[Milton-L] responses and intentionalism

[Carol Barton]

Yes, Jim (Rovira). Fish asks (and attempts to answer) how what Milton 
has written *works*: what is the effect of the words on the page on 
the person who reads them, how does he use those words to manipulate 
the reader into responding in a certain manner, and how does he use 
that experience to teach something valuable about human perception and 
human experience that tells us something not only about ourselves, but 
about the nature of our interaction (one might even say complicity, in 
the case of PL) with evil?

Neither he nor any other reception theorist worth his or her 
credentials would presume to tell the broad spectrum of 
persons-throughout-history-who-have-read-Milton what their individual 
experiences *should be*--but if you share the same responses that Fish 
does to the various poetry and prose about which he has written, you 
will understand *why* you reacted the way you did. Fish attempts to 
demonstrate in SBS and other works that evil ensnares us only with our 
own consent and participation: as John Potter was fond of reminding 
his students, the serpent has no hands, and can't *force* you to do 
anything or go anywhere unless you choose to follow him. Like the 
beautiful demon in Gibson's "Passion" (or the Green Knight in Gawain 
or Despair in Bunyan) Milton's Satan finds the chinks in our moral 
armor, and we invite him to enter through them. The Serpent talks Eve 
into transgressing because he says what she wants to hear--Adam talks 
himself into sinning because he allows his passion to rule his 
reason--but Jesus stands on the pinnacle because he understands that 
any act done at the devil's bidding, no matter how innocent it may 
seem (such as feeding the hungry) has an underlying ulterior evil 
inherent in it. Fish demonstrates the truth and the mechanics of such 
assertions because to the best of his understanding and belief, that 
is how Milton's works *work*--using enjambment, circumstancial 
evidence, misleading syntax, and ambiguous language, and a host of 
other devices. For him, and for many other Miltonists, understanding 
the "how" enriches the "what"--but if your experience of the poem or 
prose piece is significantly different, Fish's arguments will almost 
of necessity fall flat.

I can't help but be amused that those who argue against any assertion 
of Miltonic intentionality as made by Fish seem to have no problem 
making pronouncements about what Fish thinks or intends other people 
to think by means of reading one or two of his works.

For me, it's rather like staring at the negative/positive perception 
vase/lovers or young/old woman and not being able to see the negation 
of whatever your original perception was. If you see only the young 
woman or only the vase, I can tell you over and over again about the 
ear of one being the wart on the nose of the other, or the bevel at 
the vase base being the chins and lips of the people about to kiss, 
and my comments will be meaningless to you--lunatic, even, since it's 
clear (from your perspective) that that's an ear, and that's a beveled 
base.

Some readers react to Fish the same way.

Best to all,

Carol Barton