Wow! This was a tough read.
"Book VII" was by far the most enjoyable part of this epic poem. Here, I feel Milton really shines as the poet hw was. But as far as interpretations of religious myths go, Milton's take has indeed aged.
Well, at least now I can say that I've read it. That must account for something, right? ;)
@Janne - wow, well done. Best read as SF I think - Milton knew the world doesn't hang on a golden chain - he was one of the best educated people of his time. So great space opera set pieces. But what I most liked was M's imagining what it felt like to have existed for 6 days and to be harassed by aliens who claim to have created you & to have the right to tell you how to behave. And are fighting over you. I came across an edition with commentary by Philip Pullman who admires & quarrels with M. Oxford UP.
@hackneymartian - My main issue was with the language and verse - if I didn't read it aloud to myself I kept getting lost in the text. :/
I think M did a pretty good job in describing God as all-knowing, but sort of willfully ignorant to make things interesting for himself, though.
It would actually be fun to read some commentaries by people like Pullman, who knows what they're talking about...
@Janne - It really is something that needs reading aloud. Milton never saw it in writing, after all, being blind. It was all composed day by day in his head and recited to his daughters.
I've found Pullman's introduction online at the British Library. What do you think of it? www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/philip-pullmans-introduction-to-paradise-lost
@hackneymartian - Exactly so. And I think it applies to more than just poetry. Being a kindergarden teacher, I read a lot of children's books - and it's pretty easy to separate quality writing from average (or downringht bad) writing just by reading it aloud.
I also liked how he chose to draw his comparisons from contemporary, popular writing and film. It supported the notion of "Paradise Lost" still being a relevant piece of literature, instead of part of literary history (which it of course also is).
