Glenn Duncan's Use of Milton's Satan

Glenn Duncan's novel "I, Lucifer" can be seen as a hell's reaction to the "lost paradise" inspired by God. This is evident when comparing Satan's depravity and the independent story of the Garden of Eden to the myriad details of the entire story. These stories are very similar, but as expected, as Satan is using as a talker, Duncan rotates the story to compensate for the lack of justice in Satan's treatment. In many respects, Lucifer can be thought of as a sequel to Paradise Lost.

Satan's changing view comes from John Milton's epic "Paradise Lost" (1667), which Satan is taking the initiative. Milton is Puritan and never meant to portray him as Satan's sympathy. But when he betrayed God while drawing Satan as a victim of his pride, he allowed others to be sexually treated and interpreted as rebels against tyranny. This is something like Milton Satan's understanding understood later by the publisher Joseph Johnson and an anarchist philosopher William Godwin who readers reflected this in the 1793 discussion on political justice. A little. "Paradise Lost" has been widely read in the 18th century in the UK and continental Europe, and translated it into French. Therefore Milton became "a central figure in rewriting Satanism" and was later regarded as "de facto Satanist" by many later religious Satanists.

Some people think Satan has allowed Milton to develop into a more attractive role than Milton's Milton theology is a true hero of John Milton's great epic "Paradise Lost". In the words of Banisalamah (2015), people of the 17th century were encouraged to pursue the freedom of the kings and the Roman Catholic Church through the revolutionary work of the Puritan poet Milton and to improve their condition. This is a rebellion against Satan's god and this rebellion makes him look like a hero to the eyes of some critics and readers. This view began in the era of romanticism, which opposed all forms of established authority, emphasizing the development of personality (whether a writer or one of his characters). Other romantic critics endorse this view with great enthusiasm