This epic started off extremely well but lost me in the middle (it disrupted narrative cohesion, and Milton’s own “authorial intrusion” became too heavy-handed, creating narrative dissonance for me).  Questionable intent vs impact with this one- Milton claims to want to explain god to men, but then does such a bad job characterizing god? Also, this piece is incredibly misogynistic. In fact, “incredibly misogynistic” may be an understatement here. I know it’s a product of its time, but GEEZ! (all the women are sin, stupid, and ostensibly subhuman…) 

Milton tried really hard to integrate Greek mythos with Christian cannon and failed miserably… He literally irreparably contradicted Christian cannon. This is especially so in the context of the primordial deities. In the Christian faith, god came first and created everything on his own, just God. However, in this, Chaos et al. were already there, and god used their essence to make everything. Milton essentially made god a conqueror and colonizer rather than creator, fundamentally changing the entire theological framework Milton claims to be working within. Furthermore, he also scorned the Greek gods as false gods, but then used their mythology left and right as metaphors. Sheesh. Pick a lane, Milton. 

This piece had way too much exposition-dumping in the middle of the narrative. I think six entire books were just expo-dumping. I’m not going to go into this further because it should be clear how that detracts from the narrative and thematic depth, I think. And don’t say it’s “in epic fashion” and that he’s just “copying homer” because homer did it much better. Narrative energy thrives on conflict and personality, and Homer’s pantheon is rife with both. Hell, Dante did it better! The Divine Comedy is more consistently engaging, dramatically coherent, and emotionally compelling. There is a more natural way to give theological and cosmological detail and context than the way Milton did it. “Expo dumping” may be part of the tradition of epic “catalogues” or theological genealogizing, sure. But the way Milton did it was completely derivative…

Many characters (both mortal and immortal) were as flat as a board, with no definable personality traits, and amounted to nothing more than a plot device. The unfallen angels were literally divine messaging systems rather than characters. Even the most interesting characters had no actual agency* and were at will to the universe and story (a point off for me, but possibly the point entirely…wait, the meta-ness of it all is making me want to increase my rating…)

Honestly speaking the only characters with any sort of agency were god and satan (yep, not even jesus…and god’s agency is questionable given his position in this narrative, but i’ll allow it), however satan quickly lost any sort of agency himself in lieu of telling you how bad and evil and deranged he is! Also, to be honest, there was a lot of telling and not showing in this story.

Many times, the telling would directly contradict the showing because Milton wants you to think one way about something, yet show you the complete opposite in the characters’ actions and dialogue. This also isn’t just regarding satan but pretty much all of the characters, including god himself, Eve, Jesus, Adam, the fallen angels, the unfallen angels, etc. These characters are just cogs in Milton’s biblical machine. (Wait, it’s so meta, omg)

*When I say lacking agency, I don’t mean it in the sense that they have no control over their choices/the predetermination of it all. I mean, that’s the entire point, yes? Plus, isn’t this true of every character in every novel? As such, I mean more so that across the poem, angels (fallen or otherwise), God, Jesus, and even Adam and Eve often lack consistent motivations or real personalities. The telling contradicts the showing, often (as previously stated).

Their actions feel random or dictated by Milton’s didactic aims rather than by any internal logic or narrative consistency. As a result, they come off as pawns or placeholders or just opposite to what Milton wanted to characterize them as, undermining any sense of genuine agency or emotional depth. In some cases, their actions just don’t align with what we’ve been previously shown about them, or they just have no personality at all. Don’t tell me, “this is just how epics are,” because as I said before, Homer, Dante, and Virgil did it so so much better!

And while we’re on Satan: a lot of people try to justify his abrupt transformation by arguing it illustrates the seductive nature of the fall — that the reader, like Satan, is lured in by his grandeur only to watch him unravel. But this doesn’t hold up. If Milton wanted to show a slow corruption or reveal a hidden truth, he needed to build that descent gradually. Instead, we get what feels like a hard 180 in personality: Satan goes from eloquent revolutionary to snarling cartoon villain with barely any transition.

If he becomes pathetic the moment he falls, then there’s no seduction — just narrative whiplash and poor writing. And no, “the reader is supposed to feel conflicted!” isn’t a defense. Conflict requires nuance, not whiplash. It undermines the narrative integrity of the entire work. Satan begins as this complex, charismatic revolutionary figure with compelling rhetoric and genuine psychological depth. His famous lines about freedom and rebellion resonate because they feel authentic to a consistent character. When Milton suddenly transforms him into a pathetic, almost comical villain without proper development, it feels like authorial intrusion rather than organic character evolution.

This shift also creates a rhetorical problem. If Satan’s initial appeal is meant to represent the seductive nature of sin, but then he becomes cartoonishly evil, the warning loses its power. The lesson becomes “sin is obviously pathetic and ridiculous” rather than “sin can be genuinely appealing but ultimately destructive.” The latter is a much more sophisticated and honest theological position. Also, a gradual corruption or revelation of Satan’s true nature could have been powerful – showing how rebellion and pride slowly eat away at dignity and nobility. This would have been far more effective than the whiplash-inducing character change we get.

