Images of Paradise: comparisons - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 03-21-2005, 08:49 PM

I've noticed two different definitions of [b[paradise[/b] at work in this thread. Both are worth talking about.

#1: paradise as utopian garden land, usually either bucolic or airy/elvish, as Lathriel indicates.

#2: paradise as home of those who have passed from this life to the next

I am currently more interested in #2.

In that vein, my interest in Valinor would therefore be limited to the Halls of Mandos. What's Tolkien's description for it? I don't recall any really thoroughgoing description in The Silmarillion. Is there in HoME?

It might be that we could sort of talk about Tol Eressea, since Frodo and Bilbo go there, but they're technically not dead yet. Like Men, I believe the Hobbits, when they die, leave Arda altogether, don't they? Which makes it hard to talk about LotR and #2 paradise.

What other literature depicts #2? Not, I take it, The Neverending Story.
What about Pilgrim's Progress? I have a feeling that has somewhat the same feel as Niggle and Great Divorce; and that brings to mind CSL's other paradise allegory, "Pilgrim's Regress". Anybody else read that one yet?

Shelob · 03-21-2005, 09:15 PM

What about cases where Paradise#2 also qualifies as a Paradise#1?

I'm just asking because the image of Paradise#1 (ie: gardens) is probably so ingraned into most cultures as the setting for Pardise#2s (Paradises#2?) that the only real difference would be the factor of whether this was a real place or one where only the dead can go. By this I mean that Paradise#1 would be an actual, reachable location while Pardise#2 would be located in the spirt world. And if this were the case how strict would you consider it...living people entered the Greek Hades (not often, and they were usually on quests...Heralces on his 12 labours...Orpehus in search of Eurydice...Odysseus on his way home) but it was much more a part of the spirit world and certainly meets your definition of "home of those who have passed from this life to the next" (well, part of it qualifies as 'paradise' at least...Hades had three parts as I recall, the Elysian Fields for heros, a section for sinners and a third section for your everday, average person).

littlemanpoet · 03-22-2005, 10:20 AM

Good questions, Shelob. The trouble with making distinctions is that they often kill something inbetween. Thanks for keeping that something alive. You're quite right that there is a lot of overlap. Like I said, both are fine to talk about, especially as they dovetail - I just have a focus on the one over the other.

You mention how the Greek myths had it that the living could pass into the lands of the dead. This is also true in Celtic myth. LeGuin writes it into her EarthSea series, too, and Pullman has it in his Dark materials trilogy; however, the land of the dead in those two trilogies has the darkness, grayness, lack of hope, that seems to be more associated with Greek myth, as opposed to Celtic and Tolkien and Lewis; then again, aren't the Halls of Mandos like the dark and gray, too?

davem · 03-22-2005, 01:56 PM

This is a difficult one for me to get into as I'm familiar withg Niggle but have only read TGD a couple of times a good few years ago. I suspect, though, that a couple of Middle English works,
Sir Orfeo &Pearl (the later particularly) may have influenced Tolkien's concept of 'Paradise' in Niggle. As far as the Dante connection goes we know that Charles Williams was a member of the Inklings during WW2 & Williams was one of the great Dante scholars - his book The Figure of Beatrice is a major contribution to Dante studies, but Tolkien didn't get on with Williams' ideas generally, so we don't know whether Williams ideas had any effect on Tolkien. We do know that Tolkien didn't much care for Dante's theology though...

Lathriel · 03-22-2005, 06:07 PM

Well, the paradise Pullman describes is very different. Let me rephrase that. After the dead are freed they become part of the earth,trees,grass etc. This has a peaceful feeling (for me). However, Tolkien's paradise (#2) is where people are actually still in a whole form whereas in Pullman's books they go back to the earth. Very different but from both I get a sense of tranquility.

littlemanpoet · 03-24-2005, 02:46 PM

Pullman's diffusion of the souls of the dead had a (somewhat) peaceful feeling for me too. Which was disconcerting, considering Pullman's blatant anti-Christian polemic in the trilogy. Of course, Pullman is a good enough writer to set it up such that his "realm of the dead" is hopeless and dreary enough for a diffusion of the soul to be a sweet resolution.

In a sense, there is something more satisfying with Pullman's diffusion of the soul as
compared to the traditional western "bodily consistency through eternity", since, if you allow yourself to contemplate that continuance into eternity, it can be quite a fearsome, panicky thing to think about. I know that I have to stop myself and touch something four-square tangible in to stop feeling so out of control. So Pullman's idea of diffusing back into the matter of the universe, really, ceasing to exist as an individual, seems somewhat like falling asleep compared to the everlasting consciousness of Life Eternal.

(By the way, there's another thread not unlike what I've begun to talk about, called Nebulous It and Absolutes.)

That said, Pullman's diffusion of the soul feels like a copout, an escape from reality as compared to most monotheist constructions.

davem · 03-24-2005, 04:11 PM

(Bit of a mad rant....)

