LIGHT IN PARADISE LOST.
I had a couple of ideas for this paper. One of them was to focus my 750 words around the idea of creation. That’s what Paradise Lost is, in its most basic essence. But I didn’t know if I could formulate a good thesis around the idea of creation, so I chose the other word I had been considering, “light.” That’s the word that has the most metaphorical significance to me when reading this text. I’ve enjoyed reading Paradise Lost, and the motif of light caught my attention as I worked my way through it.
Paradise Lost by John Milton is, in its most basic essence, a creation story. It is a retelling of Genesis, of Adam and Eve, and of Lucifer’s fall from Heaven. Arguably the most well-known line of Genesis comes from its first chapter: “Let there be light” (Genesis 1.3). This sentiment applies to Paradise Lost as well, as light is an integral motif to Milton’s poem. Milton uses light to symbolize God’s grace and to subvert his readers’ expectations by associating something brilliant and good with Satan, a traditionally evil character.
Light, to Milton, symbolizes God’s grace. Satan’s name as an Archangel is Lucifer, meaning “light-bringer.” Although Satan is typically shown with a negative connotation, Milton subverts the readers’ expectations by showing him in a positive light. He describes God as a tyrannical monarch and gives a justifiable reason for Lucifer to stage an uprising against Him. Although Satan is evil in the Bible for going against the will of the Lord, he is given a logical reason for doing so in Paradise Lost, one that parallels the fall of mankind. This causes the reader to, against all odds, sympathize with the traditional villain. Lucifer’s association with light subverts Milton’s audience’s expectations, causing them to view Satan as a forgivable, even a likeable, character.
Since light is a motif used to represent the good will of God, Satan and his followers are banished to Hell, a place where no light shines. Even the fire, though hot, burns without emitting any light. If Lucifer had remained complacent in God’s tyranny, he could have stayed in Heaven, where light shone freely. But, because he did what he thought was right, he fell. He sacrificed his freedom for the attempted betterment of his life, as well as the lives of his peers. After Satan and his followers’ fall to Hell, they cannot see God’s grace in its entirety, as “so thick a drop serene hath quenched their orbs (Book 3, Line 25).” Their eyes can no longer comprehend God’s light and grace after God banished them to a place of utter darkness. This restates the hopelessness of Hell, how living there is an eternal struggle. But, Satan declares he will fight an “eternal war” (Book 1, Line 121) against God’s reign, for he cannot bear to see a tyrant rule. Lucifer hopes to bring light back to Heaven in the form of a benevolent and fair ruler.
Milton uses light to draw contrast between good and evil, Heaven and Hell. Light shines eternally in Heaven, while fire burns in shadows in Hell. Not only is light used to retell a story as old as time but to categorize and contrast the actions of Lucifer and God. Although Milton describes God as a “tyrannical monarch,” he also deems God the source of light, and by extension, goodness. This is paralleled in the Bible by the phrase “let there be light,” affirming that God brings light into existence with these words.
The Bible mentions time and time again the “Original Sin.” This often refers to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, but Satan’s fall is the first recorded act of defiance against God. Without Lucifer’s uprising, the first humans would have no sin to be drawn towards. There would be no serpent in the Garden. Satan’s fall to Hell is the prerequisite for the need for man’s salvation. Lucifer, the light-bringer, is the first entity to make it known to God that the Earth is in need of His grace. In Christianity, God’s goodness comes to Earth in the form of Jesus. Inadvertently, Lucifer’s fall gave rise to a need for human salvation.
Milton as the poet uses light as well. In the invocation of Book III, Milton asks to be filled with light, to give him the will and the ability to tell his story. Again, this light is the physical representation of God’s will and power. Not only are the characters in the narrative of Paradise Lost subject to this power, but Milton, a real-world figure, can use its power as well.
Light is harnessed by Milton to represent God’s goodness, to draw contrast between themes like good and evil, and to allow the poet to tell God’s story. By using light as a recurring motif, Milton intrinsically ties it to grace, and insinuates places without light are irredeemable. According to Milton, light can be tamed to use for goodness, but a life without light is one without salvation.
