When people imagined paradise they could only go so far into detail. Your short story reveals that paradise sounds boring. Like watching too much Netflix, eating too much ice cream, riding on too many unicorns. Sooner or later you get bored of the ‘good life’.
I also find the idea of paradise dangerous. It makes us believe that this Earth is just the material world in which we’re trapped for a while on our way to paradise. A nuisance. It makes us blind to the beauty of this universe that thrives with life and enables us, for the blink of a moment, to exist and take it all in.
Totally agree. I don't actually think paradise is boring. My life is very good and beautiful and not at all boring. But I also think I'm pouring paradise into my utopian novel (which I would absolutely love to live in) and I wanted to explore the opposite.
Fun thought experiment. A while back, I wrote a piece about opposites. Maybe I’ll dig that up. This reminded me because writing that helped me appreciate the struggles we have here on earth - as part of what we are meant to experience.
A fun look at heaven, and life as well. As a thought experiment compare what Maslow hierarchy of needs is as heaven. If you got to the top of the pyramid would you be in heaven? How can we better define and achieve the the third, fourth and fifth levels?
I'll give myself some credit, here. I could see that the story was not going in the originally intended direction. Elle was clearly trying to find a clear path, and never quite found it. No problem. In spite of my clear intentions, sometimes my writing takes me to places that I never knew existed in my mind. Other times, I get stuck in the mud. Either way, we find out more about ourselves. And we become better writers.
As for what heaven is, or is not, there's a great Twilight Zone episode that explores precisely what Elle is getting at. Here is a five minute synopsis.
Love this exploration! It has some fun parallels to a short Twilight Zone episode called "A Nice Place to Visit" where a man goes to the afterlife and gets everything he ever wanted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77ueTRaYTwg
I’ve got to politely disagree with this version of heaven. I’ve been researching heaven for a book. I’m working on about dogs as greeters in heaven. I love your writing, but I also feel that there’s so much more to learn about what heaven could really be, and after reading about hundreds and hundreds of near death experiences, I think there’s much more to it and one doesn’t have to be bored. Finally, I also believe in reincarnation and have studied that extensively, so if I am bored in heaven, I know I can always return here.
I’m fascinated by the echoes between the near-death experiences, especially the emotional aspect of pure bliss and overwhelming love. I experienced that once, not a near-death but a full-on mystical moment. I have no clue whether it presaged the afterlife but I know there’s a massive emotional aspect to it.
I definitely disagree with this version of heaven too. I don't think beautiful has to be boring. But for whatever reason, it was a part of my mind I wanted to explore!
This story beautifully aligned with my quiet misgivings with that picture of heaven. Too much of a good thing always becomes not so great.
Maybe that's why reincarnation makes more sense to me.
Take a little rest then get into another life with a new purpose, goal and lesson.
Also the concept of ancestors in the afterlife still interacting with their living descendants makes more sense to me. It is a way for them to still be occupied, doing something useful and making use of all that hard-won wisdom.
This reminded me a little of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where society is peaceful and everyone is happy (albeit because of a drug called soma). Disease and aging are things of the past, and whatever you want, you can just do. Interestingly, Huxley himself called it "a negative utopia."
First, this is a work of fiction. I am not making any kind of commentary about whether or not communism would be heaven (or hell). I only wanted to imagine two complete opposites, a capitalist stuck in the most anti-capitalist “paradise” one could imagine.
Second, I am not using the word communism to mean what it has come to mean in China. (That is totalitarianism). I am using it in the Marxian sense (no governments, companies, or hierarchies, full equality). I wrote about that here: https://www.elysian.press/p/a-very-brief-history-of-capitalism
To be clear: I am not advocating for a communist state. I don’t think that would work and it hasn’t worked throughout history. I am a capitalist and my working theory is that we need to make capitalism work better for people. But I wanted to explore its opposite in fiction!
I appreciate the response and again - I'm a fan! I don't dismiss the merit of the concept. I am aware of the great work you have done but it's the explicit use of the term I object to here, clearly used favourably. I also do not think that Chinese "totalitarianism" (from its outset, Modern China has been "The People's Republic") and Marx's critiques can be detached. Marx has a lot of good ideas about economics, but his calls for bloodly revolution are also very explicit, and often repeated. I do not think he was driven more by resentment than by malevolence.
It's a dangerous signifier, "Communism," with a platform entirely focused on the idea of utopia.
We are not direct mouthpieces for our characters, of course (that would horrify me): but - I genuinely want to be contructive here - especially on a platform like Substack, we have to be careful about this, because every fictional work exists within a "nonfiction ecosystem," so to speak. It's just the use of the term I am objecting to. It's presented as extremes here with our narrator as the man on the monopoly box, effectively, and then . . . Oh dear - "Heaven is Communist." It presents a polarized, and oversimplified view of the world. Loaded signifiers are a no-no in any of my writings that involve political themes.
I suppose that was my main point: perhaps - at least in fiction - those terms are detrimental. I get the concept. It's very cool . . . but the term sticks out like a sore thumb. It's unneeded.
It's a small gripe (one word) - but . . . it's a big one too. You do have an ethical responsibility here as well.
