What breaks the enchantment?

[littlemanpoet]

Warning:this thread may be hazardous to the enchantment Tolkien's stories weave on you. Proceed at your own risk.

Tolkien wanted his readers to experience "secondary belief", which is to experience the story of The Lord of the Rings (as well as his other writings) as "real", at least while we're reading, and maybe afterwards as well. This doesn't mean we're deluded into believing that it's really real, although some of us might wish it were; and perhaps some of us do choose to be so deluded (I did for a while).

Here's my question: What, in Tolkien's writings, breaks the spell for you? Why do you think this is so? Was it a failure on his part, or is it something you bring to the reading?

I'll give one example from my own experience. In re-reading the Prologue to FotR, recently, I came across the section where it says that Hobbits learned building from Men, specifically the Dúnedain, who learned it from the Elves. In all my previous readings, I had no problem with this. This time, however, the notion seemed ludicrous. Why would Hobbits and Men need Elves to teach them how to build? Are Hobbits and Men so stupid that they couldn't learn how to build on their own? It's comparable to saying that Native Americans could not have invented canoes, but needed Vikings to come to the new world to teach them how to build such boats.

So that broke the spell for me. I had to remind myself that Tolkien was using old sources in which the Fairy Folk are said to have taught neolithic humans to build. But for me it didn't work ... this time.

So, that's my example. Maybe it's just my problem.

But do you have a place in which the spell was broken for you?

[bilbo_baggins]

I would have to say that the spell was broken for me when I read the stories again and realized that it was a little unlikely that Sauron would have been so foolish if he knew that prominent wizards like Saruman would frightened by his power to not keep a careful watch on who wandered where in his kingdom.

But the spell is still grasping on, not wanting to die. ;)

bilbo

[mormegil]

Perhaps what ruins the enchantment for me is "The Hobbit" in general. I enjoy the story and think it's enjoyable to read but I just can't take it as seriously as I do the others. I view it more as a bed time story I will read to my children than as phenomenal fiction. This is not to discount Tolkien in any way. I believe his intended audience was the younger folk and he met that very well. In fact I would classify it as highly superior to similar books in the genre.

One of the greatest difficulties I have with this book is the elves. They seem more to act like a druken hobbit than a regal elf. Especially the singing part when the company enters Rivendell.

Needless to say I don't read TH nearly as much as the others due to this fact. It's too light and whimsical for my taste to make it common reading.

[Imladris]

The thing that first comes to mind is the "geography" chapter in the Silmarillion, where he goes into great detail about the land, it's names, etc. That to me was a huge turn off, a great thing to break the enchantment of the Silmarillion.

As for LotR - - the ent chapter was very...I don't know why, but it broke the enchantment for me....hmmm. Still trying to figure out why though.

[Celebuial]

For me it was also The Hobbit that broke the spell. This may have been because I read it after reading LotR, but like Mormegil I find the elves to be too...well foolish. They seem much more child-like and joyous than the sad knowledgeful beings that seem to appear in The Sil and LotR. They didn't seem to have a care in the world. I also found that I could not take the whole book seriously as there weere too many comical situations with comical solutions. Because of this I've only read The Hobbit twice, compared to the times I've read LotR this seem's somewhat insignifican't. However, I do think that ity's a great way to get a good idea of Hobbit nature.

Occasionally stupid adaptations made by Fran, P-j, and Phillipa ruin it for me. For example during the death of Saruman in ROTK EE all the fire and special effects made me think that 'magic' as they were presenting it was a completley ludacrous concept. I s'pose I just have the actuall events as they happened in the books in mind when I watch scenes like that from the movie, reminding myself that in the book they seem quite real.

The only other things that seem to break the enchantment for me is when I read other books that 'copy' they never quite pull it off which makes some parts seem less believable. This oviously can't be Tolkien's error, as for me it's not his writting but that of others that dirupts the illusion of reality. Maybe it's not even the fault of other writers but my own for seeing hints of Tolkien that they may not even have intended to be in their own work.

On the whole though the enchantment remains intact and I not only see this whole universe but am actually there watching it unfold about me.

[Selmo]

What broke the spell for me was, as I'm sure Tolkien intended, was the last line of Lord of The Rings: "Well, I'm back".

Sam was back in The Shire, in the world of daily work, of growing things and of raising a family; magical enough in their own way but, for Sam, that special enchantment that the Elves had brought to Middle Earth was gone, had sailed into the West.

I, too, was back in the real world. The tale was told and the magic had departed.

Fortunatley for me, the magic returns every time I pick up one of the Professor's books.

.

[Bêthberry]

Interesting how so many discussions touch on similar aspects. This is currently one of the issues in the Chapter by Chapter discussion.

I have been told ;) that my suggestion of some kind applicability of the Lilith myth to Shelob is a no-no: it brings outside "baggage" from the Middle East into Middle earth and destroys the illusion that the subcreated world is the extant one. I am supposed to hold this in abeyance and deny any similarity while I read. Yet for me, this application does not destroy my sense of Middle earth. It simply expands upon a context. Perhaps another way of explaining this for me is to say that the allusions are subtle enough and the character Shelob well formed enough in her own right that I don't drop out of Middle earth.

Yet just a few chapters back I did feel that the spell was gone, in "Journey to the Cross-Roads." At the time we discussed the chapter I said I was unconvinced by the descriptions of incarnate evil. And that, while I liked the graffiti on the fallen statue of the king, much of the symbolism seemed forced. It pointed, for me, too much to the effect Tolkien was striving for "consciously in the revision."

So, I am going to posit something here. It is not so much the semantic meaning of a situation or event that destroys the spell of created world: it is how that particular bit of world is written. Faramir may have jumped forth fully clothed from Tolkien's mind, but his depiction is written with fidelity to some hidden imperative in the story. "Journey to the Cross-Roads" was written after substantial parts of this Book were planned, when Tolkien realised he needed to add some extra time in to balance the two plotlines. Somehow, this kind of planning created 'overwriting' for me. It didn't for others.

How to account for that difference might be interesting. But for now my only way of understanding what breaks the enchantment is the ability of Tolkien's words to hold for me the meaning the story wants. That likely begs the question of what we as readers bring to the text.

Related to this might be the issue of why Tolkien holds no enchantment for some readers, even readers of science fiction and fantasy. They're gone from the start. Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?

[Kath]

The thing that breaks the enchantment for me is having to analyse the books. I don't mean finding the history behind the writing of it as in my mind Tolkien lived within his created world and the revisons and additions that he made were done to better tell the story of an already full formed creation that just needed writing down. These remain, for me, in the context of Middle Earth and so the enchantment remains.

The problem begins when you try to analyse the writing style Tolkien used. We did this in an English lesson one year and it ruined the story for me for months afterwards. I think the enchantment lies in the ability to let go the consciousness of reality and lose yourself in a world where you can believe the happenings are real. When you begin to look behind the words, not for hidden meanings between characters, but for clues as to why Tolkien used these words rather than these words, it is difficult to remain lost in the world and so the enchantment is broken.

I think I would agree with mormegil and Celebuial about the Hobbit had I read it after LotR and the Silmarillion. Then it would have seemed childish and of a lower standard than the other books. I, however, read it first and at a young age, and I think it is because of this that it retains its enchantment on me. It is linked with my childhood and so I don't want to let go of the world I loved at that time.

The end of the book and the line "Well, I'm back." does not bring me out of the world because to me it is not the end of the story. Though the characters being followed finish their adventures, there is always a new character waiting to take it up again.

[davem]

I have been told that my suggestion of some kind applicability of the Lilith myth to Shelob is a no-no:

I think my exact words in the current chapter thread (post 51) were:

I wouldn't deny your right to find any kind of applicability in the text. My point was that I can see more differences than similarities between Shelob & Lilith.

Isn't the greatest risk of the spell being broken if we don't firmly shut the door between the worlds behind us, so that the noise of the outside, 'primary' world remains to disturb us.

Bb tells us that what broke the enchantment for her in the JTCR chapter was the descriptions of incarnate evil - ie some of those 'primary world' noises had become loud enough to distract her from what was happening in the story. Or perhaps it was that her own 'secondary reality' (her subconscious) was clashing with Tolkien's & that clash broke the spell. I don't know.

Its interesting that some things, some connections we make - whether its a connection with 'children's literature', a particular religious morality, or whatever will break the spell for us, while others won't - connections with other myths or symbols. So, it seems to be an entirely subjective thing - its not the author's fault. He doesn't break the spell - we do, by what we bring to our reading. Its not the author's faillure, but our own - if it was the author's failure it the spell would be broken for every reader at the same point in the story. The fact that what breaks the spell for some doesn't break it for others proves that the author has not failed.

I think the point is that if the artist does their job well, & we don't fight too hard, put up too many obstacles between ourselves & them, don't allow (or make) too much 'noise' to disturb us then there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective.

A bit like someone talking in the cinema - it will distract us from the movie, take us out of the secondary reality, & jerk us back into the primary world of sitting in a big darkened room watching flickering images on a screen. Of course, it is entirely possible that the disturbing voice which breaks the spell may be our own!

Another question would be why we're so prone to disenchanting ourselves? Perhaps we've forgotten how to shut up & listen, or maybe we've simply gotten so used to only listening to ourelves that anything which contradicts or challenges our own 'secondary world' of beliefs, values, concepts & connections can't hold our attention - we simply want to be told what we already know. If an author says something that can't be fitted easily into our own secondary reality then we stop listening & walk away.

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world.....

[mark12_30]

There is Aslan; there is deep magic from the Dawn of Time; and then there is Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time.

[mormegil]

davem,

I enjoyed your post and thoughts but I had some questions about it that I hope you could clarify for me.

Isn't the greatest risk of the spell being broken if we don't firmly shut the door between the worlds behind us, so that the noise of the outside, 'primary' world remains to disturb us.

How does one go about dropping all of the "baggage"? I just find it improbable that one would be expected to do that. If you know of a way please tell me. I try and supress all of my primary world views but I just don't see that it's entirely feasible. Which leads me to my next question.

So, it seems to be an entirely subjective thing - its not the author's fault. He doesn't break the spell - we do, by what we bring to our reading. Its not the author's faillure

I realize that we are speaking about well written books, but isn't it a bit specious to assume such infallibility in an author? If the author's intent is to enchant us, then is it not his or her responsibility to do so with our baggage in mind? This would make it so that obviously not everybody would be fully enchanted all of the time. This would make more sense to me and would give an explination why all great litterature isn't univerally loved. (As much as I can't understand it I'm forced to say that not all people are raptured by Tolkien.)

Obviously you used my explination of TH in your remarks and called it my view of "children's literature" as the reason I don't enjoy the hobbit as much as the other books. But I would disagree, I read TH first and enjoyed it but wasn't enchanted whereas children are able to read it and receive the enchantment but they don't receive it while reading LoTR. Why? Because the author intended them to be for different people. I personally feel that he captured his intended audience in both books but they are intended for different age groups.

I do not disagree that if we bring excess primary world baggage into the secondary world then it doesn't matter how well written a story we won't be enchanted. But to assume a universal liking of "good literature" if we drop all baggage is short sighted, because it is impossible to affect everybody universally.

Hope this makes some sense.

[davem]

How does one go about dropping all of the "baggage"? I just find it improbable that one would be expected to do that. If you know of a way please tell me. I try and supress all of my primary world views but I just don't see that it's entirely feasible. Which leads me to my next question.


I accept that we can't do that completely, my point is that we have to try to do it as far as we possibly can. We need to know ourselves well enough to recognise what baggage we are carrying, so that we are less likely to project it into the text, or worse, onto the author.

If the author's intent is to enchant us, then is it not his or her responsibility to do so with our baggage in mind?

But how could an author know what baggage each of us is carrying & so take steps to deal with that? It doesn't matter how good the book or movie is, we can still break, or have broken for us, the artist's spell if we choose, or if circumstances conspire against us.

The point I was making was that if, say, Tom Bombadil breaks the spell for some readers but not for others, if the style of TH breaks the spell for you but not for me, or the approach taken in JTCR breaks the spell for Bb but not for another reader, then we can't blame Tolkien for failing in his intent to enchant, because the spell has worked on some readers & that proves its efficacy. If it fails with other readers it cannot be because of a failure on Tolkien's part. If every reader had the spell broken by TB, or the style of TH, then it would be a failure of the author.