The inconsistency also makes Milton’s theological argument weaker. If Satan’s rebellion is presented as compelling and then arbitrarily undercut, readers (me) might suspect Milton couldn’t actually refute the challenging questions raised by Satan’s position, so he simply changed the character instead. There is also an artistic failure here. Milton sets up Satan with such force and complexity in Book I that the later portrayal feels like a betrayal of the reader’s investment in that character. It suggests Milton couldn’t reconcile his own creation with his theological aims – a fundamental structural problem in the epic.

Satan’s arc in Paradise Lost is sold to us as a tragedy. Tragedy depends on a believable fall — not just a literal descent, but a psychological, moral, or emotional one. We need to understand: What changed? Why it changed? How it changed him? But instead of development, Milton gives us a binary flip. The reader doesn’t watch Satan deteriorate — he’s just told it happened. That’s not tragedy. That’s character assassination.

And worse: the lack of internal cause makes the fall meaningless. If Satan was doomed from the start, and his early charisma was just a mask, then nothing he says ever matters. If Milton wanted to argue that evil corrupts, he needed to show the process. But he skips the process. He just tells you Satan sucks now. No buildup. No unraveling. Just “he’s deranged now. deal with it.” By giving Satan real complexity, Milton sets up a dialectic — and for a while, it’s powerful: What is obedience? What is justice? Is rebellion always evil? Is tyranny holy if it’s divine?

But when Milton flattens Satan halfway through the poem, he also flattens the conflict. We’re no longer asking big questions — we’re just watching the bad guy get worse because he’s bad. It becomes a sermon instead of a story. And not even a good sermon — because the opposing argument gets neutered halfway through. Plus, this contradicts Milton’s own theological stance. He literally writes that it is harder to disobey than to obey, it is harder to fall than it is to ascend — that rebellion is a deliberate, difficult act. So how then can the fall also be seductive and easy? It feels like he’s trying to contradict Virgil’s “the descent into hell is easy” by saying the descent is hard — but then writes a poem where Satan falls fast and dramatically without much resistance. It’s inconsistent on both a narrative and philosophical level.

I find it interesting how Milton himself was a revolutionary yet seems to write against revolutions in the biblical context (only mortal tyrants are worth fighting against, I guess- Maybe the entire point was that, yes, god is a tyrant, but it’s okay because it’s god?) It’s interesting when you look at satan’s struggle against the unbeatable as a metaphor for continuing even in the face of certain defeat, a sort of ode to enduring revolutions, the tragedy yet dignity of revolution, and the need for strong will to achieve true change (see: the myth of sisyphus [camus], and revolution and tragedy [williams].)

However, I am not under the impression that this is what Milton was going for. It seemed more like just his attempt to laugh in the face of satan’s struggle against the almighty, as he completely trashed his characterization and the meaning of his revolution by book six, making him out to be a truly pathetic angel (which would be fine if he’d done the narrative work to support this beforehand, but he didn’t. It came completely out of left field. I don’t even understand how he got so far if he’s such a loser…). This story ended up turning into some revenge power fantasy for Jesus and god (which doesn’t make sense in Christian canon bc god and Jesus are not characterized that way at all). 

I also did not miss how many of the angels (and Jesus and god himself) shared traits with the fallen angels, yet it was praised when they did it and admonished and criticized to hell (haha) when the fallen angels did it….I mean, how are you even able to define sin and bad behavior here? I don’t know if that was part of the influence of the Greek mythos (whose godly beings are quite fallible and mortal-like in conduct) or what, but it doesn’t make any sense. I guess sin is only sin when the losing team does it. I don’t think moral relativism works within the context of the bible, but that’s just me.

Adam and Eve were quite interesting but fell into Milton’s characterization trap I mentioned earlier. I did enjoy seeing them deal with the ramifications of their infernal choices and, of course, what led up to it. Their love story was very weak in my opinion (it’s like a subverted frankenstein [shelley], but while shelley’s creature actively grapples with philosophical and existential questions and makes choices (even terrible ones) based on his developing understanding of himself, adam and eve remain remarkably passive in their own narrative). Ultimately, they had no agency in this story.

They were utterly passive. Even before the fall, they don’t drive any action – they’re more like figures being moved around on Milton’s theological chessboard. Their conversations feel scripted rather than organic (or even just a way to quickly and easily expo dump), and their actions feel mechanical rather than motivated by genuine character traits or desires. Even their love story, which should be a deeply human element, feels artificial because neither of them actively participates in its development – it’s simply a state that exists because god made it so (honestly this could’ve been something interesting to explore in its own way, but Milton chose not to, so it ended up being incredibly flat and actively detracted from the narrative).

I did think it was cool how Eve’s fall came from wanting to assert herself and equality to Adam (although Milton framed this desire as misguided, even though he is the one who implied that by divine right men are above women and women are only subhuman…I will still never understand how knowledge = corruption, but I digress). The misogyny and oversexualization of Eve were almost too much for me… Also, the increasingly obvious allusions to Virgil were not lost on me, nor were the flipped connotations of the references (i preferred Virgil).