I truly hope that I haven't upset yourself or any readers with my insistence on this: your work is your work . . . I respect it and I do like the story very much :)
I think it's a good point that political words can come with a lot of baggage, and I generally try to avoid politically charged words in my writing. But while I can understand that the word "communism" comes with a lot of baggage for you, it's been used in various forms of utopian thought for a long time.
Thomas More's Utopia was communist (even if the word didn't yet exist at the time) and Karl Marx was a utopian thinker who incorporated those ideas into his work. Edward Bellamy and William Morris, in turn, took Karl Marx's ideas and turned them into the socialist utopias in Looking Backward and News from Nowhere (though Edward Bellamy took issue with the word "communism," and even the word "socialism," and used the word "nationalism" instead.) Charlotte Perkins Gilman took issue with the word "nationalism" and avoided all of those terms altogether in her utopian novel. Then we get to Ursula Le Guin whose utopian novel was anarchist, before we head into the various Buddhist utopias, and eventually to Kim Stanley Robinson and his capitalist utopias.
What I'm saying is that utopian thought comes in a lot of different flavors, and communism has been one of those flavors for a long time. Again, my utopian novel is not communist—it is capitalist. But I have been studying all of the flavors in my pursuit of utopian thought as I try to to understand what each thinker was ultimately trying to achieve.
Today, I would call Thomas More's utopia dystopian. But is it not still worth understanding why it felt utopian in his day compared to the realities he was up against? And what he was ultimately trying to achieve? That we have since tried many of those ideas and proved them wrong only means we are learning and adapting as we go. And we are creating new and better versions of utopia as we go! That's why we need a modern continuation of them. To update our ideas about a better future, even as we learn from the ones that didn't have that result!
I think that's the beauty of Substack: I think that it's going to prove a very important platform in the next 10-20 years for the depth of the social discourse and ease of that communication.
The ethics of creating utopias - it's fascinating, isn't it? Science fiction is such a brilliant field for this. Thanks Elle! Sorry if I seemed a bit "on the offensive" . . .
And look what an interaction has formed over a single word :)
Because, on the other hand, if we do not, if can go under the guise of another (like identity politics) then people follow along unknowingly. It's a conundrum I'm dealing with in the writing of a fictional series.
When people imagined paradise they could only go so far into detail. Your short story reveals that paradise sounds boring. Like watching too much Netflix, eating too much ice cream, riding on too many unicorns. Sooner or later you get bored of the ‘good life’.
I also find the idea of paradise dangerous. It makes us believe that this Earth is just the material world in which we’re trapped for a while on our way to paradise. A nuisance. It makes us blind to the beauty of this universe that thrives with life and enables us, for the blink of a moment, to exist and take it all in.
Totally agree. I don't actually think paradise is boring. My life is very good and beautiful and not at all boring. But I also think I'm pouring paradise into my utopian novel (which I would absolutely love to live in) and I wanted to explore the opposite.
Fun thought experiment. A while back, I wrote a piece about opposites. Maybe I’ll dig that up. This reminded me because writing that helped me appreciate the struggles we have here on earth - as part of what we are meant to experience.
A fun look at heaven, and life as well. As a thought experiment compare what Maslow hierarchy of needs is as heaven. If you got to the top of the pyramid would you be in heaven? How can we better define and achieve the the third, fourth and fifth levels?
I’ve often wondered that about Maslow’s hierarchy. If you have nothing left to work on, what do you do?
I'll give myself some credit, here. I could see that the story was not going in the originally intended direction. Elle was clearly trying to find a clear path, and never quite found it. No problem. In spite of my clear intentions, sometimes my writing takes me to places that I never knew existed in my mind. Other times, I get stuck in the mud. Either way, we find out more about ourselves. And we become better writers.
As for what heaven is, or is not, there's a great Twilight Zone episode that explores precisely what Elle is getting at. Here is a five minute synopsis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLEp3dG4YuM
Love this exploration! It has some fun parallels to a short Twilight Zone episode called "A Nice Place to Visit" where a man goes to the afterlife and gets everything he ever wanted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77ueTRaYTwg
Oh interesting!
I’ve got to politely disagree with this version of heaven. I’ve been researching heaven for a book. I’m working on about dogs as greeters in heaven. I love your writing, but I also feel that there’s so much more to learn about what heaven could really be, and after reading about hundreds and hundreds of near death experiences, I think there’s much more to it and one doesn’t have to be bored. Finally, I also believe in reincarnation and have studied that extensively, so if I am bored in heaven, I know I can always return here.
I’m fascinated by the echoes between the near-death experiences, especially the emotional aspect of pure bliss and overwhelming love. I experienced that once, not a near-death but a full-on mystical moment. I have no clue whether it presaged the afterlife but I know there’s a massive emotional aspect to it.
I definitely disagree with this version of heaven too. I don't think beautiful has to be boring. But for whatever reason, it was a part of my mind I wanted to explore!
Someone once said wise words:
"I don't want to go to heaven. It sounds awful and boring. I want to go to hell. That's where all the interesting and fun people are."