I have to say that I only vaguely remember Pullman's book, but cannot for some reason even bring myself to skim it again. I remember feeling disappointed by the hopelesseness if the ending. It was as if Pullman, in deciding to 'liberate' humanity from God felt he also had to 'liberate' us from hope as well. He disguises the hopelessness by dressing it up in 'clever' terminology about 'building' a 'republic of heaven' (though, as I've said before, how, exactly, one can physically 'build' what is a metapysical concept - 'heaven' - is beyond me).

Tolkien refuses this cop out. He leaves us with the difficult metaphysical conundrums: How can a loving God permit suffering? What happens after death? What is the meaning of our existence? What Pullman does, as I said, is kill off God & by extension kill off those very questions, leaving us with a sense of emptiness, which we may not immediately feel because we're caught up in our sadness at the eternal seperation of Will & Lyra, & in the (apparently) 'profound' nonsense about this 'republic' of heaven. Pullman has no images of Paradise, because he clearly believes 'Paradise' is one of the 'childish things' that 'grown ups' must put away.

Its perhaps strange at first sight that Tolkien, who lived through the horrors of the Somme, saw his sons go off to fight in WWII, & experienced the unbelievable made fact (the death camps & Hiroshima) could still hold to a hope beyond the circles of the world, while Pullman, product of a safe, secure society which had not known or directly experienced true horror, can dismiss such a thing as almost an 'evil' fantasy needing to be grown out of. But I don't know. Perhaps its the very security Pullman has known that has given him a kind of 'safe distance' from true horror. Certainly he happily plays with the idea of the 'devil', in the form of Lord Azriel, as a kind of Miltonic Satan, heroic anti-hero, defiant to the last, going down in a blaze of glory.

Tolkien, on the other hand, had seen true evil for what it is - his evil ones are vicious, cowardly & cruel - 'monsters' in the true sense of the word. Pullman can only imagine 'evil' in the form of an intolerant 'church' attempting to rule the world & & tell everyone what to do. A simplistic worldview. True 'good' for Pullman is everyone being sensible & grown up about things - generally everyone being nice to each other. I suppose his 'heaven' is a 'heaven on earth', bound within the circles of the world - hence not a 'heaven' at all. His 'vision' (ie the 'hope' he offers) is one stripped of the metaphysical, & so of mystery. In both Tolkien & Pullman we find an account of the end of 'magic', of the world of myth, but in Tolkien the metaphysical dimension remains, & thus so does hope, & possibility. In Pullman it is replaced by blandness & the everyday. But then his conception of 'good' & 'evil' in HDM is equally 'bland'.

(Told you...)

03-22-2005, 01:56 PM	#4
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	This is a difficult one for me to get into as I'm familiar withg Niggle but have only read TGD a couple of times a good few years ago. I suspect, though, that a couple of Middle English works, Sir Orfeo &Pearl (the later particularly) may have influenced Tolkien's concept of 'Paradise' in Niggle. As far as the Dante connection goes we know that Charles Williams was a member of the Inklings during WW2 & Williams was one of the great Dante scholars - his book The Figure of Beatrice is a major contribution to Dante studies, but Tolkien didn't get on with Williams' ideas generally, so we don't know whether Williams ideas had any effect on Tolkien. We do know that Tolkien didn't much care for Dante's theology though... __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

03-22-2005, 06:07 PM	#5
Lathriel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME) Posts: 612	Well, the paradise Pullman describes is very different. Let me rephrase that. After the dead are freed they become part of the earth,trees,grass etc. This has a peaceful feeling (for me). However, Tolkien's paradise (#2) is where people are actually still in a whole form whereas in Pullman's books they go back to the earth. Very different but from both I get a sense of tranquility. __________________ Back again

03-24-2005, 04:11 PM	#7
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	(Bit of a mad rant....) I have to say that I only vaguely remember Pullman's book, but cannot for some reason even bring myself to skim it again. I remember feeling disappointed by the hopelesseness if the ending. It was as if Pullman, in deciding to 'liberate' humanity from God felt he also had to 'liberate' us from hope as well. He disguises the hopelessness by dressing it up in 'clever' terminology about 'building' a 'republic of heaven' (though, as I've said before, how, exactly, one can physically 'build' what is a metapysical concept - 'heaven' - is beyond me). Tolkien refuses this cop out. He leaves us with the difficult metaphysical conundrums: How can a loving God permit suffering? What happens after death? What is the meaning of our existence? What Pullman does, as I said, is kill off God & by extension kill off those very questions, leaving us with a sense of emptiness, which we may not immediately feel because we're caught up in our sadness at the eternal seperation of Will & Lyra, & in the (apparently) 'profound' nonsense about this 'republic' of heaven. Pullman has no images of Paradise, because he clearly believes 'Paradise' is one of the 'childish things' that 'grown ups' must put away. Its perhaps strange at first sight that Tolkien, who lived through the horrors of the Somme, saw his sons go off to fight in WWII, & experienced the unbelievable made fact (the death camps & Hiroshima) could still hold to a hope beyond the circles of the world, while Pullman, product of a safe, secure society which had not known or directly experienced true horror, can dismiss such a thing as almost an 'evil' fantasy needing to be grown out of. But I don't know. Perhaps its the very security Pullman has known that has given him a kind of 'safe distance' from true horror. Certainly he happily plays with the idea of the 'devil', in the form of Lord Azriel, as a kind of Miltonic Satan, heroic anti-hero, defiant to the last, going down in a blaze of glory. Tolkien, on the other hand, had seen true evil for what it is - his evil ones are vicious, cowardly & cruel - 'monsters' in the true sense of the word. Pullman can only imagine 'evil' in the form of an intolerant 'church' attempting to rule the world & & tell everyone what to do. A simplistic worldview. True 'good' for Pullman is everyone being sensible & grown up about things - generally everyone being nice to each other. I suppose his 'heaven' is a 'heaven on earth', bound within the circles of the world - hence not a 'heaven' at all. His 'vision' (ie the 'hope' he offers) is one stripped of the metaphysical, & so of mystery. In both Tolkien & Pullman we find an account of the end of 'magic', of the world of myth, but in Tolkien the metaphysical dimension remains, & thus so does hope, & possibility. In Pullman it is replaced by blandness & the everyday. But then his conception of 'good' & 'evil' in HDM is equally 'bland'. (Told you...) __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