Don’t tell me the “second half is about Adam and Eve’s redemption” and that it’s the “emotional core” of the story. it’s called the emotional core, but when there’s no real build-up to Adam and Eve’s interior worlds (beyond Milton’s didactic aims), it winds up feeling hollow. Even though Paradise Lost technically pivots to their fate and redemption in the latter half, you don’t sense true emotional resonance or complexity in the way they process guilt, love, or hope.

It’s more “theological chess moves” than authentic human drama. Plus, there is so much sexism! Ugh!  How can we fully engage with a story of universal human redemption when half of humanity is consistently depicted as inherently inferior? When evil, corruption, knowledge, and rebellion are gendered in such horrible ways? Milton’s narrative mode (lots of exposition, grand speeches, and authorial commentary) often eclipses the quieter, more intimate character moments you’d expect in an emotional arc. So, while he’s trying to show the human cost of sin and the path to redemption, the characters’ feelings come off more like bullet points to fulfill a moral thesis than genuine experiences we, as readers, can empathize with.

Narratively, it didn’t work for me. Milton prioritized pushing his intended themes and lessons over narrative continuity and good and coherent storytelling (don’t say it… don’t say it. Homer did it better. DANTE did it better!) I am unable to discern whether or not the poem’s thematic ambitions justify these narrative trade-offs, but I lean more towards no…

You could argue that Milton’s God’s divine authority transcends human morality. I think that would be a fine and valid argument if he then hadn’t defined it within the framework of human morality. That is where the issue arises for me. I personally see god as beyond human morality and beyond good and evil (irrelevant to my point, but still). In Paradise Lost Milton tries to reconcile divine authority and human morality and ultimately fails. You can’t use “god transcends human morality” as an excuse if you are trying to write him and justify his ethics/politick in the context and framework of human morality…I did think it was cool how the world was framed as god’s kingdom, with god being king. Super interesting take!

However, by casting God’s authority in terms of earthly kingship, Milton subjects divine power to the same moral scrutiny he applies to human rulers in his own politick. If God’s kingdom operates on principles similar to earthly kingdoms, then it becomes subject to earthly ethical critiques. Geniunely speaking, the way Milton wrote god is blasphemous (he made him an insufferable, cruel, and egotistical tyrant…I just can’t take it seriously).

You could also argue that Satan’s initial grandeur is an illusion, and his degradation mirrors the futility of rebellion. I also think that if Milton intended for satan’s initial grandeur to be an illusion, that would’ve been fine if and only if he had done the work to back up what satan’s true nature was. Honestly speaking, he did not do the narrative work for that or to appropriately show and justify it before just emphasizing it randomly, so it just comes off as weird and forced to me, and against satan’s actual characterization…

when Milton suddenly emphasizes satan’s degraded nature without having laid the groundwork for this transformation, he breaks the “contract of character consistency” with the reader (me). It feels incredibly artificial, and I can’t take it seriously. I also feel that prioritizing the theme over the storytelling actively detracts from the theme. if the story can’t hold up the theme, then what was the point? Might as well just write an essay instead.

gorgeous flowery prose (incredibly quotable). In a sense, you could say that Milton was intentionally writing a grand Christian epic, so the usual rules of characterization don’t apply. It’s a valid angle if you accept that everything is in service to a bigger moral/theological pattern (is it really valid, though? Like I said earlier, Homer, Dante, Virgil… did the whole epic thing so much better…). But if you prioritize narrative continuity, psychological and thematic depth (beyond “God is almighty”), or consistent moral frameworks, you will end this epic scratching your head (and rolling your eyes at the sexism).

 I have many more thoughts on this epic. This isn’t even getting into:

The specifics of god, Jesus, and the unfallen’s characterization [which is just completely absurd. Do these angels have nothing better to do but sit around telling god how brilliant he is? Are they nothing more than divine sycophants? The whole idea of a God that creates humanity just to satisfy his ego and then punishes it for eternity over a fall he meticulously constructed to glorify himself is baffling to me, and the way he orchestrated the angel’s fall and pitted people against each other? god was an incredibly cruel and vain tyrant in this story].

satan’s disappointing arc [bro dropped the hardest lines of the entire epic only to be completely pathetic in the end. I’m talking satan as Sisyphus, satan as Odysseyus, satan as Prometheus, and then satan as…a loser. I’m not mad at him degrading or being evil, but it needs to be earned, not forced, especially with a setup like that.]

Or more in-depth in Adam and Eve [the sexism/misogyny and weird oversexualization, the Stockholm syndrome, the fall itself and how they turned on each other…how they came to love and lean on each other again]. Also, the writing and plotting itself… Milton is incredibly verbose, and this detracts from the storytelling [it’s bloated and all over the place, but gorgeously written, I guess]. 

I didn’t get into some of the smaller characters who deserve recognition [looking at you sin…], or the fact that Milton tried to write the entire bible into this story [why…?] and the way Milton ultimately failed to reconcile free will with predetermination. badly. incredibly. may write a full review later!