[Milton-L] Re: wow even more attacks via detail crazy glue
jessicaalexiswatson at gmail.com
Fri Dec 17 19:52:01 EST 2010
Since, the discussion seems to be picking up again I suppose I'll
chime in. As much time as I've spent reading these posts instead of
working on my own papers, I might as well make it all worth something.
The biggest problem with the argument that to "a devout Christian" PL
is heretical and quite possibly "tasteless" is that it is supported by
passages from PL and the Bible and NOTHING else. Both texts were
written in historical contexts and it is misguided to ignore those
contexts. "Misguided," let me add, is not a personal attack. How does
one speak for all devout Christians, from today or 400 years ago? This
thread started off well, because it started as a legitimate
discussion. Somewhere along the line, however, contributors stopped
being interested in learning or teaching about Milton. I will admit
that I as a graduate student still have a long way to go both as a
teacher and a scholar. I can also say that as a graduate student, I
have come to expect that people will attack my ideas--especially when
I do not articulate them well. But as someone who is not yet quite a
scholar, I found myself identifying with comments made on both sides
of the argument. More importantly, however, this discussion has peaked
my interest in pedagogy. Obviously, the gap between common knowledge
and scholarship when it comes to PL is huge. As teachers, how do you
teach PL to a room full of students that "know what [they're] talking
about" when it comes to the poem?
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges
<jefferyhodges at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nairba wrote:
> "But except for Mr. Lindall, everyone who has addressed me has done so with
> a direct interest to to slight me or distort my purpose, categorizing me
> personally, etc."
> Jeffery Hodges
> From: Nairba Sirrah <nairbasirrah at msn.com>
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 3:19:22 AM
> Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Re: wow even more attacks via detail crazy glue
> Mr. Rovia...and everyone else...would you please mind backing off the
> personal attack?
> My "even slightly" comment was in regard to Milton's main rhetorical theme,
> justifying "the ways of God to men." I wasn't talking about the obvious
> character names and locale. I meant the central narrative. Jesus existing
> before Jesus was born. Jesus speaking God's sentences from Genesis, etc.
> It is a complete reconstruction, without any Biblical foundation for doing
> so. Justifying "the ways of god to men" by altering every essential biblical
> narrative is, in my opinion, religious crime.
> I've tried to peacefully state my points. But I refuse to take part in petty
> semantical banter. I have not called anyone any names. Nor meant any
> personal offence. But except for Mr. Lindall, everyone who has addressed me
> has done so with a direct interest to to slight me or distort my purpose,
> categorizing me personally, etc.
> Unlike you, apparently, I have a life to attend to, and (to your petty
> jubilation perhaps) will not continue posting today. I'm glad I tested the
> list waters, but I regret to find they are full of flammable oil. But don't
> celebrate just yet, I'll be back; I'm a Milton scholar for life.
> "Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!!" - The Animals, 1964
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:49:47 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Re: "tasteless" Milton (response)
> From: jamesrovira at gmail.com
> To: milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> I think you're not fully grasping what you grasp either. You might want to
> consider what your claims sound like to people reading them. Here's the
> main one:
> <<But Milton's narrative is not in the Bible even slightly.>>
> "Even slightly"?
> Milton's PL had an Adam and Eve. Genesis had an Adam and Eve. Milton's
> Adam and Eve ate a forbidden fruit. Genesis's Adam and Eve ate a forbidden
> fruit. Milton's PL had a monotheistic deity who created the universe.
> Genesis has a monotheistic deity who created the universe. I could go on
> and on, but it's already getting very silly.
> If you mean that many of the details of Milton's narrative are not present
> in Scripture, I agree.
> If you mean that many of the details of Milton's narrative contradict
> Scripture, I think that's possible, but we'd need to discuss them on a case
> by case basis.
> But "not even slightly"? That's far too much.
> Jim R
> _______________________________________________ Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu Manage your list membership and access list
> archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l Milton-L web
> site: http://johnmilton.org/
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
More information about the Milton-L