[mormegil]

The point I was making was that if, say, Tom Bombadil breaks the spell for some readers but not for others, if the style of TH breaks the spell for you but not for me, or the approach taken in JTCR breaks the spell for Bb but not for another reader, then we can't blame Tolkien for failing in his intent to enchant, because the spell has worked on some readers & that proves its efficacy. If it fails with other readers it cannot be because of a failure on Tolkien's part. If every reader had the spell broken by TB, or the style of TH, then it would be a failure of the author.

Just to make sure I understand you view correctly, If even one person is not disenchanted at all then the author did not fail? Or would it be more of a majority of people? But if it's a majority which population is it based on? The people who enjoy the book or the entire population that has ever read the book?

[davem]

Just to make sure I understand you view correctly, If even one person is not disenchanted at all then the author did not fail? Or would it be more of a majority of people? But if it's a majority which population is it based on? The people who enjoy the book or the entire population that has ever read the book?

The author would have succeeded with that one person - which is the important thing - as far as both the author & that reader are concerned. It means that the author/artist has produced a true work of art, which has opened the heart/mind/soul of another human being to another world.

An artist's relationship is not with a 'mass' but with each individual reader/listener/viewer. Its a one to one thing. In Mythopoea Tolkien speaks of 'living shapes that move from mind to mind' - its a two way thing one mind puts out, the other takes in. Tolkien's 'relationship' is not with x million readers but with me as an individual & with you as an individual. Of course, there may be a failure of communication on this level - an artist can only do his/her best, but a reader, equally, must do their best. The artist only has to succeed in enchanting one person with their work to be considered successful, because the artist's intent is to 'enchant' the (generally speaking) unknown/unknowable recipient of their art. Tolkien succeeded in enchanting me, therefore he succeeded totally -in his intent, which was to enchant 'the' reader of his work.

Waits for in evitable argument.......

[Bêthberry]

Another question would be why we're so prone to disenchanting ourselves? Perhaps we've forgotten how to shut up & listen, or maybe we've simply gotten so used to only listening to ourelves that anything which contradicts or challenges our own 'secondary world' of beliefs, values, concepts & connections can't hold our attention - we simply want to be told what we already know. If an author says something that can't be fitted easily into our own secondary reality then we stop listening & walk away.

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world

We should no doubt be thrilled that we have in our midst such a perfect reader as davem who can train us all in his method of reading, so that we all read the same way. I bet he would be as good at identifying our baggage just as he is at psychoanalysing our blind self-interest which is the only thing possible, apparently, that limits our reading the way he does. ;)

Seriously, I think this model of reading is too circular: If you fall out of enchantment, the fault is always yours, because you, nasty reader, bring things in that don't belong. Learn to control your imagination, reader or do penance for bad thoughts. Bad reader. Submit totally to the will of the author! :( :p

[davem]

Submit totally to the will of the author!

We should 'submit' to the art, not the artist, but the artist is the communicator of the art to us, so we should attempt in the first instance, & as far as we are able, to experience the art objectively.

Or, if I take your post for example, would you want me to make an effort - in so far as I can, to try & understand your points, the things you are trying to communicate to me, as objectively as I can, or would you be happy with me simply reading into them whatever I choose?

In other words, is it possible for me to understand what you're saying - if I pay attention & read your words carefully - or must I inevitably interpret what you write in my own, unique, idiosyncratic way?

And if I must do that, how can you object if I misunderstand or misinterpret what you write, or impose my own meaning on it? Shouldn't I have enough respect for you as a person, & for what you have made the effort to write & post here that I try, in so far as I am able, to understand what you intend?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

(I think we may need to rename this the Canonicity Thread part 2 -- where's H-I???)

I have to say that I tend to approach this topic in pretty much exactly the manner described by Bethberry. There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.

But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

For example, the fate of Eowyn. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore Faramir and think that he's a wonderful fellow to marry -- but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility... Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

[davem]

but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility...

Well, without getting into that too deeply, I think that Tolkien, as someone who had seen the reality of warfare, in effect the wrongness, the immorality, of it (while acknowledging its necessity in certain circumstances), would not see 'martial heroism' as something admirable - after all, neither Merry, Pippin nor Sam follow Aragorn in his continued seek & destroy mission after the end of the War of the Ring. Eowyn chooses peace over war, to be a healer rather than a destroyer, & I think Tolkien is presenting this as a more moral, more grown up thing. Would we rather see her hacked to pieces by orcs, or spending the rest of her best years hacking them to pieces?

The world Tolkien created (or communicated, or made available) to us is self contained. We should first try & experience it for itself. Then we can analyse it & our own feelings towards it. We have to try & experience it before we can judge it, listen to the story we're being told. If we don't make that effort, how can we know whether we've got issues with Tolkien or with ourselves?

[Lalwendë]

One thing I have struggled with in LotR is the politics, and the underlying political messages which I dislike intensely. I do not like the idea that certain 'classes' of people are somehow more superior than others, and hence am not entirely enraptured with Elves. I also have misgivings about Sam's place in this story. But, while I sometimes ponder these matters, I have to drop them from any serious consideration of the work as they are irrelevant.

Why are they irrelevant? This is a secondary world and such matters do not trouble those who live therein; the Elves are not a snooty upper class, they are benign, and Sam's under-education is not a burden to him, he is not shown to be a buffoon or a village idiot. If I was to have Middle Earth entirely correct to my own political beliefs then it would a sanitised mess. I have the same experience when reading Jane Austen - I wonder to myself where the servants are? I think it's all very well the Bennett sisters bemoaning the lack of rich suitors, but what about the poor girls who serve up their food and sew their gowns? Again, I have to suspend such thoughts in order to enjoy the books.

Writers by necessity focus on a narrow field of vision, they simply cannot take in all of the world or such vital matters as plot and characterisation would fall by the wayside in the pursuit of considering all the potential readers. When I hear critics saying of LotR that it lacks strong female characters I do get cross as this is missing the point. Criticism like that takes the nature of art out of context. If every piece of art must consider every experience of humankind then art would quickly become bland and grey and boring. LotR, like Jane Austen's work, homes in on one vision of a/the world and deals with that. Authors simply cannot take all of our baggage into consideration or what they wrote would become stilted and dull. Either that, or the author who managed to pull off this feat would be incredibly rich, as no author has managed that. The fact that Tolkien is one of the most popular authors in the world must mean that he goes at least part of the way.

If someone fails to be enchanted by a book, then they simply put it down and try a different one. If someone fails to be won over by a particular passage then this might diminish their enjoyment. It isn't the fault of the author unless they are universally seen as a terrible writer (in which case they probably - hopefully? - wouldn't be published). I think what it boils down to is both taste and the fact that we all do carry baggage with us when we open a book. If we can't suspend our 'baggage' then we can't take on board what we are reading.

[Bêthberry]

we should attempt in the first instance, & as far as we are able, to experience the art objectively.

Or, if I take your post for example, would you want me to make an effort - in so far as I can, to try & understand your points, the things you are trying to communicate to me, as objectively as I can, or would you be happy with me simply reading into them whatever I choose?

In other words, is it possible for me to understand what you're saying - if I pay attention & read your words carefully - or must I inevitably interpret what you write in my own, unique, idiosyncratic way?

And if I must do that, how can you object if I misunderstand or misinterpret what you write, or impose my own meaning on it? Shouldn't I have enough respect for you as a person, & for what you have made the effort to write & post here that I try, in so far as I am able, to understand what you intend?


Is there one, right, unvarying, unchanging way to interpret a text? Has the enchantment of Tolkien always been the same? Were the hippie American university students who adorned their rooms with "Frodo lives!" wrong? Were the first readers who looked aghast at them right? What about the tree huggers? Or are later readers now, who have the benefit of The Silm and HoME, the true standard bearers? Is there one author who, over time, has invariably been understood in the same way? Not the Bible, not Dante, not Cervantes, not Dickens, not Dostoyevski, not Kante, not Kafka, not Joyce, not Woolf. Etc.

I don't disagree with you that we must do our best to try to listen to the "voice" that speaks to us, to respect the "Other." But has this truly been your method here with our posts? As you yourself noted in the current Chapter by Chapter thread, that thread generated far more discussion than the previous one, where people did not have disagreements or differences. In fact, you yourself said you were posting not so much to disagree as to keep the discussion going.

Was this disrespectful? Or was it an effort to stimulate the discussion, to engage in the free intellectual play of words? Frankly, I don't think you *do* respond to what you think I mean. I think you respond in order deliberately to misinterpret, in order to generate futher discussion. It is a playful move, not at all disrespectful, but it represents in fact how humans make meaning. "Misprision." If all we ever posted was, "eh, wow, me too!", well, I don't think there would be a Barrow Downs discussion board.

Some forms of disagreement are far more serious, particularly when there is a deliberate attempt to silence the "other" who thinks differently, responds differently, sees things in a slightly different perspective. To characterise those who don't 'achieve the reading success you do' as people who are blind to other ideas, blind to the ideas of the author and who don't like to be challenged and who impose their will upon a text, moves too closely I think to this negative consequence of disagreement.

As I see your posts here in this thread, your theory of reading has no place for historical change of meaning, has no place for the generation of new awareness, has no place for the future, no explanation for imagination. (Forgive me if I see definite elvish traits here.) It is you, I fear, who would impose on readers, as a text themselves, your own reading, because you think you know how to interpret Tolkien, since the enchantment is always and ever with you. 'I am completely happy and in thrall to the text, therefore I think as Tolkien wants me to think.' There's something solipcistic there that worries me.

Of course, we could just be dancing on the head of a pin.

EDIT: cross posting with Fordim, davem, and Lalwendë. don't have time now to respond to their latest.

[drigel]

there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective

Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation.

Whether it's in our genes or some kind of shared family history that gets passed down over the generations, Tolkien was able to harness it, and fashion such a compelling invitation that for some (like me), the pull into fairie was as unstoppable as any force of nature.

The cause of its success was that Tolkien was able to tap into such a huge, diverse population's internal imagination. It's within us, after all. There was no magic wand that caused it. The genious of it was that -as repeated here so many times and in so many ways - in the kernal of the myth lies a Truth that transends cultures. Beth I do agree with you - it begins with awareness, or cognizance. Then if one can steer his/her own ship right, there is also willingness
and of course humility. :) This goes back to how some people are more "imaginative" than others, and why. This could also be considered a state of perception, or even by some as a psychological condition ('63 acid tests, anyone?). I wonder that sometimes when I find myself in my boxers, hands outstretched at the sunrise, my dog looking on with bewilderment... :)

I always viewed that Tolkien is best analyzed in a good Humanities class, not an english class. That being said, any I find the spell broken of course when someone interprets the work. Sometimes it works - "oh yea that was right on", sometimes its "eh, - not really", sometimes it doesnt. Either way, it's my love for the work that makes me appreciate other's views.

[davem]

Is there one, right, unvarying, unchanging way to interpret a text? Has the enchantment of Tolkien always been the same? Were the hippie American university students who adorned their rooms with "Frodo lives!" wrong? Were the first readers who looked aghast at them right? What about the tree huggers? Or are later readers now, who have the benefit of The Silm and HoME, the true standard bearers?

I'd say all were 'enchanted' by the text, but in different ways. the author (the enchanter) is not responsible for the result of the enchantment, only for the intent.

Frankly, I don't think you *do* respond to what you think I mean. I think you respond in order deliberately to misinterpret, in order to generate futher discussion. It is a playful move, not at all disrespectful, but it represents in fact how humans make meaning.

My point, from the beginning, has been that an attempt to understand what an author intended should be our prime objective - other objectives may, or may not, follow, as we are so inclined - whether to gain a better understanding of the story, the author, or of ourselves. In what way have I 'deliberately' misinterpreted what anyone said? I said in post 51 that I didn't object to your applying ideas about Lilith to Shelob, but that I wasn't convinced they worked. I was arguing about what you were applying to the text, not with your right to apply it.

As I see your posts here in this thread, your theory of reading has no place for historical change of meaning, has no place for the generation of new awareness, has no place for the future, no explanation for imagination. (Forgive me if I see definite elvish traits here.) It is you, I fear, who would impose on readers, as a text themselves, your own reading, because you think you know how to interpret Tolkien, since the enchantment is always and ever with you. 'I am completely happy and in thrall to the text, therefore I think as Tolkien wants me to think.' There's something solipcistic there that worries me.


