/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22088976]

>Him who disobeys me disobeys
Miltonfags will defend this.

[Anonymous No.22089026]

>>22088976
God's speeches in Paradise Lost are certainly disappointing, but the weakness of style is really the product of a narrative difficulty; Milton is trying to make God argue, selecting for delineation what absolutely transcends the reach of human faculties. How could he have succeeded? You should rather look to spaces in Milton's poetry like the famous opening lines of Paradise Lost,

"Of Man's First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Sing Heav'nly Muse..."

Look at how he packs all of these vast themes into the verb 'sing'. You find the same excellent withholding of verbs in Whitman's poetry. Both of them are honestly magical to me...

[Anonymous No.22089038]

>>22088976
I don't really understand why you're praising "sing" so much? Anyone can string clauses which use the same verb.

[Anonymous No.22089041]

>>22089038
>>22089026
fuck retard moment

[Anonymous No.22089046]

>>22088976
What on earth is wrong with "Him who disobeys me disobeys"

[Anonymous No.22089048]

>>22089026
I don't really understand why you're praising "sing" so much? Anyone can string clauses which use the same verb.

[Anonymous No.22089049]

>>22088976
>who me disobeys him disobeys
why didn't he just say it like this? it preserves the meter and makes quasi-sense in english.

[Anonymous No.22089053]

It's weird how narcissistic jews are, no wonder they thrive in democracy, like women.

[Anonymous No.22089074]

>>22089038
Withholding verbs is not by itself great poetry. It would not be interesting unless it encompassed the huge themes and the vast argument of the epic, which Milton presents as within his control. The vastness of his design is what I was referring to.

[Anonymous No.22089081]

>>22089074
>vastness of his design
>his design
that section literally just recounts the events of the bible

[Anonymous No.22089092]

>>22089046
it's a latinism that doesn't make sense in english. even if you've studied latin it doesn't make sense until you realize that it is a latinism

[Anonymous No.22089115]

>>22089092
What do you mean "does not make sense", I know very well what it means

[Anonymous No.22089123]

>>22089115
To the typical English reader it would seem a non-sequitur as it lacks a second subject.

[Anonymous No.22089126]

>>22089115
wtf do you think it means?

[Anonymous No.22089127]

>>22089123
>>22089126
It means the same as "who disobeys him, disobeys me" as Pound himself says

[Anonymous No.22089129]

>>22089127
so are you telling me if you read that sentence for the first time, you would understand it?

[Anonymous No.22089134]

>>22089129
Yes

[Anonymous No.22089137]

>>22089134
kys

[Anonymous No.22089143]

>>22089137
Seethe

[Anonymous No.22089145]

>>22089081
Yes, that is the matter of the poem, but his design lies in making explicit or recalling (and, unknown to himself in my opinion, creating) the poetic unity of the events of the fall and eventual restoration of mankind, thereby justifying God to man through visionary argument. I used that section as just one example of Milton's ability to harness the thrust of his syntax through various conditional clauses; there are other examples. The famous proverb "Better to reign in Hell then serve in Heav'n" is actually the clinch of a surge of feeling carried through previous lines,

"What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n"

He sustains the effects of Satan's argument over a vast distance of thematically profound clauses which makes the end seem less a destination than a destiny.

[Anonymous No.22089153]

>>22089127
I know perfectly well what it means. It’s Latin syntax and not English syntax so MOST normal readers not versed in Latin phraseology would be off put by it which is what that guy was saying.

[Anonymous No.22089155]

>>22089153
I was saying that even if you know Latin it doesn't make sense because the languages have different rules. it only makes sense if you intellectually tell yourself that it's using Latin word order for some reason.

[Anonymous No.22089166]

>>22089129
very easy to understand, however, i think your problem with it is that it is seemingly tautological. it's hiding in tautology a wealth of meaning. making objective disobedience equivalent to the disobedience inflicted on him.
it hides within a similar tautology of I AM THAT I AM.

[Anonymous No.22089175]

>>22089153
It's not offputting at all in a book that is constantly changing the normal word order
>>22089155
How does it "not make sense" if you just agreed that you know what it means

[Anonymous No.22089183]

>>22089175
because it's not accepted syntax in the english language, there is no native speaker who would ever say that or understand it. the other times he changes the word order are different because they are all mutations that are understandable and come from english itself, not interpolations from an entirely different language. It's incorrect. I only "know what it means" because it's common knowledge that Milton used latinisms everywhere.

[Anonymous No.22089192]

i'm gonna help everyone in this thread out real quick

him who disobeys me, disobeys

there. fixed.

[Anonymous No.22089195]

>>22089192
then it should be "he who disobeys me, disobeys" because you've made "him" into the subject.

[Anonymous No.22089196]

>>22089195
nah

[Anonymous No.22089202]

>>22089183
>there is no native speaker who would ever say that
There's no native speaker who would say any of the outrageous things which are put into the mouths of epic heroes
>or understand it
It is readily understandable within the poem