So Paradise Lost is freakin' awesome. Seriously. I fully agree with Dr. Robertson when he says it's "the greatest English epic ever written." Satan is badass, the story is long and has deep, profound, and world-changing implications, and it's just cool. So I'm totally looking forward to getting a chance to read the whole thing. Definitely gonna be a good time.
However, it brings to mind thoughts about what it'll take for me to write something like that. It's not even necessarily a matter of quality; of course I want to write something fantastically good, but in some ways it's more important for me to write something that's remembered. There's no doubt in my mind that, for example, there were better poems from the 9th century than Beowulf, or better plays from the 17th century than Shakespeare's, but those, for whatever reason, are the ones that are remembered.
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made. My dearest ambition, and the one that's most easily stated, is to be the best. And I mean the best. I want to be, indisputably, the best writer of our age. There's a huge amount of arrogance that goes into that, I know, but there you go. At the same time, though, I want to be immortal in print. I want what I write to be remembered forever, to have my work read two hundred years from now just as Daniel Defoe's is and have everyone say, "This Heffers guy, he was something great."
I feel like the two are mutually exclusive. I can be remembered without being that good, and be the best but be forgotten. I guess what it comes down to is whether I want to experience my success, or if I want it to last forever. If I'm the best, I'll know it, and so will everyone... hopefully, anyway. But I won't know if I'm remembered in two hundred years.
Ideally I'd be both. Oh well. It's still a long way off...