What I'm saying is not denying a place for 'historical change of meaning', nor does it leave 'no place for the generation of new awareness, no place for the future, no explanation for imagination'. (Perhaps I'm not the only one guilty of reading things into other's post's that they didn't put there?) All I've ever said was that the experience of the art (in as pure a degree as we are capable of) must come first, then we must (again as far as we are capable of doing it) attempt to understand what the artist intended to communicate, what he/she wanted to say to us, then, finally, can come - if we so desire it - our own interpretation of the text/painting/symphony.

My theory - take it or leave it, but please don't think I trying to silence all alternatives. I believe in my position, so I'll defend it, but I wouldn't expect any less from anyone else.

[Bêthberry]

. . .
But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

. . . .
the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.
. . . .

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

Ah, welcome, Lurker!

I find much to commend in this idea that the text invites readers to share a world perspective which is presented as universal when it is not. It is invitingly but gently presented, yet remains one which is not tenable for some in this century. The issue of Eowyn is a good one, as it appears axiomatic that she must marry someone. She cannot simply choose to become a healer or, more independently and originally, a loremaster, but must, perhaps because she is an aristocrat or perhaps because she is a woman, marry and create part of the new hierarchy in Ithilien. We know that Merry and Pippin marry, but their marriges are marginal to the story and, indeed, their part of the story ends far away from their families. They are given other activities, events after their wartime effort, as leaders in their community: Eowyn has only the dynastic marriage. The cage may be gilded, but it is still a cage.

The idea that one must put aside one's own world view or perspective--especially when it is referred to as 'baggage'-- in order to be enchanted by the text, well, that sounds too much like old time seduction to me, old world marriage of subordination rather than equality. ;)

[davem]

The issue of Eowyn is a good one, as it appears axiomatic that she must marry someone. She cannot simply choose to become a healer or, more independently and originally, a loremaster

At the risk of being accused of being argumentative for the sake of it, or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said ;), I have to say that if something like that had been the outcome of Eowyn's story it would have broken the spell for me, because it would have made that part of the story nothing but an allegory of feminism - & a bad one at that. Eowyn assumes the right & proper role of someone of her rank & station in a world like Middle earth.

She simply would not have thought of doing what you suggest because of the culture she was brought up in. The fact that she was a 'shieldmaiden, daughter of kings' accounts for her decision to take up arms & fight - alongside her despair in her failed hopes for Aragorn - but to take a step against the whole cultural background of the world she inhabited would have come across to me as ridiculous & unbelievable. Things like that didn't happen in Middle earth. This is why I say we must come to the story as free as possible of our own values & pre-conceptions. I think we gain more from accepting that world as it is, the fates of its inhabitants as what they are, & then analysing our reactions to them. Eowyn is not a 21st century woman, with all the options of a 21st century woman. She is (quite convincingly for me) a woman of her time. To feel 'disenchanted' by the fact that she is not something she could never possibly have been seems (to me) to support my argument that if we carry our own baggage with us into the secondary world we'll never have a full experience of it.

[the phantom]

Davem is right about many readers who break the enchantment themselves when it isn't necessary.

A lot of people, not just when they read but in the real world as well, walk around with a lot of chips on their shoulder, and they seem to want people to knock them off. They are always ready to be shocked or insulted by something that doesn't chime with them. They love to be offended, and will go over a book, a movie, or a conversation with a fine toothed comb and try to find things that make them mad.

These people obviously are going to have an impossible time being entirely enchanted with Tolkien's books like Davem. The Eowyn thing that people have mentioned, the issue of some people or species (elves) being better than others- there are some people that are just never going to get past things like that if they don't entirely agree with them. These people either don't want to (or are incapable of) doing what I call "glossing over".

When I am watching a movie, I always try as hard as I can to be sucked in and be enchanted. Whenever a character expresses some opinion that I think is stupid, I don't think about it. I bat it aside. I sort of ignore it. As long as the enchantment-breaker is something minor (in other words, as long as it is not the primary focus or theme of the movie/book), I do not allow it to break my enchantment.
Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world.....
Me too.

[Lalwendë]

The idea that one must put aside one's own world view or perspective--especially when it is referred to as 'baggage'-- in order to be enchanted by the text, well, that sounds too much like old time seduction to me, old world marriage of subordination rather than equality.

Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption

But what are we to do in order to become enchanted and immerse into the world which is being presented to us? As Fordim says, he has to skim the part about Eowyn accepting marriage as a happy outcome. I too have had to skim parts of the text which make comments about Hobbits being 'unlettered' as though it makes some kind of statement about their status in The Shire, but as I prefer not to rankle at what is being said about this world (which is most definitely not our world), I have to suspend my beliefs. Nowhere does Tolkien make statements which could be said to be outrageously racist, sexist or anything else, he merely presents us with how the world is in this other place. I would not expect Shakespeare or Austen or any other writer to present us with anything other than the world they are presenting us with; they are not presenting us with our world, so I don't expect to see our world.

To do otherwise is like reading a Bible with a magic marker. Fine if you want to look for examples of things which do not concur with our experiences, beliefs or politics, but not so fine if we want to simply experience the world as seen through the eyes of the characters.

[Bêthberry]

At the risk of being accused of being argumentative for the sake of it, or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said ;), I have to say that if something like that had been the outcome of Eowyn's story it would have broken the spell for me, because it would have made that part of the story nothing but an allegory of feminism - & a bad one at that. Eowyn assumes the right & proper role of someone of her rank & station in a world like Middle earth.

She simply would not have thought of doing what you suggest because of the culture she was brought up in. The fact that she was a 'shieldmaiden, daughter of kings' accounts for her decision to take up arms & fight - alongside her despair in her failed hopes for Aragorn - but to take a step against the whole cultural background of the world she inhabited would have come across to me as ridiculous & unbelievable. Things like that didn't happen in Middle earth. This is why I say we must come to the story as free as possible of our own values & pre-conceptions. I think we gain more from accepting that world as it is, the fates of its inhabitants as what they are, & then analysing our reactions to them. Eowyn is not a 21st century woman, with all the options of a 21st century woman. She is (quite convincingly for me) a woman of her time. To feel 'disenchanted' by the fact that she is not something she could never possibly have been seems (to me) to support my argument that if we carry our own baggage with us into the secondary world we'll never have a full experience of it.

I would not expect Shakespeare or Austen or any other writer to present us with anything other than the world they are presenting us with; they are not presenting us with our world, so I don't expect to see our world.


My disappointment over the lack of choice granted Eowyn has nothing to do with late 20C/early 21C femininism, davem and Lalwendë. (Believe it or not, I'm not one.) It has to do rather with the fact that Tolkien's Middle earth is a construct of late Victorian/early Edwardian culture rather than a universally applicable culture.

In early Medieval Europe, women were as educated as men in monasteries and nunneries. And sometimes noble women inherited vast estates and managed them in their own name and right. Julian of Norwich, Hildegard von Bingen, St. Bridget (Sweden) were all learned and highly respected women. The French poet Christine de Pizan earned her living as a writing. St. John's College, Oxford, owes its (initial) wealth to its founding patroness. There is much evidence for the equality of women in Viking cultures. I could go on.

Austen did not presume to present a culture of universal significance. Her novels are thoroughly and completely grounded in her early 19C culture.

In short, my disenchantment has to do not with my purported baggage from my own time, but with the "baggage" (I use this word simply because you have chosen to continue to use it) of his own time which Tolkien brought to Middle earth. There were other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture but Tolkien choose the one most predictable according to his own cultural viewpoint. Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

Do I still enjoy reading him? Yes, of course. Do I think he was one of the best? Yes, of course.

[davem]

There were other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture but Tolkien choose the one most predictable according to his own cultural viewpoint. Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.


But the issue is not whether or not there were 'other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture' but whether there were other choices in the culture in which she existed - which was not the medieval period of our world, but the end of the Third Age of Middle earth. This is what I'm talking about - whether its bringing a Middle eastern demon into our reading of LotR or our knowledge of Medieval history - they don't apply. Eowyn is a product of her culture not of ours - either now or 800 years ago. This approach will inevitably lead to disenchantment because if we expect Eowyn, or any other 'Middle earthian' character to behave as if they belonged to another cultural or historical epoch we'll inevitably be unconvinced by what they do.

Middle earth may (or may not) reflect Tolkien's own value system - this is why I said that after experiencing the art for what it is in & of itself we should (if we wish) try & find out what the author was telling us. It may be that we then find out that the art he produced wasn't always entirely in accord with what he himself believed. After that we can ask 'What do I think about the art, the author him/herself & what does it mean to me?'. If we take the latter approach in with us from the start we'll never have any chance of being affected by the art itself, only by our own responses to it.

That's why I don't accept that:
Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.


Because Eowyn is hardly a typical Victorian/Edwardian lady. The question is not whether the end of Eowyn's story - marriage, children, becoming a healer to & guide for her people - is what was expected of a character in a Victorian/Edwardian novel(not to say a real Victorian/Edwardian woman) but whether, within the culture in which she exists it is a convincing ending. I think it is. It is right for her - in my reading. In fact, I can't think of a more satisfying ending for her. She can heal & study lore & be a wife & mother as well as being the second most powerful woman in Middle earth after Arwen. Your alternative, which only allows her the first two (or rather only one of the first two) options, seems insufficient reward for everything she has done & been through. And to condemn it as representing

a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

is asking a bit much of the poor professor - isn't it inevitable that his perspective was limited by his own time? After all, he didn't possess the psychic ability of Shakespeare (as revealed to us by Mr Steiner) to know the future ;)

[littlemanpoet]

All right, that's twenty-two posts in one day, some of you doing as many as a half dozen. I'd like to know how to get on the Barrowdowns payroll so I can quit may day job too, and have the time of day and security to keep up with the discussion. :p

Now back to catching up on the all the jousting....

[Celuien]

I'm almost afraid to come into this discussion. There's so much to catch up on, and in just a few hours!

For me, the enchantment of Middle Earth has always been that it seemed as if it could have been real. When I read, I try to turn off my "reality checker" with respect to the way things are in everyday life. If foxes comment on seeing hobbits, it's because that is the normal order of things in the book's world. It is Tolkien's story, and he therefore sets the conditions under which things operate while I'm visiting, so I feel that I need to try my best to become immersed in that world to appreciate it.

That said, I almost put The Hobbit aside when I read it for the first time. The depiction of the Elves and the general tone of the story jarred too much with the characters from the rest of books to remain believable. But as I've read more, even the "Tra-la-lally" chorus has grown on me, as long as I view it in the context of Bilbo's memoirs. I can easily imagine the different tone of The Hobbit being part of a narration to hobbit children seated around Mad Baggins' fireplace in Bag End. Then, the enchantment returns since I can find a way to fit all of the pieces into the larger picture. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as I can accept Middle Earth on its own terms, there are no limits on the enchantment of the story for me.

Maybe my approach to reading is part of the baggage that I bring as well. Although when I feel some commonality with the story I tend to enjoy it more, I've never tried to make what I read fit into my experience. I've instead viewed books as a window into another time and place, or a way to look at the world through someone else's perspective.

[Boromir88]

I think Celuien, brings up a good point. Is that we become so "enchanted" by the books is because it just seems so believable. I mean there's nothing like wizards, and elves, or balrogs, and a dark lord, and we know that it will most likely never happen. However, the story is just so convincing. So, what makes it convincing?

I think that Tolkien does a good job of setting limits to the "magical/fantasy" realm. And that's what makes his stories seem to be so real. There are never these all powerful beings, and everyone has a set limit. Gandalf has a set power, he can't chuck a mountain at someone and kill people. The Eagles have their own characteristics where they can't just take Frodo from the Shire and give him a ride to Mount Doom. (Seems to be the consensus of some people). The Dead Army are shades, but unlike Jackson portrayed them, they can't harm anyone. They cause fear in people, but they are unable to physically harm any person/thing on Middle-earth. So every force that we know to be not true, has it's own set of limits, and that makes LOTR just seem real.

Another part is just the description, we get these wonderful narrative paragraphs that puts images into our head as to what things would look like, and just imagine ourselves being there. As far as "Breaking the spell" I'll get to that some other time, I must be heading off. Great thread lmp.

[mark12_30]

There's fireworks. Then there's fighting wolf-riders with flaming pine-cones: "Fifteen birds in five fir-trees.". Then there's fighting ringwraiths on weathertop with flashes of white lightning. Then there's fighting balrogs. THen there's marshalling a war. And then there's visiting with Old Tom after all is said and done.

Which is the enchantment?

