I have always had a difficulty with DD's concept of Timeheart (at least as far as I understand it.) It seems to be a place, outside of normal space and time, not subject to the laws of entropy, where things lost to the "real world" (i.e. people that have died) are preserved forever. In other words, it seems to be a sort of heaven.
Fine so far. But then I run up against something that just doesn't make sense to me: only things that are loved ("remembered affectionately" is another phrase used) are preserved in this way. Does this mean that if you're not loved, you don't go to Timeheart when you die but instead just vanish forever? That seems rather harsh...I mean, you can't really help whether people love you or not. For example, I think we'd all say that Ed "deserves" to go to Timeheart (as much as anyone deserves it) but he's only there because Nita, in the last few days of his life, happened to meet him and become friends with him. What if she hadn't met him, and something had killed him before he was "loved"? It just seems like something you have no control over.
Also, I don't like the whole idea of being preserved as others remember you. (Hate that word, "preserved" -- sounds like you're a pickled specimen in a glass jar...) Does this mean that in Timeheart you can't grow, mature, change? In a way this makes sense, because Timeheart is not subject to entropy, meaning that time does not really operate there, but it still doesn't sound quite right to me. Given instant annihilation and an eternity of boring sameness, I think I might very well choose the first. (Also, when Nita is talking to Carl in DW about what will happen after she dies in the Song, he tries to comfort her by saying, "There's always Timeheart." But if Timeheart was as I've described it above, this wouldn't be very reassuring at all.
Any ideas?
Nerine
Fine so far. But then I run up against something that just doesn't make sense to me: only things that are loved ("remembered affectionately" is another phrase used) are preserved in this way. Does this mean that if you're not loved, you don't go to Timeheart when you die but instead just vanish forever? That seems rather harsh...I mean, you can't really help whether people love you or not. For example, I think we'd all say that Ed "deserves" to go to Timeheart (as much as anyone deserves it) but he's only there because Nita, in the last few days of his life, happened to meet him and become friends with him. What if she hadn't met him, and something had killed him before he was "loved"? It just seems like something you have no control over.
Also, I don't like the whole idea of being preserved as others remember you. (Hate that word, "preserved" -- sounds like you're a pickled specimen in a glass jar...) Does this mean that in Timeheart you can't grow, mature, change? In a way this makes sense, because Timeheart is not subject to entropy, meaning that time does not really operate there, but it still doesn't sound quite right to me. Given instant annihilation and an eternity of boring sameness, I think I might very well choose the first. (Also, when Nita is talking to Carl in DW about what will happen after she dies in the Song, he tries to comfort her by saying, "There's always Timeheart." But if Timeheart was as I've described it above, this wouldn't be very reassuring at all.
Any ideas?
Nerine
Comment