This story beautifully aligned with my quiet misgivings with that picture of heaven. Too much of a good thing always becomes not so great.
Maybe that's why reincarnation makes more sense to me.
Take a little rest then get into another life with a new purpose, goal and lesson.
Also the concept of ancestors in the afterlife still interacting with their living descendants makes more sense to me. It is a way for them to still be occupied, doing something useful and making use of all that hard-won wisdom.
This reminded me a little of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where society is peaceful and everyone is happy (albeit because of a drug called soma). Disease and aging are things of the past, and whatever you want, you can just do. Interestingly, Huxley himself called it "a negative utopia."
Oh interesting! Brave New World is on my reading list so I'll have to check it out!
The modern TV adaptation is not bad too. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9814116/?ref_=ext_shr
First, this is a work of fiction. I am not making any kind of commentary about whether or not communism would be heaven (or hell). I only wanted to imagine two complete opposites, a capitalist stuck in the most anti-capitalist “paradise” one could imagine.
Second, I am not using the word communism to mean what it has come to mean in China. (That is totalitarianism). I am using it in the Marxian sense (no governments, companies, or hierarchies, full equality). I wrote about that here: https://www.elysian.press/p/a-very-brief-history-of-capitalism
To be clear: I am not advocating for a communist state. I don’t think that would work and it hasn’t worked throughout history. I am a capitalist and my working theory is that we need to make capitalism work better for people. But I wanted to explore its opposite in fiction!
I appreciate the response and again - I'm a fan! I don't dismiss the merit of the concept. I am aware of the great work you have done but it's the explicit use of the term I object to here, clearly used favourably. I also do not think that Chinese "totalitarianism" (from its outset, Modern China has been "The People's Republic") and Marx's critiques can be detached. Marx has a lot of good ideas about economics, but his calls for bloodly revolution are also very explicit, and often repeated. I do not think he was driven more by resentment than by malevolence.
It's a dangerous signifier, "Communism," with a platform entirely focused on the idea of utopia.
We are not direct mouthpieces for our characters, of course (that would horrify me): but - I genuinely want to be contructive here - especially on a platform like Substack, we have to be careful about this, because every fictional work exists within a "nonfiction ecosystem," so to speak. It's just the use of the term I am objecting to. It's presented as extremes here with our narrator as the man on the monopoly box, effectively, and then . . . Oh dear - "Heaven is Communist." It presents a polarized, and oversimplified view of the world. Loaded signifiers are a no-no in any of my writings that involve political themes.
I suppose that was my main point: perhaps - at least in fiction - those terms are detrimental. I get the concept. It's very cool . . . but the term sticks out like a sore thumb. It's unneeded.
It's a small gripe (one word) - but . . . it's a big one too. You do have an ethical responsibility here as well.
I truly hope that I haven't upset yourself or any readers with my insistence on this: your work is your work . . . I respect it and I do like the story very much :)
I think it's a good point that political words can come with a lot of baggage, and I generally try to avoid politically charged words in my writing. But while I can understand that the word "communism" comes with a lot of baggage for you, it's been used in various forms of utopian thought for a long time.
Thomas More's Utopia was communist (even if the word didn't yet exist at the time) and Karl Marx was a utopian thinker who incorporated those ideas into his work. Edward Bellamy and William Morris, in turn, took Karl Marx's ideas and turned them into the socialist utopias in Looking Backward and News from Nowhere (though Edward Bellamy took issue with the word "communism," and even the word "socialism," and used the word "nationalism" instead.) Charlotte Perkins Gilman took issue with the word "nationalism" and avoided all of those terms altogether in her utopian novel. Then we get to Ursula Le Guin whose utopian novel was anarchist, before we head into the various Buddhist utopias, and eventually to Kim Stanley Robinson and his capitalist utopias.
What I'm saying is that utopian thought comes in a lot of different flavors, and communism has been one of those flavors for a long time. Again, my utopian novel is not communist—it is capitalist. But I have been studying all of the flavors in my pursuit of utopian thought as I try to to understand what each thinker was ultimately trying to achieve.
Today, I would call Thomas More's utopia dystopian. But is it not still worth understanding why it felt utopian in his day compared to the realities he was up against? And what he was ultimately trying to achieve? That we have since tried many of those ideas and proved them wrong only means we are learning and adapting as we go. And we are creating new and better versions of utopia as we go! That's why we need a modern continuation of them. To update our ideas about a better future, even as we learn from the ones that didn't have that result!
I think that's the beauty of Substack: I think that it's going to prove a very important platform in the next 10-20 years for the depth of the social discourse and ease of that communication.
Substack belongs in utopia! :)
The ethics of creating utopias - it's fascinating, isn't it? Science fiction is such a brilliant field for this. Thanks Elle! Sorry if I seemed a bit "on the offensive" . . .
And look what an interaction has formed over a single word :)
It's a powerful subject. Keep up the great work!
I think it's a good question honestly: alomg with literary predecessors, should we avoid existing political terms in utopian or distopian fiction?
Because, on the other hand, if we do not, if can go under the guise of another (like identity politics) then people follow along unknowingly. It's a conundrum I'm dealing with in the writing of a fictional series.