Paradise Lost by John Milton is, in its most basic essence, a creation story. It is a retelling of Genesis, of Adam and Eve, and of Lucifer’s fall from Heaven. Arguably the most well-known line of Genesis comes from its first chapter: “Let there be light” (Genesis 1.3). This sentiment applies to Paradise Lost as well, as light is an integral motif to Milton’s poem. Milton uses light to symbolize God’s grace and to subvert his readers’ expectations by associating something brilliant and good with Satan, a traditionally evil character.
Light, to Milton, symbolizes God’s grace. Satan’s name as an Archangel is Lucifer, meaning “light-bringer.” Although Satan is typically shown with a negative connotation, Milton subverts the readers’ expectations by showing him in a positive light. He describes God as a tyrannical monarch and gives a justifiable reason for Lucifer to stage an uprising against Him. Although Satan is evil in the Bible for going against the will of the Lord, he is given a logical reason for doing so in Paradise Lost, one that parallels the fall of mankind. This causes the reader to, against all odds, sympathize with the traditional villain. Lucifer’s association with light subverts Milton’s audience’s expectations, causing them to view Satan as a forgivable, even a likeable, character.
Since light is a motif used to represent the good will of God, Satan and his followers are banished to Hell, a place where no light shines. Even the fire, though hot, burns without emitting any light. If Lucifer had remained complacent in God’s tyranny, he could have stayed in Heaven, where light shone freely. But, because he did what he thought was right, he fell. He sacrificed his freedom for the attempted betterment of his life, as well as the lives of his peers. After Satan and his followers’ fall to Hell, they cannot see God’s grace in its entirety, as “so thick a drop serene hath quenched their orbs (Book 3, Line 25).” Their eyes can no longer comprehend God’s light and grace after God banished them to a place of utter darkness. This restates the hopelessness of Hell, how living there is an eternal struggle. But, Satan declares he will fight an “eternal war” (Book 1, Line 121) against God’s reign, for he cannot bear to see a tyrant rule. Lucifer hopes to bring light back to Heaven in the form of a benevolent and fair ruler.
Milton uses light to draw contrast between good and evil, Heaven and Hell. Light shines eternally in Heaven, while fire burns in shadows in Hell. Not only is light used to retell a story as old as time but to categorize and contrast the actions of Lucifer and God. Although Milton describes God as a “tyrannical monarch,” he also deems God the source of light, and by extension, goodness. This is paralleled in the Bible by the phrase “let there be light,” affirming that God brings light into existence with these words.
The Bible mentions time and time again the “Original Sin.” This often refers to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, but Satan’s fall is the first recorded act of defiance against God. Without Lucifer’s uprising, the first humans would have no sin to be drawn towards. There would be no serpent in the Garden. Satan’s fall to Hell is the prerequisite for the need for man’s salvation. Lucifer, the light-bringer, is the first entity to make it known to God that the Earth is in need of His grace. In Christianity, God’s goodness comes to Earth in the form of Jesus. Inadvertently, Lucifer’s fall gave rise to a need for human salvation.
Milton as the poet uses light as well. In the invocation of Book III, Milton asks to be filled with light, to give him the will and the ability to tell his story. Again, this light is the physical representation of God’s will and power. Not only are the characters in the narrative of Paradise Lost subject to this power, but Milton, a real-world figure, can use its power as well.
Light is harnessed by Milton to represent God’s goodness, to draw contrast between themes like good and evil, and to allow the poet to tell God’s story. By using light as a recurring motif, Milton intrinsically ties it to grace, and insinuates places without light are irredeemable. According to Milton, light can be tamed to use for goodness, but a life without light is one without salvation.
SCOTT AND GREENBLATT 2.0
Over the summer, the AP Lit class was tasked with reading Stephen Greenblatt’s “Renaissance Self-Fashioning” and A.O. Scott’s “Better Living Through Criticism.” Though these books seemed completely unrelated at first glance, they actually have a lot of commonalities. But the greatest overarching theme of Scott and Greenblatt’s work is not a theme at all; it’s actually the medium they used to convey their messages.
