Read on Twitter
One of my favourite quotes from Milton is this: “books are as meats and viands are; some of good, and some of evil substance; and yet God, in that unapocryphal vision, said without exception, RISE, PETER, KILL AND EAT, leaving the choice to each man's discretion.”
It’s a good one to remember when considering anti culture and the virtue police.
Here’s why.
Here’s why.
John Milton’s Areopagitica is definitely not his most quoted work but when it is, usually the above is cut off after ‘evil substance’.
In so doing many people discussing the section misunderstand his point about there being good/bad books or writing.
Not the case.
In so doing many people discussing the section misunderstand his point about there being good/bad books or writing.
Not the case.
Milton is making the point that like with good foods (that healthy poke bowl lunch) and bad foods (dominoes for dinner again?), people have the right and responsibility to Choose what kind of content / books they want to read.
Crucial here is that idea of responsibility - the onus is always on the reader to choose wisely what they read.
More than that - Milton also advocates for Active Readership - like chewing your food or cutting off the burnt bits, you have to ACTIVELY ‘digest’ literature.
More than that - Milton also advocates for Active Readership - like chewing your food or cutting off the burnt bits, you have to ACTIVELY ‘digest’ literature.
What does this mean?
Active readership is an idea in literary theory known as “reader response” and it basically stems from the very simple idea that none of us just passively accept a "text"— be it a book, movie, or other creative work.
Active readership is an idea in literary theory known as “reader response” and it basically stems from the very simple idea that none of us just passively accept a "text"— be it a book, movie, or other creative work.
Instead we all bring parts of ourselves to that “text” - sometimes subconsciously - including from our cultural background/life experiences.
This is basically why headcanons exist - we’re actively participating in the books we’re reading, responding creatively and consciously.
This is basically why headcanons exist - we’re actively participating in the books we’re reading, responding creatively and consciously.
So back to Milton.
He takes it a step further and suggests it’s essentially a person’s duty to play an active role in digesting a text.
If you don’t, even the most ‘moral’ of works can become deadly dangerous to you.
He takes it a step further and suggests it’s essentially a person’s duty to play an active role in digesting a text.
If you don’t, even the most ‘moral’ of works can become deadly dangerous to you.
Here is the rest of the section.
“Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomach differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evil...
“Wholesome meats to a vitiated stomach differ little or nothing from unwholesome; and best books to a naughty mind are not unappliable to occasions of evil...
... Bad meats will scarce breed good nourishment in the healthiest concoction; but herein the difference is of bad books, that they to a discreet and judicious reader serve in many respects to discover, to confute, to forewarn, and to illustrate.”
Essentially what he’s saying that all books can be good or bad depending on the reader.
Good books can be misunderstood and misused. Bad books can be illuminating and insightful.
Good books can be misunderstood and misused. Bad books can be illuminating and insightful.
You have to individually work to engage with what you’re reading to ensure that you stay ‘good’ as a person.
That duty is yours.
That duty is yours.
Not the writer.
Not the platform or publisher.
Not wider society.
You choose what you read and what you take from it.
No one else.
Not the platform or publisher.
Not wider society.
You choose what you read and what you take from it.
No one else.
Milton backs up this section in many of his other works - including Paradise Lost and Regained.
He was vehemently anti-censorship and believed strongly in freedom of creativity.
He was vehemently anti-censorship and believed strongly in freedom of creativity.
and yes.
He did caveat his stance in Areopagitica saying that books should have name so that writers could be held accountable for things like libel.
But ultimately, he was concerned with the freedom of the individual to write and read.
He did caveat his stance in Areopagitica saying that books should have name so that writers could be held accountable for things like libel.
But ultimately, he was concerned with the freedom of the individual to write and read.
Everything - according to him - depends on the motivation of the reader.
So in the context of writing now - when there’s so much to read on the internet tags/warnings can only do so much - sometimes I like to think of Areopagitica.
Because it’s great people are talking about writing and freedom to choose and freedom to create, just like John Milton.
Because it’s great people are talking about writing and freedom to choose and freedom to create, just like John Milton.
