Terrific post, TT. I think this is quite common, an underlying message at odds with the surface. Of course, everybody cites Paradise Lost.
That's quite an interesting parallel. I mean, as CS Lewis reminds us, it would be a mistake to think that the surface meaning isn't important. Milton really does think that Satan is an evil lying rebel, just as Kipling really does think white men should rule over subject peoples. But whether intentionally or not, some other messages are coming through at the same time.
Lewis has a whole book on Paradise Lost (A Preface to Paradise Lost) where he argues that Milton knew exactly what he was doing when he made the devil such an attractive character, and that those who argue Milton was of the devil's party (knowingly or unknowingly) are falling for the devil's rhetoric and not picking up on the clues the poet has left them. After reading it, I agree with him.
It goes more or less like this: If you are going to have the devil (as presented in Scripture) as a character in your work, he must be attractive, and what he says must be a) false and b) very, very convincing. Otherwise you aren't doing justice to the character. But at the same time you've got the problem of signalling to your reader that this character is in fact not to be trusted. Getting the balance right is not easy, and for Milton in particular this is difficult, as his verse is purely splendid no matter what he's writing about. But if you pay attention to the actual facts presented in Paradise Lost (and don't lose yourself in the gorgeous rhetoric), you see the truth. Lewis lays this out very clearly with constant reference to the text, and he's not talking through his hat.
Of course, most people IMHO don't go to Paradise Lost with the intention of straining their brains, and with such splendid poetry, it's easy to get carried away and just accept what is, at bottom, bullshit.
D. L. Sayers faced the same difficulty with her Satan character and agrees with Lewis about Milton, IIRC.
Those who've mentioned John Wyndham reminded me of John Christopher, whose "Tripods" trilogy I spent one entire Christmas day reading as a child. I also remember children's sci-fi author Nicholas Fisk, whose "A Rag, a Bone and a Hank of Hair" became a minor obsession with me.
Lewis has a whole book on Paradise Lost (A Preface to Paradise Lost) where he argues that Milton knew exactly what he was doing when he made the devil such an attractive character, and that those who argue Milton was of the devil's party (knowingly or unknowingly) are falling for the devil's rhetoric and not picking up on the clues the poet has left them. After reading it, I agree with him.
Wish I had read this before my A-levels. I can still remember having to do an essay on that very topic!
I also remember children's sci-fi author Nicholas Fisk, whose "A Rag, a Bone and a Hank of Hair" became a minor obsession with me.
I discovered 'Grinny' at a children's camp. The illustration on the front cover gave me nightmares but I really enjoyed the book!
Mention of Vice Versa reminds me of a television version with Peter Bowles. And of course the original book of Freaky Friday by Mary Rogers, which was a favourite book of mine as a child.
I think Milton's problem isn't so much that his Satan is too attractive, but that his God is too much not. It was probably not a good idea to put his main defence of God's conduct in God's own mouth, and still less of a good idea to make it the substance of God's first speech. However much one intellectually understands the argument, one cannot warm to a character if the first thing they say is "it's not my fault".
I don't know if Mark Twain has been mentioned so far on this thread, but does anyone still read him?
Me! Not that I represent all humanity, but I have been gazing at my copy of "The Innocents Abroad" and thinking that I need to re-read it. It is a delight!
Lewis has a whole book on Paradise Lost (A Preface to Paradise Lost) where he argues that Milton knew exactly what he was doing when he made the devil such an attractive character, and that those who argue Milton was of the devil's party (knowingly or unknowingly) are falling for the devil's rhetoric and not picking up on the clues the poet has left them. After reading it, I agree with him.
Wish I had read this before my A-levels. I can still remember having to do an essay on that very topic!
I think Milton's problem isn't so much that his Satan is too attractive, but that his God is too much not. It was probably not a good idea to put his main defence of God's conduct in God's own mouth, and still less of a good idea to make it the substance of God's first speech. However much one intellectually understands the argument, one cannot warm to a character if the first thing they say is "it's not my fault".
You're so right. I can't stand Milton's God. I have all sorts of uncharitable speculations on why his God is so unattractive.
