete with them for it. I get the feeling that these demons don't necessarily fall for that act; they just have no desire for his job. But Satan doesn't seem to care; he wants to be the head monarchical figure, but still promote a "democracy."
I look forward to seeing what else Milton has in store for us. He's already opened my mind to so many different theories and never fails to interest me.
M's response to Book 9-12:
Wow! Once again, there is some really cool stuff in these chapters (okay, I'll just call them chapters for now), and I wish I had more time to read into it. I was especially intrigued by Ada.m and Eve's conversation at the beginning of the Book 9. I find Eve as more of a logical thinker in a way and I seemed to relate to her thoughts as some of my own. I guess that could be because she appears to have a much more "humanistic" mindset than Adams, and she also has a great deal of human pride when she thinks she will be able to hold out through any temptation (however, later on I came to think that she was planning to taste the fruit even before Satan tempted her...I'm still not sure). She mentions that it is better to live to meet temptation than to live in fear of it, and that its trials help better define their true relationship and happiness with God. She already guesses that Eden is imperfect, and that it's potential for imperfection is part of God's greater plan. She desires independence from Adam and sometimes God and thinks that eating the fruit will achieve this. She is far from the ignorant "child" that we talked about earlier, however misguided she can be at times. Adam on the other hand, does appear to be more "wisely obtuse" (?) in his thinking at times, but maybe this is because he hasn't reached his "fall" to humanity yet (I think Milton depicts the fall to humanity as more of a gradual process like a child loosing his innocence or at least that it does not occur at the Tree of Knowledge itself). I kept finding myself trying to find one opinion that was right and one that was "wrong", but things like this aren't so black and white! Even though both opinions seem to oppose each other, they actually coincide-even if their individual desires might contradict what they say. Adam says that God created everything to perfection, but also that in it he created a potential for sin. Reason is good, but it has the potential for corruption. However, one does not have free will until they are able to respond to their own reasoning, and one cannot appreciate something until they are able to choose it themselves. This I relate to both Eve's relationship with Adam and God.
To be honest, I have not particularly liked Adam in this (He is so needy!), but it was just heartbreaking when Adam goes up to give Eve this crown he made for her of flowers and he sees she ate the fruit! It's so sad! It also takes quite a different twist then Genesis and shows that he "stoops down" to take the fruit out of love for her and her well being. This made me think that this paralleled God's relationship with mankind in a way, especially when it mentioned Eve being part of him ("being created in his image"). Eve is unable to appreciate Adam's love (and dependence upon him) until he puts himself on her level in a way and "sacrifices himself for her". Later on, I found it ironic that when they are about to leave the garden that Eve is overjoyed to see Adam and spend the rest of her life with him, and this is what made me see how the event really changed her.
While I think that this shows that imperfection is necessary and can be most definitely for good, God within the story was disappointed that Adam and Eve (Adam choose Eve over his relationship with God) wasn't able to choose him without sin entering the world. Sin was used within his plan to strengthen his relationship with them, but there was a possibility that it could've occurred without it.
Sorry if this got really confusing and contradictory, I was kind of brainstorming...
C's Response:
So yours was the response Mr. Alexander read in class! I had my suspicion because it sounded like something you would say. I really like how you stated that, Molly. It's not necessarily the reason itself that is bad; the reason can just lead to a downfall. And I especially like what you said about opinions! I've never understood why people can't stop thinking in terms of black and white. Everyone interprets things differently. What I get out of a certain passage is never going to be a carbon copy of what you get out of it, and vice versa. These responses are a prime example of that. No one will ever truly see exactly eye to eye with someone else, and the minute they do is when they lose their individuality. Individuality is a gift, and we should see it as such, not use it as an excuse to argue with someone else over what they believe.
I didn't like Adam either. He seemed kind of spineless, to be honest. I think Milton wrote him this way to ironically mirror the fact that men were considered stronger than women during his time, due to the much higher education they received. Also, Adam had to be somewhat weaker than Eve to eat the fruit (in this case) for her. I found that scene incredibly sad as well, when he crops the garland he had made for her out of shock and disappointment. I didn't necessarily like Eve in this though, either. I guess I'm just not a huge fan of the portrayal of either of them! I suppose I understand why she wanted freedom, but I don't understand why she would want to give up what she had in Eden. I get that you never fully appreciate something until you don't have it anymore, but what about the relationship with God? Milton doesn't say much (at least in the books we read) about Adam and Eve having a close relationship with God. I feel that had this relationship been more prominent, Eve would not have felt such a powerful urge to be free. She would have been more satisfied to remain in Eden with God. That's how I feel it is in a Christian's every day walk now. The closer your relationship is with God, the more protected you are from temptation. Then again, even the strongest Christians can be susceptible to sin.
I feel like every single one of my responses are contradictory! So you can join the club, I guess. But I always think that the best kind of arguments are the ones that exhibit both sides in an intelligent light, and as long as they don't have too much contradiction, they're the ones that allow those to see the most.