Scott attempts to tackle the concepts of art and criticism, and how they interact with each other. Not only that, but he also persuades his audience to consider their relationship as well. He presents the basis of his argument and follows it with “case studies.” The first third of the excerpt we read was focused around the general themes that Scott relates with art and criticism. The latter section is full of examples to prove his theory. This includes the MoMA exhibition “The Artist is Present,” as well as “Archaic Torso of Apollo” by Rilke. The content of these sections, however, is less important than the way in which they’re structured. A.O. Scott’s “Better Living Through Criticism” reads like a self-help guide, inspiring the reader to assume the role of the artist and the critic in her own life. Rilke sums it up best when he says, “you must change your life.”
Stephen Greenblatt follows the same structure as Scott. Though he’s tackling a seemingly different topic (authority, aliens, and agency), his book “Renaissance Self-Fashioning” is also a case study for Greenblatt’s thesis. He has perceived patterns in the world around him and in literature, and he has created his own version of how self-fashioning occurs. This general theory is presented in the preface and introduction in his book, and the remainder is composed of Greenblatt putting his structure to the test. He utilizes the writings of six Renaissance artists to prove that his structure is applicable to the real world. Proving his theory is not, however, the purpose of his book. Instead, he wants to convince his reader to be conscious of these structures in her own life. This purpose and structure imitates that of Scott: a book on how to live your life. Greenblatt is less direct, however, than Scott is about his purpose. His book is an example in and of itself of the kind of structures he’s telling us that we inherently submit to.
Not only do Scott and Greenblatt follow this structure inside their books, if you were to put Greenblatt and Scott into one book, that would follow the same structure as well. Greenblatt works as the overarching theme and general premise; he sets up a structure to be tested with a “case study.” Scott’s contribution to the book is that case study. The theme he attempts to tackle is much more specific than that of Greenblatt. Greenblatt’s overarching structure asks us to consider our role as the “self,” subjecting to the authority or alien. Scott wants us to consider our roles as the artist and the critic, or subject ourselves to the authority or alien, respectively. The ideas of authority, agency, art, and criticism aren’t as different as they first appear. Art and criticism are just real world examples of authority, agency, and aliens. Scott and Greenblatt are even more interconnected than just the topics they choose to discuss; their books actually play off each other to further prove both of their arguments.
Scott attempts to tackle the concepts of art and criticism, and how they interact with each other. Not only that, but he also persuades his audience to consider their relationship as well. He presents the basis of his argument and follows it with “case studies.” The first third of the excerpt we read was focused around the general themes that Scott relates with art and criticism. The latter section is full of examples to prove his theory. This includes the MoMA exhibition “The Artist is Present,” as well as “Archaic Torso of Apollo” by Rilke. The content of these sections, however, is less important than the way in which they’re structured. A.O. Scott’s “Better Living Through Criticism” reads like a self-help guide, inspiring the reader to assume the role of the artist and the critic in her own life. Rilke sums it up best when he says, “you must change your life.”
Stephen Greenblatt follows the same structure as Scott. Though he’s tackling a seemingly different topic (authority, aliens, and agency), his book “Renaissance Self-Fashioning” is also a case study for Greenblatt’s thesis. He has perceived patterns in the world around him and in literature, and he has created his own version of how self-fashioning occurs. This general theory is presented in the preface and introduction in his book, and the remainder is composed of Greenblatt putting his structure to the test. He utilizes the writings of six Renaissance artists to prove that his structure is applicable to the real world. Proving his theory is not, however, the purpose of his book. Instead, he wants to convince his reader to be conscious of these structures in her own life. This purpose and structure imitates that of Scott: a book on how to live your life. Greenblatt is less direct, however, than Scott is about his purpose. His book is an example in and of itself of the kind of structures he’s telling us that we inherently submit to.