I thought Lewis made a pretty good case but I wouldn't agree with him on all points.
Although it's many years since I read him on it.
If Milton's God the Father is unattractive then his Jesus is even worse.
As for the Holy Spirit ... does he even get a look in?
Still, what should we expect from an Arian at worst, a Binitarian at best ... 😉
Great poetry but wonky theology.
Still, you have to admire the chutzpah of someone who set out to 'justify the ways of God to man.'
Certainly not lacking in ambition.
We have a running joke in my poetry group, 'Milton was wrong!'
So declared a chap who thinks that all poems must rhyme.
When it was pointed out to him that Paradise Lost doesn't rhyme - and the reasons Milton gave for that - he pronounced, 'Then Milton was wrong ...'
Milton was wrong about a lot of things. He was expecting the English Commonwealth to join forces with Protestant Europe, oust the Pope and usher in the reign of Christ.
The Restoration of the Monarchy put the kibosh on that.
I think those who see Paradise Lost as a thinly veiled political allegory with Satan as the heroic rebel Cromwell are being far too literal but I wouldn't be surprised if elements of it came from that shock to Milton's system and worldview.
To me the interesting thing about Kipling is that these imperial paens - which are really front and centre; he often says explicitly that he is doing this - are at odds with something else which is also going on. So in "Jungle Book" the "official" Kipling line is that Mowgli, being a human, is intrinsically superior to the animals; he is able to impose his will and it is his right to do so. But actually the focus is often elsewhere - the wisdom and tolerance of Baloo - the loyalty of the wolves who take Mowgli in - the rules under which the Jungle operates. And this "something else" is what makes the stories attractive.
I think there is a similar tension in nearly all Kipling. For example in McAndrew's Hymn the eponymous Scots engineer is strongly in favour of Calvinism and steam engines. But there is an extraordinary section in the midst of the poem where he finds himself almost persuaded by a pantheistic nature mysticism... but then he rejects this as a cunning temptation... and Kipling "officially" agrees with him, but one gets the idea that Kipling could surely not have written the "temptation" so powerfully without being "tempted" in this way himself....
It is quite true that Kipling is a jingo imperialist, perhaps even by the standards of his age. But he is aware that there could be a different way of looking at things, and I think he has an underlying yearning to escape from his official pith helmet.
Yes, you're right about the complexity, I recall reading some eerie lines in Puck of Pook's Hill and wondering about Freemason symbolism in The Man who Would Be King, something subversive at moments.
There's another issue I'd forgotten: that Kipling changed as a writer after losing his son John in WWI. He lost much of his patriotic enthusiasm, was described by friends as haunted and bitter, preoccupied with the Imperial War Graves Commission, deeply critical of British military bungling in trench warfare. Because he had spent time in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer war ( he was a close friend of Rhodes, Rider Haggard and John Buchan), he was aware of British ineptitude on the veld and that the military had not learned anything from fighting the Boers.
The Kipling who won the Nobel prize in 1907 and who had written the heroic poem If was not the same older Kipling who wrote "If any question why we died / Tell them, because our fathers lied" after the First World War.
Although it's notorious that good characters are difficult to portray, and the baddies have all the fun. I'm thinking of Henry Fonda in that terrific Western, although Fonda was good at being good.
<snip>There's another issue I'd forgotten: that Kipling changed as a writer after losing his son John in WWI. He lost much of his patriotic enthusiasm, <snip>
His situation was made worse by the wet he’d had to pull strings and call in favours to enable his short-sighted son to enlist.
His patriotic enthusiasm was not uncritical, and there was quite a ‘patriotic’ backlash to his poem Recessional written for the diamond jubilee.
Yes, Kipling did undergo something of a change but I think that can be exaggerated at times.
But he was certainly a 'sadder and a wiser man' later on.
I don’t hold any brief for Freemasonry but to its credit it could have an inclusive effect in places like British India with its caste system compounded by imperialist snobbery.
Comments
That's quite an interesting parallel. I mean, as CS Lewis reminds us, it would be a mistake to think that the surface meaning isn't important. Milton really does think that Satan is an evil lying rebel, just as Kipling really does think white men should rule over subject peoples. But whether intentionally or not, some other messages are coming through at the same time.