[eowyntje]

I think what breaks the spell for me is the word perfection, or anything similair in the books. I don't believe that anything or anyone can be purely good and as soon as something is described as such or comes close to perfection, I lose the magic and think "that can't be".
I've never liked the elves because to me they were always too perfect, more perfect then humans, and I never liked the thought of a better race existing. So for me the elves from Lotr often broke the spell. The less perfect elves in the Hobbit did not have that effect on me, neither did Galadriel, who was described as frightfull at first. But characters like Elrond are too unbelieveable to me.


For example, the fate of Eowyn. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore Faramir and think that he's a wonderful fellow to marry -- but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility... Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit.

Though I understand perfectly that others might not agree with me, that broke the spell for me too. I could connect so well with Eowyn when the story started, I recognised myself in her and saw her as a person which could be very real. When she married Faramir and gave all that up I didn't understand her, I though it was the wrong dissision. If they were real, I'm sure Eowyn would eventually get bored and long for some action again.

[davem]

I've never liked the elves because to me they were always too perfect, more perfect then humans, and I never liked the thought of a better race existing. So for me the elves from Lotr often broke the spell. The less perfect elves in the Hobbit did not have that effect on me, neither did Galadriel, who was described as frightfull at first. But characters like Elrond are too unbelieveable to me.

These reactions are obviously genuine, so I'm not saying you shouldn't feel that way, but it seems to me that it may be because you disapprove of what the characters do that breaks the spell, rather than what the characters do being unbelievable as such. This was the point I was making earlier, that rather than the author failing to cast the spell effectively it is we who break the spell.

Let's take the example of reading a novel set in WW2. What would your response be to someone who said the 'spell' was broken for them when it came to the Auschwitz episode, because 'the Nazis were just too nasty there' ?

Putting on one side the fact that the Elves of Middle earth are far from perfect beings, let's for the sake of argument imagine that they were absolutely perfect. All Tolkien would have to do is present them as perfect in a convincing way, a way that was believable within the world they inhabit. Once he has done that he has done what he set out to do. If the spell is broken for you wen you read about them because you have a problem with the idea of perfect beings per se, then that is not Tolkien's fault - your inability to to put up with perfect beings is part of the baggage you bring to your reading of the story. Tolkien would only be responsible if he failed to convince you that they were perfect.

In fact, from what you say, Tolkien made the Elves perfectly convincing but you just didn't like them.

When she married Faramir and gave all that up I didn't understand her, I though it was the wrong dissision.

Neither of those reactions means Eowyn is not a convincingly drawn character, just that you didn't understand & or approve of what she did.

[HerenIstarion]

What, in Tolkien's writings, breaks the spell for you?

Nothing

Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?

Yes

This was the point I was making earlier, that rather than the author failing to cast the spell effectively it is we who break the spell

Provided that writer is of Tolkien's caliber, yes.

[Bêthberry]

What we are being presented with here, eowyntje, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1. The supreme Author is never wrong in his art.
2. Reading is an act of complete submission to the will of the art.
3. therefore, any breaking of the enchantment is the fault of the reader.

How do we know who a Supreme Author is? Any author who manages to attract one reader for whom the enchantment is not broken.

Even if readers begin with the complete, utter, honest and sincere attempt to submit to be raptured, if anything happens to break that rapture, by definition it is always the fault of the reader. Readers are obviously fallen creatures and the Supreme Author is omnipotent.

Perhaps there is some kind of predestination involved? ;)

Even Fordim's explanation that when the text begins to announce itself as text rather than as "subcreated reality", so that readers pay more attention to the writing than to the spell/enchantment, will be said to represent the failure of the reader to remain enchanted. (This is in fact a good explanation of what happens when I read the Cross-Roads chapter and probably also what happens with the Eowyn character.)


There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.


The Reader in this case obviously lacks the desire to submit to everything as story by bringing in baggage such as aesthetic style.

And for those readers who choose to bring precaution with them on this night of seduction, well, we all know that certain forms of control have been declared WRONG as interfering with the Supreme Author's Will to choose who and when ideas are propagated.

;) :D

[The Saucepan Man]

I rather think that the problem here is the liberal use of words such as "fault" and "blame".

If a reader does not "get" what the author is trying to tell him or her, or if the "enchantment" is somehow broken, it is not necessarily the fault of either author or reader. It is simply that their views are, to some degree or other, incompatible, and that may well be for perfectly good reasons. It is not a matter of one or the other being wrong.

Some readers may well find a more fulfilling "enchantment" in stories other than LotR because those stories are expressed in terms with which they are more able to identify. Others may find that they have no need for "enchantment". Neither such approach, in my view, is a crime.

[davem]

Bb

1. The supreme Author is never wrong in his art.

The ART is never 'wrong'. To the extent that the author produces true art he/she cannot be wrong. To the extent that he/she fails to produce true ART they are wrong.

2. Reading is an act of complete submission to the will of the art.

In the first instance it is submission to the art itself, not to the 'will' of the Art (I'm not sure 'art can be said to have a 'will' of its own, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.)

3. therefore, any breaking of the enchantment is the fault of the reader

Any breaking of true enchantment - ie where the author has successfully achieved the goal of true sub creation - would be the result of the reader breaking the spell. Well, assuming the author himself doesn't deliberately break it.

How do we know who a Supreme Author is? Any author who manages to attract one reader for whom the enchantment is not broken.

'Supreme author' is not a phrase I've used - because I'm not sure what it means.

Even if readers begin with the complete, utter, honest and sincere attempt to submit to be raptured, if anything happens to break that rapture, by definition it is always the fault of the reader. Readers are obviously fallen creatures and the Supreme Author is omnipotent.

See answer to point 1

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.



The Reader in this case obviously lacks the desire to submit to everything as story by bringing in baggage such as aesthetic style.

But I don't find parts of it 'stilted', & nor do many other readers, therefore Fordim is stating a personal opinion, not an objective 'fact'. Fordim is bringing personal 'baggage' to his reading of the text & so to his experience of the 'art'.

And for those readers who choose to bring precaution with them on this night of seduction, well, we all know that certain forms of control have been declared WRONG as interfering with the Supreme Author's Will to choose who and when ideas are propagated.

Well, if one is not prepared to take risks in order to experience enchantment one cannot really complain if one remains unenchanted, can one? Though I realise that shutting up for 5 minutes & submitting oneself to a work of art in order for it to work its effect on one is a truly terrifying prospect & this is why I support the proposal that all art galleries display health warnings & that parental guidance stickers be applied to Bach cd's.

[drigel]

QUOTE]Readers are obviously fallen creatures and the Supreme Author is omnipotent.[/QUOTE]

yikes
So, if I submit to the enchantment I am weak willed? Or perhaps I am just to simple?
wow that sounds exactly like the academics and peers of Tolkien at the time of publication doesnt it? hmmm good thing the students got it..

I sit here in my studio with a pen and a blank piece of paper. You better believe I am the Supreme Author! I didnt make the paper or construct the pen, but the potential universe is all mine to create or destroy.

Nobody is perfect, author or reader. One can read the work one way or another. I daresay most on this site can maintain multiple frames of minds simultaniously when reading LOTR, as the threads show. I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...

[Holbytlass]

I feel the same as Mormegil about the elves in TH being different from LOTR. I always had 'glossed over' that part. I now thank Celuien for her/his idea about 'madbaggins' telling the story. I like it and works for me so I'm keeping it.
My head is reeling from the debate and I feel it is too far above me. LittleManPoet did give warning.
I appreciate all points being said but then I don't care. Allow me to explain...
Nothing being said as to where the responsibility lies is going to effect me. I am at a level where I can easily shrug off the real world and immerse into a 'secondary belief'. Of course, it helps when the artist is good at what they do. I will wholeheartedly agree that my simple and very gullible mind allows me to do this. Others have a way of thinking that is analitical and deep that may not allow them to completely immerse. There is nothing wrong with either.
I suppose that is what makes Tolkien such a genius to me because his writings have enraptured a broad-spectrum of thinkers. Of course, not everyone is one way of thinking. I'm simple-minded but not stupid. There may be those out there who feel sorry for me, don't. Because there are plenty of deep thinkers who I feel sorry for because they can't let something (i.e. a story) just be.
Examples that people have given to their disenchantment I find very interesting.

[Bêthberry]

Readers are obviously fallen creatures and the Supreme Author is omnipotent.

yikes
So, if I submit to the enchantment I am weak willed? Or perhaps I am just to simple?
wow that sounds exactly like the academics and peers of Tolkien at the time of publication doesnt it? hmmm good thing the students got it..

I sit here in my studio with a pen and a blank piece of paper. You better believe I am the Supreme Author! I didnt make the paper or construct the pen, but the potential universe is all mine to create or destroy.

Nobody is perfect, author or reader. One can read the work one way or another. I daresay most on this site can maintain multiple frames of minds simultaniously when reading LOTR, as the threads show. I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...


drigel, I had hoped that my use of smilies--the wink and the big grin--would have made clear the comedy of my ironic intent. Perhaps humour is being edged out by seriousness here. :eek: :(

[Lalwendë]

Here is what I think it boils down to. There are two distinct ways of reading. The first is to read for pleasure, the second is to read for purpose. Many of us read for purpose. This would include anyone who regularly reads through lengthy business documents to look for key points, journalists who carry out research in order to file a report, A Level students who have copies of Jane Eyre liberally inscribed with notes, teachers who scour essays and texts looking for relevant and coherently argued opinions. If we read for purpose often enough then it can easily become habit, because we may have been trained to do this, and we may also do this often enough that it becomes normal to us. Even when we sit down to read for pleasure then we can find ourselves mentally reaching for a pencil to make a note in the margin.

How many A Level students bemoan the fact that they are having to study 'boring' books? Rather than the books themselves being boring, the problem lies in that they are required to anayse the books without first having had the simple pleasure of reading them. A case in point is an A Level class I once taught part way through their course. They had been studying Chaucer and all pronounced it to be boring, which surprised me as when I had studied it for A Level everyone had enjoyed it. When I studied Chaucer our teacher had first made us listen to the text being read aloud, and then we had read it right the way through, making few if any notes. However this class had not had that pleasure; instead they had opened the book and had straight away begun making in depth notes with every few lines they read. This is the difference between reading for pleasure and reading for purpose.

If we go to a book with purpose in the forefront of our minds then we will approach it in that businesslike manner, as something to be dealt with, not merely to be enjoyed. If we go to a book purely with pleasure in mind then we are more likely to accept what is contained therein, as heightened critical faculties are not required for having fun. Obviously, many of us will read a book with pleasure in mind despite us being, in our professional capacities, purpose seekers. But how easy is it to shake off that way of reading which requires us to seek out key points and phrases which will make our arguments more coherent?

I don't say that this is any fault of the reader who generally reads with a professional purpose, nor are they reading it incorrectly. This is just how many people do read. It is a different way of reading, but a way which necessarily means we are not able to immerse ourselves fully in the alternate reality of what we are reading (and alternate reality would include a novel about urban London as much as one about Middle Earth).

Absolutely no author of novels or poetry writes with the professional reader in mind, beyond possibly making sure it will appeal to the publisher. The writer is wholly concerned with the creative endeavour at hand, and is indeed omnipotent in the world they have created. Tolkien is the creator of Eru, and what Tolkien says must happen in Arda, happens. It is his world, and we are invited to visit, but not to alter it. There are things I do not like in Middle Earth, but that is me projecting my own feelings, my personal critical eye, onto those occurrences. I cannot do anything about them. I can talk about them, and how I think they are wrong, but it does not bring me any closer to what the author thought, in fact it takes me further away, so I must put aside my purposeful mind and read with pleasure, or else change the channel and go elsewhere.

[littlemanpoet]

I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judgements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...

Whereas I have at times felt as if this thread has gotten as highjacked as others feel the "Choices of Master Samwise" thread at CbC has, and largely over the same ongoing debate, I still see a connection between interpretation and enchantment.

What I would call willfull interpretation (bringing an idea to bear from outside the text) seems to be mutually exclusive with enchantment, since the latter requires the acquiescence of the reader to the story (or appreciator to the art, if you prefer), whereas the former is the reader acting upon the story (or interpreter acting upon the art). Please understand that I am condemning nothing, just making an observation. Thus, the former will necessarily impede the latter, and the latter will disallow the former. This is not taking into account interpretation as intended by the author, which is an altogether different kettle of fish.

This is not to say that the willful interpreter cannot appreciate the story for itself, but I think a full appreciation is hindered by the willful interpretation.