Not only do Scott and Greenblatt follow this structure inside their books, if you were to put Greenblatt and Scott into one book, that would follow the same structure as well. Greenblatt works as the overarching theme and general premise; he sets up a structure to be tested with a “case study.” Scott’s contribution to the book is that case study. The theme he attempts to tackle is much more specific than that of Greenblatt. Greenblatt’s overarching structure asks us to consider our role as the “self,” subjecting to the authority or alien. Scott wants us to consider our roles as the artist and the critic, or subject ourselves to the authority or alien, respectively. The ideas of authority, agency, art, and criticism aren’t as different as they first appear. Art and criticism are just real world examples of authority, agency, and aliens. Scott and Greenblatt are even more interconnected than just the topics they choose to discuss; their books actually play off each other to further prove both of their arguments.
BRAINPICKINGS COVER LETTER
While creating my concept map, I did my best to delve into the layers of each author’s writing while still leaving the ideas general enough to be tied together. I tried to format my flowchart as Maria Popova would format an outline for one of her articles. I did my best to find the overarching theme of each piece before I added ideas that were more specific. I wanted to find the common thread that linked all three works, and I did this by finding the most general theme I could and then getting more specific until I could no longer find a theme that fit all three works. That is evident in my flow chart, as the boxes next to each of the titles are more specific, and they branch outward into a more general connective idea.
CONCEPT MAP EXPLANATION
In her BrainPickings articles, Maria Popova synthesizes ideas from different authors of different time periods and backgrounds to consolidate intricate concepts. I used the same method in the flowchart I made for my concept map. I brought together the ideas of AO Scott, Stephen Greenblatt, and Warren Berger, and I combined those ideas into one overarching theme. I brought together authors with books and articles on completely different subjects and found the common thread between them.
I laid out my concept map in the same way my brain moved while I read. I made a flowchart that visually demonstrated my thought process while I read the excerpts. My flow chart branches out to find the overarching concepts before becoming more detailed again. All of the ideas of the three pieces weave together to form one common thread: that humans will inevitably need to adapt their lives for the better. As Rainer Maria Rilke perfectly sums up in her poem, “Archaic Torso of Apollo,” “you must change your life.”
Not only do these pieces all tie together into one common theme, but some of the more niche themes are connected between one or two of the pieces. Many of the arrows on my flowchart intertwine with other, smaller themes. Similar to the way Popova will add the relevant ideas of other great thinkers to her articles, I pulled smaller themes from my reading as well. Popova makes the most of other thinkers’ quotes, using them back to back in order to force her audience to question themselves and what they know. By referencing the ideas and works of well-known authors, she is able to better compile and explain her own thoughts. So Popova introduces and explains the ideas of others in order to more concisely communicate. I attempted to do the same thing in my flowchart, and to sum up the most prevalent themes in the most concise manner possible.
My flowchart ended with one condensed version of the common themes of the reading. Just as Popova ends her pieces with a unifying theme, all of the arrows in my concept map lead back to one place.
I laid out my concept map in the same way my brain moved while I read. I made a flowchart that visually demonstrated my thought process while I read the excerpts. My flow chart branches out to find the overarching concepts before becoming more detailed again. All of the ideas of the three pieces weave together to form one common thread: that humans will inevitably need to adapt their lives for the better. As Rainer Maria Rilke perfectly sums up in her poem, “Archaic Torso of Apollo,” “you must change your life.”
Not only do these pieces all tie together into one common theme, but some of the more niche themes are connected between one or two of the pieces. Many of the arrows on my flowchart intertwine with other, smaller themes. Similar to the way Popova will add the relevant ideas of other great thinkers to her articles, I pulled smaller themes from my reading as well. Popova makes the most of other thinkers’ quotes, using them back to back in order to force her audience to question themselves and what they know. By referencing the ideas and works of well-known authors, she is able to better compile and explain her own thoughts. So Popova introduces and explains the ideas of others in order to more concisely communicate. I attempted to do the same thing in my flowchart, and to sum up the most prevalent themes in the most concise manner possible.
My flowchart ended with one condensed version of the common themes of the reading. Just as Popova ends her pieces with a unifying theme, all of the arrows in my concept map lead back to one place.