I wrote about the idea of freedom in Book I, and the various ways that Yanagihara plays with what freedom means. So I was struck by this, from part I of book II: "What he wouldn't know until he was much older is that no one is ever free, that to know someone and to love them was to assume the task of remembering them, even if that person was still living. No one could escape that duty, and as you aged, you grew to crave that responsibility even as you sometimes resented it, that knowledge that your life was inextricable from another's, that a person marked their existence in part by their association with you."

This passage refers to Book II NY David (I think it’s the 1980s?) thinking about remembering Charles, but of course it’s particularly heartbreaking when applied to his father. David is trying to escape the duty of remembering his father, even as his father in Hawaii can think only of him, in this long narrative addressed to him, remembering the people he'd loved in his life.

I wrote a bunch more about Hawaii David (the father) as a narrator, then realized that Tim didn't want Hawaii spoilers, so I'll save it for later :)

But I am thinking about the title, which concludes both books. "Paradise" in each case refers, I think, to a person more than a place, but I don't think it carries the same connotation in both books. I also assume it’s noteworthy that both books have a character named Eden (paradise? innocence? the site of the loss of innocence?), but I haven’t quite figured that out yet. Having started Book III, I think I can definitively say that, from a historical perspective, the idea that society is moving "to paradise" can only be said sarcastically.