As for the difference between Elves in TH and LotR, I guess I always understood the Elves in the Hobbit (esp. Rivendell) to be blithe on the surface, playful even, because they had gotten to a place of acceptance with their immortality and sadness. I never doubted that it was there, it just lay below the surface, and actually I felt that the silly songs were in a way a symbol of their sadness and depth.

[Holbytlass]

Here is a major difference between the learned higher mind and the simple mind (at least mine :D ). Lalwende has so eloquently stated the point I was trying to get across about differences in reading and why and neither being wrong. Thank you, Lal.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I could not help myself. I just had to look up "enchantment" in the OED:

1. The action or process of enchanting, or of employing magic or sorcery.

2. fig. Alluring or overpowering charm; enraptured condition; (delusive) appearance of beauty.

Interesting, no? And from Tolkien's own "On Fairy-Stories":

Enchantment produces a Secondary World into which both designer and spectator can enter, to the satisfaction of their senses while they are inside; but in its purity it is artistic in desire and purpose.

This was rather surprising to me, that Tolkien would use a word -- and not just any word, but one so central to his own art -- in a way that is slightly different from its normal usage. In Tolkien's formulation, "enchantment" loses all sense of being "overpowering" or "enrapturing"; it certainly is not productive of a "delusive appearance of beauty"! What is more, in Tolkien's view of enchantment, he allies that word not with "magic or sorcery" but with Art.

But there are two really remarkable things about Tolkien's description of enchantment that I think bear mentioning:

1) He states that is it enchantment which produces the Secondary World, and not the other way around. This would seem to imply that the effect of the writer's art on the reader is what makes the world; in this case, he sees the reader as being enchanted as much by his own ability or willingness to recieve and reimagine the art, as he is by the art of the author.

2) He believes that this enchantment is fulfilled when the reader and the writer together enter the world in some kind of partnership. "to the satisfaction of both their senses." This is very much in keeping with his view of the relation between reader and writer in the creation of that world in the first place ("enchantment produces the Secondary World").

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

[davem]

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

I think this has to be the case, otherwise it would be impossible for anything we do to break the spell - we would be 'ensorcelled' rather than 'enchanted'. I think this is what he meant by 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. We could say that Frodo was 'enchanted' in Lorien because he was able to leave it at any time, but that he was 'ensorcelled' by the Ring, because he was unable to leave it willingly.

He states that is it enchantment which produces the Secondary World, and not the other way around. This would seem to imply that the effect of the writer's art on the reader is what makes the world; in this case, he sees the reader as being enchanted as much by his own ability or willingness to recieve and reimagine the art, as he is by the art of the author.

Perhaps it is the enchantment experienced by the artist which enables him to create the secondary world, & which the reader experiences when he/she willingly enters into it?

Inevitably the reader 'co-creates' the secondary world with the artist - Tolkien speaks of the way references to 'hills, trees & rivers' will conjure in the mind of the reader images of all the trees, rivers & hills he has ever known & particularly of the first tree, river or hill the reader experienced, the one which will always mean tree, river or hill to him - or something along those lines.

But this is different from bringing with us into the secondary world our beliefs, values, facts we've amassed over the years, etc while we are there. Once we have left that world it will itself become part of that 'baggage' to be analysed & deconstructed. But if we are analysing & deconstructing it while we are in it how can it possibly enchant us? It won't be a 'living' co-creation between author & reader, but rather an experiment in literary analysis. It won't be what it was meant to be, & so won't have the effect it was intended to have. Isn't this exactly the approach Tolkien was criticising in the Beowulf lecture? Beowulf, as he pointed out, is not a quarry for 'facts' about the beliefs & cultural history of the Anglo-Saxons but a poem which should entertain & enchant us.

[Celuien]

As for the difference between Elves in TH and LotR, I guess I always understood the Elves in the Hobbit (esp. Rivendell) to be blithe on the surface, playful even, because they had gotten to a place of acceptance with their immortality and sadness. I never doubted that it was there, it just lay below the surface, and actually I felt that the silly songs were in a way a symbol of their sadness and depth.

That's a very interesting approach. I'd never thought of it before, but I suppose that the more comfortable one is with oneself, the easier it is to express all of the aspects of your personality, including the silliness that you might otherwise be hesitant to release. It also fits with Tom Bombadil's singing in a way. As master of his part of the Old Forest, he would completely accept all of the facets of his personality. Maybe part of the source of his abilities is that he is in unity with himself and can therefore recite silly poetry without feeling...silly (if I'm not too far off on a tangent here). Yet another source of potential disenchantment solved - if he were to behave in a more "dignified" fashion, he couldn't be as powerful a figure, and so Tom Bombadil just has to be the way he is. :) I'll have to remember that the next time I do something incredibly silly in public.

I'm glad the fireside tale view of The Hobbit works for you too, Holbytlass.

Thanks, Boromir88. Another aspect of the story that makes it so believable for me is the level of detail and sense of history that fills the books. The idea that we're only seeing a portion of the tapestry of Middle Earth makes it all the more real - it's much like the real world where everything is interwoven and has a story behind it, even though we can't always see the connections.

[Bêthberry]

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.


I think this has to be the case, otherwise it would be impossible for anything we do to break the spell - we would be 'ensorcelled' rather than 'enchanted'. I think this is what he meant by 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. We could say that Frodo was 'enchanted' in Lorien because he was able to leave it at any time, but that he was 'ensorcelled' by the Ring, because he was unable to leave it willingly.


He states that is it enchantment which produces the Secondary World, and not the other way around. This would seem to imply that the effect of the writer's art on the reader is what makes the world; in this case, he sees the reader as being enchanted as much by his own ability or willingness to recieve and reimagine the art, as he is by the art of the author.


Perhaps it is the enchantment experienced by the artist which enables him to create the secondary world, & which the reader experiences when he/she willingly enters into it?

Inevitably the reader 'co-creates' the secondary world with the artist - Tolkien speaks of the way references to 'hills, trees & rivers' will conjure in the mind of the reader images of all the trees, rivers & hills he has ever known & particularly of the first tree, river or hill the reader experienced, the one which will always mean tree, river or hill to him - or something along those lines.

But this is different from bringing with us into the secondary world our beliefs, values, facts we've amassed over the years, etc while we are there. Once we have left that world it will itself become part of that 'baggage' to be analysed & deconstructed. But if we are analysing & deconstructing it while we are in it how can it possibly enchant us? It won't be a 'living' co-creation between author & reader, but rather an experiment in literary analysis. It won't be what it was meant to be, & so won't have the effect it was intended to have. Isn't this exactly the approach Tolkien was criticising in the Beowulf lecture? Beowulf, as he pointed out, is not a quarry for 'facts' about the beliefs & cultural history of the Anglo-Saxons but a poem which should entertain & enchant us.


This gets back to something I asked, which Heren answered.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?


Yes


If I remember correctly, davem stated that the author is responsible merely for the intend to enchant; it is the reader who is responsible for responding to allow this to happen. Everything is "conjured in the mind of the reader."

Now, I don't want to make enemies ;), but how do we know that there isn't baggage, maybe even unconscious baggage, in the mind of the reader?
How do we know if the reader's own psyche has unconciously dictated elements of that enchantment? Or even if the reader has fallen prey to some deep desire to be overwhelmed by this fantasy?

Other than the sense of continuous enchantment and satisfaction--that is, duration of sensation--what other evidence is there that guarantees the enchantment is the one the author intended? That it isn't, in fact, some kind of delusion which the reader's desire to be enchanted has created?

Is there a way to account for the possibility of the reader's 'willful sublimation', to expand upon the term littlemanpoet has coined for willful interpretation?

[HerenIstarion]

Now, I don't want to make enemies , but how do we know that there isn't baggage, maybe even unconscious baggage, in the mind of the reader

There is a baggage. In both minds too. Allusions won't work without one, would they? It is when baggages Author (unconsciously, or 'consciously so in the revision') and Reader (unconsciouly, 'reading for pleasure' (Thanks, Lal!), or consciously, 'reading for purpose' put in the lobby together and find them alike additional ties may arise. 'Look, your suitcase is made of leather, and mine too! Yes, I've bought it at Jimmy's! As well as I did, it seems... I've paid five pounds! See, mine is bigger a bit, it cost me 10...'
Automatically, Author and Reader have something to be friends about.

But friendship may form, and may form not a part of Love. If it does, it adds up to the pleasure, but it is not necessary for Friendship to be there at all.

Love (of Reader towards the Author's work) may occur even if Author's baggage is posh crocodile leather, and Reader brings in woven basket (or vice versa). There is no possibility for one of them of not having a baggage at all, unless the Reader is not born that very day, already literate, but knowing nothing and learning basic concepts of life through the book of the Author, which would have to be Reader's first source of information about the world, general.

And Love, if it is a True Love ('reading on purpose' excluded), may suspend disbelief better than anything else. Hence the enchantement.

Side effects (Besides the suspense of disbelief) - Love urges us to Protect the beloved (how dare them dumb critics say Tolkien ain't great writer!), urges us to Need the beloved (and constantly be lured to read and reread the books), urges us to Admire the beloved and do things for her (per instance, write fan-fiction, play RPG, read out long homilies about love...) and form new friendships sharing our admiration on this here forum, among other places.

But we all are mortal Fallen men. We may get angry with the beloved at times, there may be misunderstandings, misinterpretations and irritation. Alas for both Author and Reader.

[eowyntje]

What we are being presented with here, eowyntje, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1. The supreme Author is never wrong in his art.
2. Reading is an act of complete submission to the will of the art.
3. therefore, any breaking of the enchantment is the fault of the reader.

etc etc


When you look at it from that perspective, the author is indeed never wrong. It is me who's fault it is that the spell is broken. But fact is, that those things broke the spell for me, and if the book had been more perfect for me. that would not have happened. The highest art or a writer would therefor be to create a world that no one, no matter what fault they make, would fall out of, a spell that even the most inadequate readers can't break.
It's like blaming the road for the accident's we make. (The book being the road and the reader bying the one driving onthe road) When I get in a car-accident while traveling the Tolkien-road, this is my fault. But any imperfections on the road might have helped cause the accident. On a perfect road, no accidents would ever happen.
If the spell is broken for the reader, this is the fault of the reader, but also proof of the imperfection of the writing, a perfect writing would be like a perfect road where nobody would ever break the spell or leave the road.

I know claiming that LOTR is imperfect is a very bolt statement to make, but it is just the way I see it.

[davem]

If the spell is broken for the reader, this is the fault of the reader, but also proof of the imperfection of the writing, a perfect writing would be like a perfect road where nobody would ever break the spell or leave the road.

I don't think Tolkien would have claimed his work was 'perfect', but in the context of what you ask, I'd respond by asking which parts of the work are 'imperfect' in an objective sense - other than printing errors or torn pages, etc? ;) The only part of the work which could be said to be 'imperfect' would be one that every single reader agreed upon.

The author can only do his/her best, & they will fail with some readers some of the time, but unless they fail with all readers at the same point then it must be something in the individual reader that causes the spell to be broken for them at that particular point.

Now, I don't want to make enemies , but how do we know that there isn't baggage, maybe even unconscious baggage, in the mind of the reader?
How do we know if the reader's own psyche has unconciously dictated elements of that enchantment? Or even if the reader has fallen prey to some deep desire to be overwhelmed by this fantasy?

Other than the sense of continuous enchantment and satisfaction--that is, duration of sensation--what other evidence is there that guarantees the enchantment is the one the author intended? That it isn't, in fact, some kind of delusion which the reader's desire to be enchanted has created?

There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way.

I suppose what it all comes down to is the question 'What do we mean by 'enchantment'? Is it simply being temproraily convinced by a secondary world so that for a time we forget the primary world? Or does it work a deeper 'magic' on us, opening us up to recieve a 'fleeting glimpse of joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief', to the possibility of the eucatastrophic experience in a particular form? Is it a valid experience? Is it a 'depth' experience - even a spiritual one?

And if we talk about the 'reader's desire to be enchanted' that begs a very big question - whence does this desire to be enchanted arise, & why do we seek the experience? Why is there any art at all?

[HerenIstarion]

whence does this desire to be enchanted arise, & why do we seek the experience? Why is there any art at all?

You're good at tough questions :)

Finrod asks the question too:

'For if you do not know, how can we? But do you know that the Eldar say of Men that they look at no thing for itself; that if they study it, it is to discover something else; that if they love it, it is only (so it seems) because it reminds them of some other dearer thing? Yet with what is this comparison? Where are these other things?

