Paradise Lost
Yes. I do. I have a bone to pick with Paradise Lost. Why? Because it's sexist. Yes, the answer is just that simple. None of this "Ahhh but you have to remember the times it was written and read it in context" stuff, either. I've read, loved, and enjoyed The Divine Comedy. It has it's problems, but basically when you realize that it's a vengeance narrative turned theosophical exploration into the conflict of free will within predestination, The Divine Comedy is very fascinating. Plus it's written in terza rhyma (spelling?), versus Milton's blank verse. But blank verse isn't the problem. The problem is....
As I said, The Divine Comedy is ultimately about free will within (as opposed to versus, or separate from) predestination, and Paradise Lost is also struggling with the same theme. The Divine Comedy is interesting though because it paints a detailed picture of Hell and Purgatory before Virgil's leadership eventually becomes Beatrice's, and under the guidance of Dante's vision of pure, effeminate love, Dante pulls to figure out that it's through that love that free will is turned spiritual destiny. Hooray, divine comedy! That's why it's called it! So in comparison, how does MILTON define free will within predestination? Let's work backwards:
1) Jesus, son of God and part of God himself, chooses in the purity of his love and with self-sacrifice to go to Earth to redeem Man, even though it's predestined. Yay!
2) He had to do that because Adam, in his consummate love for Eve, chose to join Eve in original sin so as to stay with her forever, even though it's predestined. Adam chose to be in a position where he needed redemption. Fair enough.
3) Eve chose to eat the apple because she's a stupid cunt, and weak. Who to the what now?!
4) Satan chose to tempt Eve because he felt "how awful goodness is", and because he knew Adam was too perfect for him, so better seduce the whore. GUHHH?!?! After all, it's predestined, but Satan doesn't know it. God made woman weak so that this could happen.
Say what you want about Alighieri's weird need to put obscure neighbors into hell because he didn't like them. At least he didn't blame their gender for their sins.
Now as for what Milton's problem with women was, I couldn't really say. I have heard a story that he trained his daughters to recognize and pronounce Greek symbols so that they could read Greek aloud to him, but didn't teach them what the Greek actually meant so that they couldn't "improve themselves". Whether this story is true or not, I do not know (so do not, for the love of God, quote me on it). But IF it's true, I wouldn't be so surprised.
What I can say, though, is that if there were a "Bad Sex in Literature" award back in 1667, Milton would win it for this hilarious passage:
"...though both
Not equal, as their sex not equal seemed;
For contemplation he and valour formed,
For softness she and sweet attractive grace;
He for God only, she for God in him.
His fair large front and eye sublime declared
Absolute rule, and hyacinthine locks
Round from his parted forelock manly hung
Clustering, but not beneath his shoulders broad:
She, as a veil down to the slender waist,
Her unadorned golden tresses wore
Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved
As the vine curls her tendrils, which implied
Subjection, but required by gentle sway,
And by her yielded, by him best received,
yielded with coy submission, modest pride,
And sweet, amorous delay."
(book IV)
And this is before the sex actually starts. I won't even bother transcribing that passage. Basically the two lay in each other's arms and Milton starts screaming about how sex would be good and pure and lovely if it weren't for sinful harlot flesh. There's this joke about how Milton wrote Paradise Lost after he got married, and then Paradise Regained after his wife died, and you know, the best jokes are the ones that have an element of truth to them. I don't know what his relationship with his wife was, but based entirely on the source text I'd say he thought he was a God in bed and she disappointed him.
What's really interesting about Paradise Lost is that, in the same way that Inferno is much more enjoyable and reread than Paridiso, Satan often ends up being the most relatable character to most other readers. However, nobody ever argues that attraction to Hell was the point of The Divine Comedy, whereas many readings of Paradise Lost posit that, maybe Satan was supposed to be the good guy....? This reading is wrong and is probably one of the reasons why most people's familiarity with Paradise Lost is the quotation from the rape scene in The Crow, but what it does reveal is that Satan is the more compelling character. The reason why is simply because he's not maudlin, perfect, and disgustingly pure. You get tired reading about perfection after a while, and even Dante in Paradise has yet to choose his final path even though he's already walking it, the journey is still continuing even though he's reached a state of bliss.
I'm a fan of epic poetry like any other (actually, not like any other, because I'm actually a fan of epic poetry and I've not met many people who could state that), and Paradise Lost was especially on my list because a friend made the mistake of calling it "unreadable" (whenever I hear that word, I hear a challenge, not a criticism), but I can honestly say that this book can die, now, we can let it go. Off hand, I don't really know what other people get from Milton, but I got an image of a man, going blind, frustrated and angsty and deciding to pull together his religious ideas into a poem about it. In other words, exactly like Dante Alighieri except that Dante didn't blame women for it, he had all sorts of feuds and politics and banishment to get him riled up and going.
So, I have this policy about not following up with the sequels of books, movies, or whatever that sucked. I read Paradise Lost about three years ago and have not as yet picked up Paradise Regained. Should I even bother, really? I mean, just flipping through Paradise Lost and seeing some of the passages I underlined and notes I took makes me hold my head and question why I stuck through it.... does Regained redeem or is it more of the same?
I give this book the tag "feminism just got set back 50 years", though the 17th century was decidedly before feminism (haha!). Nevertheless, the fact that people still read this crap seriously is kinda telling to me.
--PolarisDiB