My italics.
Meanwhile, I remember a film based on the Don Camillo stories when I was a kid. Must read them.
I don't know if Mark Twain has been mentioned so far on this thread, but does anyone still read him?
It goes more or less like this: If you are going to have the devil (as presented in Scripture) as a character in your work, he must be attractive, and what he says must be a) false and b) very, very convincing. Otherwise you aren't doing justice to the character. But at the same time you've got the problem of signalling to your reader that this character is in fact not to be trusted. Getting the balance right is not easy, and for Milton in particular this is difficult, as his verse is purely splendid no matter what he's writing about. But if you pay attention to the actual facts presented in Paradise Lost (and don't lose yourself in the gorgeous rhetoric), you see the truth. Lewis lays this out very clearly with constant reference to the text, and he's not talking through his hat.
Of course, most people IMHO don't go to Paradise Lost with the intention of straining their brains, and with such splendid poetry, it's easy to get carried away and just accept what is, at bottom, bullshit.
D. L. Sayers faced the same difficulty with her Satan character and agrees with Lewis about Milton, IIRC.
Wish I had read this before my A-levels. I can still remember having to do an essay on that very topic!
I discovered 'Grinny' at a children's camp. The illustration on the front cover gave me nightmares but I really enjoyed the book!
Mention of Vice Versa reminds me of a television version with Peter Bowles. And of course the original book of Freaky Friday by Mary Rogers, which was a favourite book of mine as a child.
It’s still very much worth reading now! ❤️
You're so right. I can't stand Milton's God. I have all sorts of uncharitable speculations on why his God is so unattractive.
I remember seeing, years ago, a film or TV series
Although it's many years since I read him on it.
If Milton's God the Father is unattractive then his Jesus is even worse.
As for the Holy Spirit ... does he even get a look in?
Still, what should we expect from an Arian at worst, a Binitarian at best ... 😉
Great poetry but wonky theology.
Still, you have to admire the chutzpah of someone who set out to 'justify the ways of God to man.'
Certainly not lacking in ambition.
We have a running joke in my poetry group, 'Milton was wrong!'
So declared a chap who thinks that all poems must rhyme.
When it was pointed out to him that Paradise Lost doesn't rhyme - and the reasons Milton gave for that - he pronounced, 'Then Milton was wrong ...'
Milton was wrong about a lot of things. He was expecting the English Commonwealth to join forces with Protestant Europe, oust the Pope and usher in the reign of Christ.
The Restoration of the Monarchy put the kibosh on that.
I think those who see Paradise Lost as a thinly veiled political allegory with Satan as the heroic rebel Cromwell are being far too literal but I wouldn't be surprised if elements of it came from that shock to Milton's system and worldview.
Yes, you're right about the complexity, I recall reading some eerie lines in Puck of Pook's Hill and wondering about Freemason symbolism in The Man who Would Be King, something subversive at moments.
There's another issue I'd forgotten: that Kipling changed as a writer after losing his son John in WWI. He lost much of his patriotic enthusiasm, was described by friends as haunted and bitter, preoccupied with the Imperial War Graves Commission, deeply critical of British military bungling in trench warfare. Because he had spent time in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer war ( he was a close friend of Rhodes, Rider Haggard and John Buchan), he was aware of British ineptitude on the veld and that the military had not learned anything from fighting the Boers.
The Kipling who won the Nobel prize in 1907 and who had written the heroic poem If was not the same older Kipling who wrote "If any question why we died / Tell them, because our fathers lied" after the First World War.
Sorry, I'll see myself out ......
A reflection, alas, of the puritan mindset and the society they sought to create (think 'Taliban').
Re another thread, don't you mean 'Once upon a Time in a Vest'?
His patriotic enthusiasm was not uncritical, and there was quite a ‘patriotic’ backlash to his poem Recessional written for the diamond jubilee.
But he was certainly a 'sadder and a wiser man' later on.
I don’t hold any brief for Freemasonry but to its credit it could have an inclusive effect in places like British India with its caste system compounded by imperialist snobbery.
Kipling was a keen Freemason of course.