03-21-2005, 08:49 PM	#1
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	I've noticed two different definitions of [b[paradise[/b] at work in this thread. Both are worth talking about. #1: paradise as utopian garden land, usually either bucolic or airy/elvish, as Lathriel indicates. #2: paradise as home of those who have passed from this life to the next I am currently more interested in #2. In that vein, my interest in Valinor would therefore be limited to the Halls of Mandos. What's Tolkien's description for it? I don't recall any really thoroughgoing description in The Silmarillion. Is there in HoME? It might be that we could sort of talk about Tol Eressea, since Frodo and Bilbo go there, but they're technically not dead yet. Like Men, I believe the Hobbits, when they die, leave Arda altogether, don't they? Which makes it hard to talk about LotR and #2 paradise. What other literature depicts #2? Not, I take it, The Neverending Story. What about Pilgrim's Progress? I have a feeling that has somewhat the same feel as Niggle and Great Divorce; and that brings to mind CSL's other paradise allegory, "Pilgrim's Regress". Anybody else read that one yet?

03-21-2005, 09:15 PM	#2
Shelob Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: At the abysmal Abyss Mall. Posts: 276	What about cases where Paradise#2 also qualifies as a Paradise#1? I'm just asking because the image of Paradise#1 (ie: gardens) is probably so ingraned into most cultures as the setting for Pardise#2s (Paradises#2?) that the only real difference would be the factor of whether this was a real place or one where only the dead can go. By this I mean that Paradise#1 would be an actual, reachable location while Pardise#2 would be located in the spirt world. And if this were the case how strict would you consider it...living people entered the Greek Hades (not often, and they were usually on quests...Heralces on his 12 labours...Orpehus in search of Eurydice...Odysseus on his way home) but it was much more a part of the spirit world and certainly meets your definition of "home of those who have passed from this life to the next" (well, part of it qualifies as 'paradise' at least...Hades had three parts as I recall, the Elysian Fields for heros, a section for sinners and a third section for your everday, average person). __________________ A signature always reveals a man's character - and sometimes even his name ~Evan Esar. Pan for Everyone!

03-22-2005, 10:20 AM	#3
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Good questions, Shelob. The trouble with making distinctions is that they often kill something inbetween. Thanks for keeping that something alive. You're quite right that there is a lot of overlap. Like I said, both are fine to talk about, especially as they dovetail - I just have a focus on the one over the other. You mention how the Greek myths had it that the living could pass into the lands of the dead. This is also true in Celtic myth. LeGuin writes it into her EarthSea series, too, and Pullman has it in his Dark materials trilogy; however, the land of the dead in those two trilogies has the darkness, grayness, lack of hope, that seems to be more associated with Greek myth, as opposed to Celtic and Tolkien and Lewis; then again, aren't the Halls of Mandos like the dark and gray, too?

03-24-2005, 02:46 PM	#6
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Pullman's diffusion of the souls of the dead had a (somewhat) peaceful feeling for me too. Which was disconcerting, considering Pullman's blatant anti-Christian polemic in the trilogy. Of course, Pullman is a good enough writer to set it up such that his "realm of the dead" is hopeless and dreary enough for a diffusion of the soul to be a sweet resolution. In a sense, there is something more satisfying with Pullman's diffusion of the soul as compared to the traditional western "bodily consistency through eternity", since, if you allow yourself to contemplate that continuance into eternity, it can be quite a fearsome, panicky thing to think about. I know that I have to stop myself and touch something four-square tangible in to stop feeling so out of control. So Pullman's idea of diffusing back into the matter of the universe, really, ceasing to exist as an individual, seems somewhat like falling asleep compared to the everlasting consciousness of Life Eternal. (By the way, there's another thread not unlike what I've begun to talk about, called Nebulous It and Absolutes.) That said, Pullman's diffusion of the soul feels like a copout, an escape from reality as compared to most monotheist constructions.