And eventually answers it (up to a point):

'Is it, then, a vision of what was designed to be when Arda was complete - of living things and even of the very lands and seas of Arda made eternal and indestructible, for ever beautiful and new - with which the fëar of Men compare what they see here? Or is there somewhere else a world of which all things which we see, all things that either Elves or Men know, are only tokens or reminders?'

We seek and compare.

[Bêthberry]

There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way.


I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question.

If the 'baggage' is unconscious, the reader will not be aware of it and so cannot dwell upon it. The reader will be unaware of how this unconscious reaction informs his or her response. Thus, how will the reader know if this unconscious baggage is shaping the experience of the art or the Art itself?

This is a logical problem with the theory that one can completely strip oneself of one's primary world identity and become solely immersed in the secondary world. At best, one can demonstrate and act upon a willingness, a desire to listen, to learn, to understand, but the very unique and individual terms and nature of the submission will in fact be part of how the experience is informed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by davem
There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way.
I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question

Let me clarify. It is a fact that there will be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but we should not dwell on that fact because it gets in the way of what we're talking about here. What is inevitable, what we can't change, we may as well put on one side as we can't do anything about it. I should have re read the post & amended that sentence to read 'but that should not be dwelt on.'

At best, one can demonstrate and act upon a willingness, a desire to listen, to learn, to understand,

That's all we are capable of doing, & its enough (ie it shows sufficient respect to the artist) if we make the best effort we can to do just that.

but the very unique and individual terms and nature of the submission will in fact be part of how the experience is informed.

Has art anything to teach us? Can we learn anything from it that we didn't already know? If we can, then I would say it is that 'unknown thing' (rather than what we already know - our 'baggage') that is important, & the thing we should make an effort to take in.

[Bêthberry]

There is a baggage. In both minds too. Allusions won't work without one, would they? It is when baggages Author (unconsciously, or 'consciously so in the revision') and Reader (unconsciouly, 'reading for pleasure' (Thanks, Lal!), or consciously, 'reading for purpose' put in the lobby together and find them alike additional ties may arise. 'Look, your suitcase is made of leather, and mine too! Yes, I've bought it at Jimmy's! As well as I did, it seems... I've paid five pounds! See, mine is bigger a bit, it cost me 10...'
Automatically, Author and Reader have something to be friends about.

But friendship may form, and may form not a part of Love. If it does, it adds up to the pleasure, but it is not necessary for Friendship to be there at all.

Love (of Reader towards the Author's work) may occur even if Author's baggage is posh crocodile leather, and Reader brings in woven basket (or vice versa). There is no possibility for one of them of not having a baggage at all, unless the Reader is not born that very day, already literate, but knowing nothing and learning basic concepts of life through the book of the Author, which would have to be Reader's first source of information about the world, general.

And Love, if it is a True Love ('reading on purpose' excluded), may suspend disbelief better than anything else. Hence the enchantement.

Side effects (Besides the suspense of disbelief) - Love urges us to Protect the beloved (how dare them dumb critics say Tolkien ain't great writer!), urges us to Need the beloved (and constantly be lured to read and reread the books), urges us to Admire the beloved and do things for her (per instance, write fan-fiction, play RPG, read out long homilies about love...) and form new friendships sharing our admiration on this here forum, among other places.

But we all are mortal Fallen men. We may get angry with the beloved at times, there may be misunderstandings, misinterpretations and irritation. Alas for both Author and Reader.

My dear HerenIstarion, your eloquence on the part of the ineffable enchantment of love in reading is delightful, but perhaps you have inadvertently provided some explanation of where the fit might not be 'one size fits all'. (Psst, the English is not "suspence of disbelief"--sadly, as your phrase is quite wonderful in itself-- but "suspension of belief")

Is the text, the beloved, always "she"? Must the reader always assume a (typically) Male posture towards "her"? Is cross-dressing to be allowed? :D

EDIT: the correct phrase is 'willing suspension of disbelief' ;)

[HerenIstarion]

Is the text, the beloved, always "she"?

It was a slip of the tongue. I usually write 'he/she' in situations similar, but it was an itch on my fingertips to be delivered to you through my keyboard which made me somewhat less observant in the case.

Thread hovering somewhere in the back of my head with something approaching the 'is LoTR as text He or She' title ;)

(On second thought, though, I would probably be pro-she-er, if ever such a thread comes around :D. )

Psst, the English is not "suspence of disbelief"--sadly, as your phrase is quite wonderful in itself-- but "suspension of belief")

Since I'm caught red-handed (red-fingertipped?), I would let it stand. Let it be an appeal for me and all of us (we know who we are) whose writing turns out impulsive rather than thoughtful at times, to, once the steam is let off, review the artefact produced with more care :)

(blimey, I thought it was suspence, I did. Probably mixed up with sixpense, raising the price of my post thrice)

[Bêthberry]

My bad, Heren, the full phrase is "willing suspension of disbelief", not 'belief'.

And now that I find myself replying with my own correction, I might as well consider further your thoughts, as the point is not merely erased by the addition of a second pronoun, "he/she".

Your entire explanation of the reader's attitude towards the beloved is decidedly cast in the posture of the (possessive) romantic male.


Side effects (Besides the suspense of disbelief) - Love urges us to Protect the beloved (how dare them dumb critics say Tolkien ain't great writer!), urges us to Need the beloved (and constantly be lured to read and reread the books), urges us to Admire the beloved and do things for her (per instance, write fan-fiction, play RPG, read out long homilies about love...) and form new friendships sharing our admiration on this here forum, among other places.


These qualities, at least as traditionally understood, might more properly fit the model of a Female reader towards her child-text, with the desire to protect, to do things for. Certainly 'sharing the admiration' in order to attract new admirers might fit the child model more than a, ahem, husband or lover! :D

And I shall offer tuppence rather than penance for my error! (weak, I know, but we can't all partake of masculine rhymes all the time. ;) )

[Bêthberry]

:
Originally Posted by Bb:
Originally Posted by davem

There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way. [end quote from davem]

I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question [end Bb quote]


Let me clarify. It is a fact that there will be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but we should not dwell on that fact because it gets in the way of what we're talking about here. What is inevitable, what we can't change, we may as well put on one side as we can't do anything about it. I should have re read the post & amended that sentence to read 'but that should not be dwelt on.'

Quote:
At best, one can demonstrate and act upon a willingness, a desire to listen, to learn, to understand,


That's all we are capable of doing, & its enough (ie it shows sufficient respect to the artist) if we make the best effort we can to do just that.

Quote:
but the very unique and individual terms and nature of the submission will in fact be part of how the experience is informed.


Has art anything to teach us? Can we learn anything from it that we didn't already know? If we can, then I would say it is that 'unknown thing' (rather than what we already know - our 'baggage') that is important, & the thing we should make an effort to take in.

Time to make several observations.

First of all, it is, I think, an error to claim that we should ignore the unconscious baggage because it gets in the way of the discussion here or because we can't do anything about it. In fact, such a proceeding represents a willful blindness to the main point. There is as much a problem with your model being squewed as the other model suggested here, but you would simply ignore that problem as if it doesn't exist.

Second, to chastise the 'reader' model (for want of a better word) as being disrespectful of the original author's intent is to characterise this position incorrectly. The issue is not a deliberate, self-centred idea that only the reader knows best. The issue is that very often the complete and full intentions of the author cannot be fully revealed in any one reading. This is particularly so in the case of an author such as Tolkien whose credo was to make many things implicit rather than explicit: he wanted actively participating readers, for in action lies moral achievement. Nor does this reader model assume that the reader has nothing to learn or refuses to learn, but merely rehashes his or her own prior knowledge.

The model you propose is based on logical and psychological impossibilties. It is impossible for the reader to completely wipe out his or her identity and be acted upon solely by a text. Saul on the road to Damascus may have been blinded and become Paul, but did not eradicate all of Saul's nature. There is no going back to Eden, where experience is immediately apprehended innocently and purely. We live not only with the Fall, but with Babel.

Thus, any understanding of how a text works with the reader must explain how translation happens rather than ignore the basic need for it, for even speaking the same language requires translation. It requires all the resources which make us human and a willingness to consider the unknown. That does not mean that in reading for pleasure we wipe out all previous experience. There can be no return to an always virginal first reading. All previous reading pleasures come with the reader when he or she embarks upon a new text. Readers might want to put out of mind bad past heartbreaks, and often they do try hard, but short of losing memory that previous experience is always part of the reader. (And even losing memory is no guarantee that the experience will not have some effect.) And they might even be desirous of experiencing past happy love affairs again--that too, with either good or bad possibilties.

Why do we reread Tolkien so much? To return to that first experience? Or to see things there we didn't 'see' the first time? One of the paradoxes of reading is that both are probably true, and any explanation of what happens when we enter subcreation has to account for all possible experiences, and not presume one only.

I think SaucepanMan hit it right when he said that there is no one right way to legislate reading pleasure. It is not serial monogamy. :D

A last note: many have contributed here but time and length makes it difficult to address everyone. My thoughts do develop from reading everyone's posts even if I don't mention all and even if I tend to focus on just one or two perspectives.

[the phantom]

On a perfect road, no accidents would ever happen.
Yeah right. It doesn't matter how perfect the road is. There's always going to be someone who can manage to wreck their car in a spectacular display of lack of conscious thought and utter ineptitude for any activity requiring focus and hand eye coordination.

You could put cars on a track so all drivers had to do was work the pedals, and people would still rear end each other.

Likewise, you could write a "perfect" book, and there would still be people saying things like "I didn't get it", "I couldn't get through it", or "I thought it was boring".

On the other hand, there are some people who, despite imperfect roads with potholes, blind driveways, heavy traffic, patches of ice, and the occasional malfunctioning street light, still manage to never crash. Imperfections can be overcome.

But, of course, perfection can be overcome as well, so a perfect work of art does not guarantee enchantment.

[mark12_30]

Why do we reread Tolkien so much? To return to that first experience? Or to see things there we didn't 'see' the first time? One of the paradoxes of reading is that both are probably true, and any explanation of what happens when we enter subcreation has to account for all possible experiences, and not presume one only.

While I was keeping up with it, I really enjoyed the CBC interaction: multiple rereaders and one or two first-timers.

[davem]

First of all, it is, I think, an error to claim that we should ignore the unconscious baggage because it gets in the way of the discussion here or because we can't do anything about it. In fact, such a proceeding represents a willful blindness to the main point.

We must put on one side, ignore, discount from our discussion anything that we cannot know, & anything which is unconscious is unknown. To be able to bring anything into our discusion we must be conscious of it. We have conscious 'baggage' & possibly unconscious baggage, but if it is unconscious the most we can say about it is that it may or may not exist. If we start speculating about something as tenuous as that, & what effect it may or may not have on our reading then we will definitely get sidetracked down a blind alley to a dead end that leads us nowhere fast & we'll find ourselves up the creek without a paddle.

The issue is that very often the complete and full intentions of the author cannot be fully revealed in any one reading. This is particularly so in the case of an author such as Tolkien whose credo was to make many things implicit rather than explicit: he wanted actively participating readers, for in action lies moral achievement. Nor does this reader model assume that the reader has nothing to learn or refuses to learn, but merely rehashes his or her own prior knowledge.

I'm sure I said earlier that in the first instance we should try & simply experience the art as a ding an sich. Then we should attempt to discover what the author intended to communicate to us, & finally bring in our own ideas & interpretations.

The model you propose is based on logical and psychological impossibilties. It is impossible for the reader to completely wipe out his or her identity and be acted upon solely by a text.

I think I also stated this earlier - all I've ever said is that as far as we are able we should open ourselves to the direct experience of the art itself - in the first instance, if only so that we have some chance of distinguishing what the artist is bringing to the party & what we are bring to it.

A secondary world must not be dependent on the primary world in order to make sense. If it requires us to analyse & interpret it in order for it to make sense then the sub creator has failed, & produced an allegory to some degree or other. All I'm saying is that we should attempt, in the first instance, to experience & participate in the art as fully as we can, & we do that by leaving as much of our (conscious - ie the stuff were aware of rather than the stuff which may or may not exist) baggage at the door.

[The Saucepan Man]

All I'm saying is that we should attempt, in the first instance, to experience & participate in the art as fully as we can, & we do that by leaving as much of our (conscious - ie the stuff were aware of rather than the stuff which may or may not exist) baggage at the door.We shouldn't have to do anything or any particular thing with art, legally, morally or intellectually.

[davem]

We shouldn't have to do anything or any particular thing with art, legally, morally or intellectually.

