<p>"but to say there that it was small or none existence is na?ve. You can look at Wikipedia for a better list of his influence on subsequent literary figures."</p>
<p>I never argued what its "influence" on western literature was. A work need not be genius to have influence on subsequent works.</p>
<p>"The Bible is divided into two parts."</p>
<p>Yes, I have read the bible, and I am aware that it is "divided into two parts." </p>
<p>"Milton based Paradise Lost on the New Testament, and NOT the Old Testament where God is vengeful. Milton’s God is NOT the same guy who smite people because they happen to trip while carrying the Ark..."</p>
<p>You mean the God that acts in a self congratulatory manner in defense of satire? If you fail to notice that Milton, who is fully aware of God's role in both the old and new testament, is justifying his nature and glorifying his stance as a "benevolent god," then this is clear ignorance on your part. Furthermore, what the author tries to base a character on is irrelevant; what matters is what's on the page. </p>
<p>"He is not writing a piece a philosophical treatise on genesis and fall of man,"</p>
<p>True, he isn't, but you cannot deny the fact that he tries to justify the many inconsistencies of the bible (which are plentiful to begin with), which would make anyone's work inconsistent. Also, not the question many of the events, if we can call them that, in Paradise Lost, is simply willful ignorance. Sin guarding the gate to Earth? God ALLOWING THE CHAINS TO BE RELEASED when he could have kept Satan locked up forever in Book 1? If you choose not to question this, then I cannot see how you could argue against my points.</p>
<p>"he is writing a poem about temptation, betrayal, love, and redemption using genesis as the starting point"</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>"Reading Milton as a theologian is like reading Shakespeare as a novelist. Homer wasn’t there when Troy fell, or when Odyssey took his journey; Virgil certainly did not have credible source detailing Aeneas’s influence on the founding of early Rome beyond myths. "</p>
<p>I don't quite see the parallels here, and the discussion isn't about the validity of Milton's source. Arguing this point is mute as there cannot be a more unreliable source than the bible.</p>
<p>"Milton took an event that is so well known to everyone of us, or at least those who grew up in the Western tradition, and expand on it to make an epic poem."</p>
<p>That's one of the main problems with the work. The fact that the western audiences, who are the main readers of Paradise Lost, are well acquainted with the bible will obviously lead to it being scrutinized.</p>
<p>"To write a 12,000 lines poem without wasting a single word is genius. The length only makes it more impressive."</p>
<p>Wasting a single word? There are some terrible lines in Paradise Lost that to consider none of it a "waste" is ridiculous. I have no desire to take out my Norton Anthology right now and enumerate them for you since I’m watching the Giants game. Plus, like I said, there are so many instances that Milton tries to make “chromos,” which according to Twain’s definition is a useless attempt at aggrandizing events in a work, and they simply cute, and are cute at most.</p>
<p>"Most of Shakespeare’s play can be shorten to 10 minutes, but the genius of Shakespeare is to expand on a 10 minutes plot and develop a four hours play (depend on edition)."</p>
<p>Yes, particularly Hamlet. But do you know why he expanded such a play with a simple plot to "four hours" long?</p>
<p>"In term of literary epic poetry, Milton is among the finest in the genre. NO other work outside the range of Homer’s and Virgil’s can be considered Paradise’s equal."</p>
<p>Ever read Dante's Divine Comedy? That eclipses in thematic scope and poetic beauty (even though I haven’t read it in Latin) any other epic that preceded or followed it.</p>
<p>"They are works that are meant to be read and enjoy. If they survive the literary taste of time, then they can be considered a masterpiece. </p>
<p>"I can bet you that you will not find an accredited college’s English department that doesn’t have a course teaching on Milton, or subject relating to Milton’s works."</p>
<p>And many universities offer courses on romantic poets with emphasis on the earlier ones like Wordsworth, who is just terrible to say the least. How does this refute my argument?</p>
<p>I’m not arguing about all these other things you mention, I’m arguing how the work fails to live up to the thematic scope and poetic beauty that has been given to it for a long time, which are what I consider to be the factors that dictate whether or not a work is “genius.” A professor of mine, who did his dissertation on Milton, Donne, and Spenser, claims that the reason why Milton has lost its favorable stature amongst scholars today is because of the rise of the deconstruction criticism, which I now consider to make a lot of sense. Paradise Lost, for all of its aggrandized, epic events, which according to you elevates it as a work of genius, has not stood this kind of criticism today. Questions about inconsistencies in regards to his interpretation of the bible, and blatant anti-feminist sentiment rampant through his portrayal of Eve and the way she is treated by Adam, all work to prohibit consistent thematic concerns of the work. </p>
<p>Just to add: have you read this work? Often, you’re arguing about its position in the western canon, which is the furthest from what we’re arguing about. All of this tells me that you’re taking your info from some source (perhaps wikipedia?) instead of using your own analysis of the work.</p>