Terrific post, TT. I think this is quite common, an underlying message at odds with the surface. Of course, everybody cites Paradise Lost.
That's quite an interesting parallel. I mean, as CS Lewis reminds us, it would be a mistake to think that the surface meaning isn't important. Milton really does think that Satan is an evil lying rebel, just as Kipling really does think white men should rule over subject peoples. But whether intentionally or not, some other messages are coming through at the same time.
Lewis has a whole book on Paradise Lost (A Preface to Paradise Lost) where he argues that Milton knew exactly what he was doing when he made the devil such an attractive character, and that those who argue Milton was of the devil's party (knowingly or unknowingly) are falling for the devil's rhetoric and not picking up on the clues the poet has left them. After reading it, I agree with him.
It goes more or less like this: If you are going to have the devil (as presented in Scripture) as a character in your work, he must be attractive, and what he says must be a) false and b) very, very convincing. Otherwise you aren't doing justice to the character. But at the same time you've got the problem of signalling to your reader that this character is in fact not to be trusted. Getting the balance right is not easy, and for Milton in particular this is difficult, as his verse is purely splendid no matter what he's writing about. But if you pay attention to the actual facts presented in Paradise Lost (and don't lose yourself in the gorgeous rhetoric), you see the truth. Lewis lays this out very clearly with constant reference to the text, and he's not talking through his hat.
Of course, most people IMHO don't go to Paradise Lost with the intention of straining their brains, and with such splendid poetry, it's easy to get carried away and just accept what is, at bottom, bullshit.
D. L. Sayers faced the same difficulty with her Satan character and agrees with Lewis about Milton, IIRC.
Those who've mentioned John Wyndham reminded me of John Christopher, whose "Tripods" trilogy I spent one entire Christmas day reading as a child. I also remember children's sci-fi author Nicholas Fisk, whose "A Rag, a Bone and a Hank of Hair" became a minor obsession with me.
Lewis has a whole book on Paradise Lost (A Preface to Paradise Lost) where he argues that Milton knew exactly what he was doing when he made the devil such an attractive character, and that those who argue Milton was of the devil's party (knowingly or unknowingly) are falling for the devil's rhetoric and not picking up on the clues the poet has left them. After reading it, I agree with him.
Wish I had read this before my A-levels. I can still remember having to do an essay on that very topic!
I also remember children's sci-fi author Nicholas Fisk, whose "A Rag, a Bone and a Hank of Hair" became a minor obsession with me.
I discovered 'Grinny' at a children's camp. The illustration on the front cover gave me nightmares but I really enjoyed the book!
Mention of Vice Versa reminds me of a television version with Peter Bowles. And of course the original book of Freaky Friday by Mary Rogers, which was a favourite book of mine as a child.
I think Milton's problem isn't so much that his Satan is too attractive, but that his God is too much not. It was probably not a good idea to put his main defence of God's conduct in God's own mouth, and still less of a good idea to make it the substance of God's first speech. However much one intellectually understands the argument, one cannot warm to a character if the first thing they say is "it's not my fault".
I don't know if Mark Twain has been mentioned so far on this thread, but does anyone still read him?
Me! Not that I represent all humanity, but I have been gazing at my copy of "The Innocents Abroad" and thinking that I need to re-read it. It is a delight!
Lewis has a whole book on Paradise Lost (A Preface to Paradise Lost) where he argues that Milton knew exactly what he was doing when he made the devil such an attractive character, and that those who argue Milton was of the devil's party (knowingly or unknowingly) are falling for the devil's rhetoric and not picking up on the clues the poet has left them. After reading it, I agree with him.
Wish I had read this before my A-levels. I can still remember having to do an essay on that very topic!
I think Milton's problem isn't so much that his Satan is too attractive, but that his God is too much not. It was probably not a good idea to put his main defence of God's conduct in God's own mouth, and still less of a good idea to make it the substance of God's first speech. However much one intellectually understands the argument, one cannot warm to a character if the first thing they say is "it's not my fault".
You're so right. I can't stand Milton's God. I have all sorts of uncharitable speculations on why his God is so unattractive.
Comments
That's quite an interesting parallel. I mean, as CS Lewis reminds us, it would be a mistake to think that the surface meaning isn't important. Milton really does think that Satan is an evil lying rebel, just as Kipling really does think white men should rule over subject peoples. But whether intentionally or not, some other messages are coming through at the same time.
My italics.
Meanwhile, I remember a film based on the Don Camillo stories when I was a kid. Must read them.
I don't know if Mark Twain has been mentioned so far on this thread, but does anyone still read him?
It goes more or less like this: If you are going to have the devil (as presented in Scripture) as a character in your work, he must be attractive, and what he says must be a) false and b) very, very convincing. Otherwise you aren't doing justice to the character. But at the same time you've got the problem of signalling to your reader that this character is in fact not to be trusted. Getting the balance right is not easy, and for Milton in particular this is difficult, as his verse is purely splendid no matter what he's writing about. But if you pay attention to the actual facts presented in Paradise Lost (and don't lose yourself in the gorgeous rhetoric), you see the truth. Lewis lays this out very clearly with constant reference to the text, and he's not talking through his hat.
Of course, most people IMHO don't go to Paradise Lost with the intention of straining their brains, and with such splendid poetry, it's easy to get carried away and just accept what is, at bottom, bullshit.
D. L. Sayers faced the same difficulty with her Satan character and agrees with Lewis about Milton, IIRC.
Wish I had read this before my A-levels. I can still remember having to do an essay on that very topic!
I discovered 'Grinny' at a children's camp. The illustration on the front cover gave me nightmares but I really enjoyed the book!
Mention of Vice Versa reminds me of a television version with Peter Bowles. And of course the original book of Freaky Friday by Mary Rogers, which was a favourite book of mine as a child.
It’s still very much worth reading now! ❤️
You're so right. I can't stand Milton's God. I have all sorts of uncharitable speculations on why his God is so unattractive.
I remember seeing, years ago, a film or TV series