But how would we know whether it was 'art' or not unless we made an effort to experience & participate in it?

Just take the critics' (or Eru forbid the Lawyers' :p ) word for it?

[Lalwendë]

Why do we reread Tolkien so much? To return to that first experience? Or to see things there we didn't 'see' the first time? One of the paradoxes of reading is that both are probably true, and any explanation of what happens when we enter subcreation has to account for all possible experiences, and not presume one only.

I think the question of why we re-read Tolkien may be at the heart of the loss off enchantment. For me, and no doubt for most other readers, nothing can beat that first read of LotR, the sense of wonder which it fostered. And most of us return again and again, but is each time as good as the first time? It might be pleasurable, but we do not have that sense of wonder in quite the way that we had it the first time. This is akin to the law of diminishing returns - we eat a piece of cake and it was so good we go and get another but though it is just as wonderful we can never get that 'hit' we had the first time.

We reread Tolkien because we are seeking the thrill all over again. For some of us, on a re-read we endeavour to recreate that feeling by immersing oursleves in to the world as deeply as possible, losing ourselves in the words. For some of us, on a re-read we seek to find parallels. Neither is wrong. But what would be wrong would be to read the story in the first place seeking to find answers to those things which are in our own world. Why is that wrong? Because we would simply deny ourselves a lot of pleasure. And I would doubt that we would ever return to the book because we would fail to be enchanted. It wouldn't be morally wrong, or anything like that, but it would be a damn shame, and is the primary reason why I am extremely glad that LotR is not a typical book used for study in schools.

A secondary world must not be dependent on the primary world in order to make sense. If it requires us to analyse & interpret it in order for it to make sense then the sub creator has failed, & produced an allegory to some degree or other.

This to me explains something of the difference between different types of novel (I won't say fantasy novel, as I think it applies to any novel) - we have those which immediately plunge us into another place/time and those in which we must first travel through a reflection of our own world. In the latter I find that it is much more difficult to get that sense of being lost or enchanted as I find that while reading I am waiting for the characters to come back into the grey real world, and for the spell to be broken. This does not happen in Tolkien's work, it is immediately immersive and needs no plot hook to the primary world.

Tolkien's world, as something utterly different to our own, does not need us to have an understanding of the primary world, which is why it is also not necessary to compare aspects of it to the primary world. It is complete in itself. It also appeals to many people of many cultures, suggesting again that due to its contained nature it does not need to explain itself.

[littlemanpoet]

This was rather surprising to me, that Tolkien would use a word -- and not just any word, but one so central to his own art -- in a way that is slightly different from its normal usage. In Tolkien's formulation, "enchantment" loses all sense of being "overpowering" or "enrapturing"; it certainly is not productive of a "delusive appearance of beauty"! What is more, in Tolkien's view of enchantment, he allies that word not with "magic or sorcery" but with Art.

It was not surprising to me. Tolkien was responsible for creating an entire genre of modern literature, as well as a major shift in thinking about it. That kind of "revolutionary" thinking requires coinage of new words and meaning. This is the man who coined "eucatastrophe", as well as whole languages. Your final sentence in this quote reveals that Tolkien was a modern, writing in an era in which magic and sorcery have been replaced by Art, at least in terms of credibility.

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

This is an elegant statement, Fordim. It does Tolkien proud, I dare to say.

Is there a way to account for the possibility of the reader's 'willful sublimation', to expand upon the term littlemanpoet has coined for willful interpretation?

By this I think you mean that the reader is deluding herself into a kind of enchantment within a story that the author never intended? I think that this does happen, and that Tolkien bemoaned it in his Letters, especially in regard to the American reaction to LotR in the 60's.

If we start speculating about something as tenuous as that, & what effect it may or may not have on our reading then we will definitely get sidetracked down a blind alley to a dead end that leads us nowhere fast & we'll find ourselves up the creek without a paddle.

My my, davem, you must have been in a real hurry when you wrote this.... four, count 'em, four colloquial turns of phrase in one sentence. Yike! Admittedly, quite handy for saying what you mean in short fashion. ;) ... not to mention one mixed metaphor. :D



All I'm saying is that we should attempt, in the first instance, to experience & participate in the art as fully as we can, & we do that by leaving as much of our (conscious - ie the stuff were aware of rather than the stuff which may or may not exist) baggage at the door.
We shouldn't have to do anything or any particular thing with art, legally, morally or intellectually.

SPM, I think davem is proposing a conditional statement: If readers are to experience the full echantment of the story, then they must leave as much of their baggage at the door as they can.

But what would be wrong would be to read the story in the first place seeking to find answers to those things which are in our own world.

Although I agree with what you say in general, I think you overstate it by calling it "wrong"; perhaps "ill-advised" would be more appropo.

This to me explains something of the difference between different types of novel (I won't say fantasy novel, as I think it applies to any novel) - we have those which immediately plunge us into another place/time and those in which we must first travel through a reflection of our own world. In the latter I find that it is much more difficult to get that sense of being lost or enchanted as I find that while reading I am waiting for the characters to come back into the grey real world, and for the spell to be broken. This does not happen in Tolkien's work, it is immediately immersive and needs no plot hook to the primary world.

Tolkien's world, as something utterly different to our own, does not need us to have an understanding of the primary world, which is why it is also not necessary to compare aspects of it to the primary world. It is complete in itself. It also appeals to many people of many cultures, suggesting again that due to its contained nature it does not need to explain itself.

Hmmm...... I don't know.... there are a couple things that hold me back from this. First, Tolkien says in his letters over and over again that his Middle-earth is NOT utterly different from our own world, but feigned history of an era in this world. Second, whereas the Shire is obviously part of the feigned history, it serves as a sort of mediation between the primary world and the rest of Middle-earth. Third, even transitional fantasies are really immersive. Granted, what the transitional fantasies attempt is more difficult, because by means of the feigned primary world they allow the reader to bring expectations (baggage, sic) to her reading that she might otherwise leave behind; but as you implied, novels and fantasy novels share the characteristic of "feignedness". Thus, the difference between a transitional and an immersive, is that the former (seems to be attempting to) move(s) the reader from the familiar to the strange.

[davem]

First, Tolkien says in his letters over and over again that his Middle-earth is NOT utterly different from our own world, but feigned history of an era in this world. Second, whereas the Shire is obviously part of the feigned history, it serves as a sort of mediation between the primary world and the rest of Middle-earth.

Well, it does for some of us. I find it interesting that while the book begins in the quiet of the Shire the movie doesn't. Of course the book has the prologue, whiich gives us some background history & scene setting, but our first entry into Middle earth is via the Shire - in fact, as I pointed out in the cbc discussion first of all we 'hear' the voice of the storyteller, then we hear the voices of some secondary characters, & thirdly we get some descriptions of the actual place - & this 'place' is (for some of us) 'homelike'. Well, to be more precise its like things used to be. But that doesn't apply to every reader. I suppose for many readers the Shire is just as fantastical a place as Rohan or Lorien.

Now, Tolkien may have intended that the Shire serve as 'a sort of mediation between the primary world and the rest of Middle-earth' but it won't serve that purpose for every reader, so it has to convince us of its reality within Middle earth - it can't simply be a 'framing device' like the Wardrobe or a spaceship.

So, it must be possible, initially, to just experience the Shire as a part of the Secondary World or it will not convince us of its secondary reality - it will come across as simply a means to the end of getting us from the primary to the secondary world. We shouldn't need to bring any prior knowledge or experience to the secondary world in order that it be understandable to us - our experiences (our baggage) should not be required. So, we can just listen to the story being told - no listener will be in a superior position, or better able to experience the story, or have a greater or lesser capacity to be enchanted. In short, whatever your accademic backkground, however 'smart' you are,however many books you've read, you won't be in a superior position to any other reader/listener.

Secondly, you can begin to analyse what the author wished to do. Was the approach Tolkien took in presenting the Shire (rather than the Shire itself) intended to serve as a framing device, or to serve a mediatory role by being shown as not all that different from the primary world? Was he making some kind of 'political' statement about how things were better 'once upon a time'? Or is he trying to communicate what he considers to be the 'spirit of the ordinary English person', etc, etc. Is he making use of old beliefs, or trying to account for old traditions - the Shire was established by Marcho & Blanco, England by Hengist & Horsa, etc. Is he making philological 'in jokes' - the name Durin literally meant 'doorward' & the secret door in the mountainside opens magically when the last light of the sun on Durin's day hits the keyhole, etc.

That's all very interesting stuff, but doesn't add to the enchantment. In fact, the more of that stuff you are aware of, particularly if you have it in the forefront of your mind as you read, the less likely you will be to fully enter into the secondary world & be enchanted. The same goes for too much awareness of literary technique - if you're constantly analysing the way the story is written you'll never fully immerse yourself in the world the words are creating.

Finally, you can start analysing your own responses, bringing in your own feelings, memories & education, all the stuff you've learned & has made you the person you are.

Now, I know some will immediatley respond to this by saying that it is the 'person we are' that reads the book, so what I've placed third should (indeed must) come first. I can see this argument, but I think the approach I've described is the one we should strive for - even if we fail to fully achieve it. Also, I have to say that if the art, the secondary world, is sufficiently 'enchanting' we'll find it less of a struggle to do it.

[Bêthberry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Is there a way to account for the possibility of the reader's 'willful sublimation', to expand upon the term littlemanpoet has coined for willful interpretation?


By this I think you mean that the reader is deluding herself into a kind of enchantment within a story that the author never intended? I think that this does happen, and that Tolkien bemoaned it in his Letters, especially in regard to the American reaction to LotR in the 60's.

Yes, littlemanpoet, that is what I meant. davem assumes that his manner of reading/approaching the text will always and automatically achieve the 'right result' of the expected enchantment which the author desired. There is a logical problem with his theory of enchantment which davem sidesteps and refuses to acknowledge by saying, since we can't know how our unconscious operates, we can't know how it affects our response. Or maybe he just thinks that any experience of the story as story is valid, I don't know. My point is that I don't think there is any reading possible which is free of 'baggage' in some way, so that the initial proposition is invalid.


Thus, the difference between a transitional and an immersive, is that the former (seems to be attempting to) move(s) the reader from the familiar to the strange.

The issue we've been discussing is how to maintain the enchantment of the fantasy world, either throughout the first reading, or on subsequent readings. But this comment makes me think about something.

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

If so, then it is doomed always to have diminishing enchantment, for once we know the world, it will no longer be strange. Or are we supposed to throw out our previous readings of the book as "baggage" before we reread?

EDIT: (returning to finish after sharing my computer!)

However, if we say that enchantment is not a one time experience of the unfamiliar secondary world, but a process of always on-going comparison between primary and secondary worlds (familiar and strange), then we have a sliding scale of exchanges or thoughts. Thus, we need not be limited to a denial of 'baggage' in any reading, and every subsequent reading will have the potential for further enchantment as we see more meaning to the primary/secondary interchange. This will, I think, accounts for Fordim's explanation of Tolkien's process which littlemanpoet lauded in his previous post.

[davem]

There is a logical problem with his theory of enchantment which davem sidesteps and refuses to acknowledge by saying, since we can't know how our unconscious operates, we can't know how it affects our response.

There may a 'logical problem' with my approach, but it seems yours presents us with a logical impossibility - how can we possibly know what is 'unconscious'? If we knew how our unconscious minds operate, what they contain & how they affect our reading, then they we'd be conscious of them, wouldn't we. Anything we discover about our unconscious contents & processes immediately becomes 'conscious'. I'm saying we can only take into account what we are aware of, not what we aren't aware of. That seems to me to be simple logic - but then I never went to college.

davem assumes that his manner of reading/approaching the text will always and automatically achieve the 'right result' of the expected enchantment which the author desired.

No he doesn't - that would be 'assuming that which is to be proved'. What davem is doing is taking part in a debate, & putting forward his particular theory for discussion.

Or maybe he just thinks that any experience of the story as story is valid, I don't know.

Maybe he thinks that, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he hasn't decided. It certainly sounds from that sentence like Bethberry has decided some experiences of the story as story are invalid

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

Davem would speculate that its about the 'not-yet-known', the 'undiscovered country', but also about the 'blue remembered hills' - which is as much 'hand luggage' as he's prepared to alow on this particular flight...


If so, then it is doomed always to have diminishing enchantment, for once we know the world, it will no longer be strange.

No - because our experience may become deeper & more profound with each reading. The one thing likely to prevent that happening is if we are too weighed down with all the theories, beliefs & conceptions we've built up around the story, so that the experience becomes little more than looking into a mirror.

