Talk:The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Philosophy: Literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Poetry: William Blake Mid‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by William Blake task force (assessed as High-importance).

Original Work

Is it wrong to include the original text with this article? If not, I propose adding it. Scruffy1 22:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A stable heaven and a dynamic hell

We see this motif in the light SF works of David Eddings. His "evil" is the principle of stasis, the regressive; his "good" is dynamicism, the progressive.

Defining Heaven and Hell

It may be a good idea to look at the three paragraphs at the bottom of plate three of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell in order to define Blake's System of contraries. "Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence. From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason[.] Evil is the active springing from Energy Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell." It would appear that one without the other would cause a total collapse of the world. --N.G. Lowe 05:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Mr. N.G. Lowe[reply]

Proposal to merge Proverbs of Hell

Proverbs of Hell reads more or less like a section of this article – I suggest that we merge it. HAM 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the two should merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garib (talk • contribs) 14 June 2006

Definitely, Merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.59.212 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006

A merge should definitely happen; if it's warranted, make an individual section for the "Proverbs," removing the material in the article that pertains to other things (the "Memorable Fancy" in the printing house) or moving them to other parts of this article. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Proverbs deserves a subcategory, but not a separate article.

Most definately.Tomyg90 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the title

In the analysis of the themes of the book no-one ever seems to notice that it is called the MARRIAGE of Heaven and Hell. Blake is not lauding either Energy over Reason or Reason over Energy but seeking to bring them together. His thesis is that the two have been incorrectly separated by religion, thus creating a destructive dualistic split in humanity. He wants the two things reunited again - as happens in the poem when the Angel and the Devil become one. Should this be in the article? ThePeg 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French version of this article

fr:Le Mariage du Ciel et de l'Enfer seems to be better cited than this page. If anyone reading this can speak the language, a partial translation could be helpful for this article. Lithoderm 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation Marks or Italics?

Should the title of this work be in quotation marks or italics? I know it's technically prose, but it's also poetry, and is short in length. It doesn't bother which way of formatting the title is appropriate, but I notice a lack of consistency here and there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.150.56 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for New Section (Expansion)

I think this page should be expanded to include a list of literary works, historical figures, etc. which are alluded to in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If such a list has already been compiled elsewhere, perhaps that could be used as a reference and/or further reading.

Blake's illuminated original?

Some account of Blake's illuminated original manuscript of the book ("nine known copies") is needed! Wegesrand (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Marriage (and Great Divorce) of Heaven and Hell

From the article, the only account of any rejection of Blake's ideas is limited to saying that "C.S. Lewis wrote The Great Divorce, about the divorce of Heaven and Hell, in response to Blake's Marriage."

For a better, more complete, account of the rejection of Blake's ideas by C.S.Lewis, might not greater mention be made of the ideas contained within The Great Divorce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.103.73 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, while Blake's questionable ideas are well covered, why does this article fail to have a section concerning reaction? As mentioned above, might not this weakness be addressed with greater coverage of The Great Divorce and other such works? 46.69.169.37 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]