From Paradise Lost to Star Trek II: Parallels in the Hero’s Journey

By Jeremy Clift, author of Space Vault: The Seed Eclipse

The Wrath of Khan features a strong plot, increased tension, and a sharp supporting performance from Ricardo Montalban.

What could a seventeenth-century Puritan epic possibly have in common with a twentieth-century science-fiction film?

More than most classrooms acknowledge.

At first glance, Paradise Lost by John Milton and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan seem worlds apart. One is a dense theological poem in blank verse, composed in the aftermath of England’s civil wars. The other features starships, space battles, and a genetically engineered superhuman bent on revenge.

Yet when placed side by side, the parallels are striking and pedagogically powerful.

Comparing these works reveals not only structural similarities but something larger: across centuries, cultures, and media, we continue to express the human condition in mythic form.

Myth in Different Ages

Milton consciously wrote Paradise Lost as a Christian epic. Drawing on the conventions of Greek and Roman mythology—epic similes, invocations, heroic scale—he transformed the biblical Fall into a sweeping narrative designed for Restoration England. After the collapse of the Puritan Commonwealth and deep religious disillusionment, Milton sought to reframe the Christian story in terms grand enough to address national crisis. He did not merely retell Genesis, he mythologized it.

Three centuries later, Star Trek II performs a similar cultural function. Beneath its futuristic setting lies an ancient narrative structure: pride, rebellion, exile, vengeance, sacrifice, and renewal. Khan Noonien Singh, marooned on a barren world and consumed by resentment, echoes Milton’s Satan. Both figures are charismatic, intelligent, and defined by defiance. Both articulate a powerful rhetoric of wounded grandeur. Both would rather rule their respective hells than submit to authority.

Star Trek II poster

The medium has changed (blank verse replaced by cinematic dialogue, epic similes by visual effects), but the mythic architecture remains.

For students, recognizing this continuity is transformative. Myth is not confined to ancient cultures or canonical texts. It migrates, adapts, and survives technological change.

The Human Condition in Symbolic Form

At the core of both works lies a shared concern: the moral consequences of freedom.

Milton’s epic explores the paradox of free will. Satan chooses rebellion. Adam chooses disobedience. Their choices reshape the cosmos. The Fall becomes a meditation on responsibility, ambition, and loss.

Star Trek II addresses parallel anxieties in a technological register. The Genesis Device—a tool capable of creating life from lifeless matter—embodies the double edge of scientific power. Creation and destruction coexist in a single innovation. Khan’s obsession with vengeance mirrors the destructive misuse of that power.

In both narratives, the external conflict dramatizes an internal one. Pride isolates. Obsession blinds. Sacrifice redeems.

These are not historically limited themes. They are enduring human concerns. When students see the same symbolic tensions play out in radically different settings, they begin to understand myth as a cross-cultural language.

Milton addressed a society wrestling with theological uncertainty and political collapse. Star Trek II spoke to a culture navigating technological acceleration and Cold War anxieties. Each work translated contemporary fears into mythic narrative.

The specifics differ, but the symbolic core persists.

Adaptation as Interpretation

The comparison also opens a valuable conversation about medium.

Students often struggle with Milton’s syntax and archaic vocabulary before they can engage the story itself. Film offers an alternative entry point. By examining how a visual and auditory medium reworks epic themes, students can observe how storytelling shifts across artistic forms.

John Milton (1608-1674)

Milton conveys Satan’s grandeur through elevated diction and epic scale. The film communicates Khan’s intensity through performance, music, and framing. The poem internalizes theological debate; the film externalizes moral tension through action and dialogue.

This contrast clarifies a key insight: adaptation is interpretation.

Milton adapted biblical material through classical epic conventions to make it resonate with his audience. The creators of Star Trek II adapted mythic structure through science fiction to engage a technologically oriented society. Each version reshapes inherited narrative to meet contemporary needs.

Students who grasp this process are less likely to treat canonical literature as static or sacred. Instead, they see it as part of an ongoing cultural conversation—one that continues in modern storytelling.

Reviving Canonical Texts

There is also a pragmatic dimension. Many students approach canonical works with skepticism or distance. The language feels alien; the historical context remote. But when Milton’s characters are placed alongside familiar figures like Kirk, Spock, and Khan, the epic regains immediacy.

Spock’s self-sacrifice, framed as “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” resonates with Milton’s exploration of redemptive obedience. Kirk’s confrontation with aging and mortality parallels Adam’s confrontation with consequence. Khan’s defiant pride mirrors Satan’s tragic self-definition.

The comparison does not replace close reading. It cannot replicate the intricacies of Milton’s poetic craft. But it creates narrative access. Once students grasp the mythic arc, they are more willing to wrestle with the language.

Engagement precedes mastery.

Myth Beneath Technology

Perhaps the most revealing insight from this pairing is how little technological progress alters narrative structure. Science fiction presents itself as forward-looking. Yet beneath its speculative surface lie ancient patterns. Starships replace chariots. Genetic engineering replaces divine intervention. But the story still turns on freedom, ambition, fall, and redemption.

Milton used classical epic to render Christian theology compelling for an increasingly secular England. Star Trek II used futuristic technology to render mythic conflict compelling for a society fascinated and unsettled by scientific power.

Both works demonstrate that myth is not an obsolete mode of thought. It is a durable narrative framework for processing crisis.

This recognition encourages interdisciplinary thinking. Literature and film, theology and science fiction, past and present—these are not isolated silos. They are interconnected expressions of shared human questions.

Why the Comparison Matters

When students compare Paradise Lost and Star Trek II, they gain more than an entertaining parallel. They see how narratives are shaped by historical context while preserving archetypal structure. They observe how medium influences meaning. They recognize that so-called “popular culture” participates in the same mythic tradition as canonical literature.

Most importantly, they see that the hero story endures because the dilemmas it encodes endure. What is freedom worth? What happens when pride eclipses wisdom? Can sacrifice transform loss into renewal?

These questions animated Milton’s England. They animated late twentieth-century science fiction. They animate us still. The costumes evolve, the myth remains.

— Jeremy Clift, author of Born in Space  and Space Vault: The Seed Eclipse.  Read Clift’s profile on Kirkus.