Or are we supposed to throw out our previous readings of the book as "baggage" before we reread?

We should perhaps try & leave behind our previous interpretations of the book, so that we may be open to new things. Proverbs 26:11 & all that sort of thing....

[HerenIstarion]

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

If it is Tolkien we are talking about, and not, say, Sword of Shannara series, than, no. Assuming you love the work you read, there will always be things to discover.

One may be struck by strangeness at first sight, falling in love. One may than grow to know one's wife/husband, but there always will remain uncertainty and chance of discovering something new. One may grow tired at times, and go play bowling for a change in the evening, but the morning will bring new delight.

The issue we've been discussing is how to maintain the enchantment of the fantasy world, either through the first reading, or on subsequent readings

The answer may sound crude, but is nevertheless that simple: Stop bothering about maintaining the enchantment, her (enchantment is She for me :D) being elusive little devil. She will delude the hunter once pursued, but will get offended if not pursued at all and will show up inevitably if not paid heed to or sought after. She is like a teakettle of Jerome's Three Men in a Boat - you should convince it you want tea not at all, otherwise it would not start to boil.

EDIT:

Just cross posted with davem. Let his words give more weight to my 'stop bothering' appeal:

The one thing likely to prevent that happening is if we are too weighed down with all the theories, beliefs & conceptions we've built up around the story, so that the experience becomes little more than looking into a mirror.

Or, the recipe is simple: put the mental pencil aside and read on :)

END OF EDIT

[Bêthberry]

Quote:
Or maybe he just thinks that any experience of the story as story is valid, I don't know.


Maybe he thinks that, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he hasn't decided. It certainly sounds from that sentence like Bethberry has decided some experiences of the story as story are invalid


davem, this comment reflects the kind of argument which I think is misguided and even inflammatory. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I don't regard any reading--by which I mean experience of the story-- as invalid. It appears to me to represent a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise my position by taking the sentence completely out of context of all my previous ones. What I was attempting to do is understand how you would accept the kind of misreading which littlemanpoet pointed out. If my phrase mischaracterised your position, I am sorry, but it reflected an honest attempt to understand a point you had not, to the best of my recollection, addressed or discussed: is it possible for your form of enchantment to miss the authorial intention.


That seems to me to be simple logic - but then I never went to college.


This kind of statement I think equally does not belong in this discussion. No one here in this discussion has ever made any statement which insults readers who are young, who have not had post secondary education, or who simply take delight in story. Nor is this the first time a comment which appears derogatory about other people's reading experience has appeared in your posts. I think it is vering towards personal attack and I would ask that you stop making such comments.

[littlemanpoet]

Let's set aside rancor, friends, okay? Disagree with civility, even if you must admit that you know you won't change the other person's mind despite the fact that you are the one being so reasonable and the other just isn't getting it (I know, a true blow to pride, isn't it?).

The above are Sam's words when he is caught by Gandalf in Shadows of the Past (please forgive me if you've hashed this through in CbC without my knowledge).

What "Lor'" is Sam referring to? Having spent all the hours I have here at Barrowdowns has made me aware that this is a potential sore thumb sticking out. Is this a religious reference? Or is it a Shire reference? It could be argued that it derives from the days when there was a King in the North, but I feel that would be a stretch. I think that what we have here is Sam speaking like an English commoner caught redhanded: it's a reference to Christianity, place and simple. And thus it's an error in the text. It broke the enchantment for me. Now, you may argue that it's my theories and baggage that I failed to leave behind, but it is just as much (if my conclusion as to its reference is correct) Tolkien's error.

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

Perhaps an excursion into historical usages may throw some light on the question. Take the term, "glamour", which is, I believe of Norman derivation, or at least French. It is more or less equivalent to enchantment. The old meaning of enchantment has fallen away and the word is used almost exclusively in terms of female beauty. But that points up an interesting illustration: female beauty was considered a "glamour" in the old sense. "Be careful of her charms." There is (and has never been) nothing strange about female beauty; it is part and parcel of what it is to be human.

More later. I've run out of time.

[davem]

It appears to me to represent a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise my position by taking the sentence completely out of context of all my previous ones.

Certainly it is annoying when someone misrepresents one's clearly stated position - I can only quote the start of my earlier post (number 9) on this very thread:


Originally Posted by Bb

I have been told that my suggestion of some kind applicability of the Lilith myth to Shelob is a no-no:

I think my exact words in the current chapter thread (post 51) were:

Quote:

I wouldn't deny your right to find any kind of applicability in the text. My point was that I can see more differences than similarities between Shelob & Lilith.


I take your point & will attempt not to do it again, because I acknowledge how irritating it is when someone comes on these boards & puts words in your mouth which you personally would never utter.

is it possible for your form of enchantment to miss the authorial intention.


Well, this is the whole issue in a nutshell - trying to guess the author's intention, & what kind of 'spell' he or she wanted to cast. Certainly if we go in with that in mind we'll never experience any kind of enchantment, so the question becomes moot. I don't know what kind of spell Tolkien wanted to cast - in the sense of the precise effect he wanted to produce in me. But I'm not talking about that anyway - its a secondary phase. The first, & most important phase, is the direct experience.

That seems to me to be simple logic - but then I never went to college.

This kind of statement I think equally does not belong in this discussion. No one here in this discussion has ever made any statement which insults readers who are young, who have not had post secondary education, or who simply take delight in story. Nor is this the first time a comment which appears derogatory about other people's reading experience has appeared in your posts. I think it is vering towards personal attack and I would ask that you stop making such comments.

If you could tell me how what I said in my little aside could possibly constitute a personal insult please do. Perhaps you're bringing too much baggage along & reading things into what other's write which aren't there?

Or perhaps, in your own words to Drigel (post 41):

drigel, I had hoped that my use of smilies--the wink and the big grin--would have made clear the comedy of my ironic intent. Perhaps humour is being edged out by seriousness here.

[Lalwendë]

Although I agree with what you say in general, I think you overstate it by calling it "wrong"; perhaps "ill-advised" would be more appropo.

You're right :) 'wrong' may be the wrong word to use, as it's a loaded term (as proved in this thread!). I mean wrong as in a wrong step, but I can't deny that I also feel there is a little of the intellectual 'wrong' as well. I feel it is a shame when people are introduced to a great book through tiresome means and hence end up despising it. And like H-I has said beautifully already, I feel a gtreat deal of love towards Tolkien's work, and can't bear to see any 'wrong' done to it.

So, what might be better is if I rephrased it as: But what would be ill-advised would be to read the story in the first place seeking to find answers to those things which are in our own world.

Hmmm...... I don't know.... there are a couple things that hold me back from this. First, Tolkien says in his letters over and over again that his Middle-earth is NOT utterly different from our own world, but feigned history of an era in this world. Second, whereas the Shire is obviously part of the feigned history, it serves as a sort of mediation between the primary world and the rest of Middle-earth.

I myself can see that The Shire is a reflection of a lost England, but more than that, it is not a reflection of an actual lost England, more a reflection of our own feelings of loss, of how we tend to view the past through rose-tinted spectacles. I too do this, viewing a rural childhood as an enchanted time, rather than bringing to mind the nastier and very real aspects of that lifestyle.

So, while that first step into Middle Earth is not as alien as it could be (it certainly bears more resemblance to our own world than those first scenes of Star Wars, for example), and it provides us with a recognisable mental anchor to remind us of what this quest is all about, it is nothing like a real or tangible place, but more like a bucolic dream or memory altered with the passing of the years. I think Tolkien himself serves to underline that this is a place somehow removed from us by having such oddities as Hobbits, 111st birthdays, a wizard and so on, not things to be encountered in rural England by any means!

Third, even transitional fantasies are really immersive. Granted, what the transitional fantasies attempt is more difficult, because by means of the feigned primary world they allow the reader to bring expectations (baggage, sic) to her reading that she might otherwise leave behind; but as you implied, novels and fantasy novels share the characteristic of "feignedness". Thus, the difference between a transitional and an immersive, is that the former (seems to be attempting to) move(s) the reader from the familiar to the strange.

Of course, it could be that Tolkien created that forst step in a way which is a lot more subtle than transitional fantasies, but I would argue that the very oddness of The Shire, and the fact that it represents no England that ever existed beyond the poetic constructs of memory, does make it immediately immersive.

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

Partly, I think, enchantment depends upon strange and peculiar things, but also much of it depends upon the familiar but somehow misplaced, or out of sync. To take a good example of the 'out of sync', the Oxford which Lyra resides in, from the pages of His Dark Materials, is a fantasy Oxford. It is somehow in a different time, and it is slightly skewed, and very strange indeed. If the definition of fantasy hangs on its being not yet known or experienced, then this definition of fantasy could equally apply to any novel which is about a world we are not familiar with, from Persuasion's vision of Regency Bath to Trainspotting's late 20th century urban Scotland. So for the genre of fantasy, there must be more to it, and I think it is the fact that whole worlds are created which have never existed at any point in time - if they had existed, then it would become either historical fiction or allegory, and would not be fantasy. So there is more to it than it simply being composed of that which we do not know.

[Bêthberry]

"Lor' help me!"
. . .

The above are Sam's words when he is caught by Gandalf in Shadows of the Past (please forgive me if you've hashed this through in CbC without my knowledge).

What "Lor'" is Sam referring to? Having spent all the hours I have here at Barrowdowns has made me aware that this is a potential sore thumb sticking out. Is this a religious reference? Or is it a Shire reference? It could be argued that it derives from the days when there was a King in the North, but I feel that would be a stretch. I think that what we have here is Sam speaking like an English commoner caught redhanded: it's a reference to Christianity, place and simple. And thus it's an error in the text. It broke the enchantment for me. Now, you may argue that it's my theories and baggage that I failed to leave behind, but it is just as much (if my conclusion as to its reference is correct) Tolkien's error.


I think littlemanpoet has the right idea, to return to specific examples. Let me take a bit of a different tack from that Fordim used about the archaic style in the latter part of LotR.


There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.

There are times when this style breaks the enchantment for me. Now, I like such features as the use of words such as "weapontake" and "swordthain" in "The Muster of Rohan". I am not adverse to an archaic style per se. Why it bothers me is that it appears at times that strike me as not appropriate for the story. One such time is Éomer's dirge at the death of Théodan.


Mourn not overmuch! Mighty was the fallen,
meet was his ending. When his mound is raised,
women shall weep. War now calls us.

It is not the alliterative verse itself, but the timing of it. And Éomer's earlier style of speaking did not break the enchantment for me. The method of characterisation has generally been to present the characters somewhat according to the expected manner in fiction. There is realism of psychology and of motivation and of behaviour. The battles are described in what I would call stirring but realistic detail. Now, here we have an extemporaneous poem. Can such be written in the heat of battle? It seems implausible. Is Éomer reciting old verse from long ago, such as Tolkien discussed in his essay on "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth"? It doesn't seem quite plausible either, to find a song so suited to the exact situation. I can tell myself that such versification was part of the heroic lays of yesteryear, particularly with poets who write of battles in years long after the battle but nothing persuades me that such a manner of speaking at this moment in the story is in accord with the rest of the Éomer's characterisation. It intrudes, and makes me think of style rather than of the story, as Fordim has said. It makes me think "heroic epic here" rather than true feeling of Rohirric response. I guess you could say it is the timing that is off rather than the style! ;)

One other example. In Books I and II, the characters are differentiated by different manners and habits of speech. It would be hard to confuse Sam's style of talking with Frodo's or with Gimli's or with Gangalf's or Elrond's. Yet by Book III, Gimli and Legolas are given the same style of speech. Somehow, their distinctive characteristics have been blurred and now they both talk in the same ornate, formal style. It doesn't sound like Gimli at all. The use of dialogue to differentiate characters has gone,to be replaced by the ornate style. I miss the previous Gimli's style.

[quote="The Last Debate"]
'Strange indeed,' said Legolas. "in that hour I looked upon Aragorn and thought how great and terrible a Lord he might have become in the strength of his will, had he taken the Ring to himself. Not for naught does Mordor fear him. But nobler is his spirit than the understanding of Sauron; for is he not of the children of Luthien? Never shall that line fail, though the years may lengthen beyond count.'

'Beyond the eyes of the Dwarves are such foretellings,' said Gimli. 'But mighty indeed was Aragorn that day. Lo! all the black fleet was in his hands' and he choose the greatest ship to be his own, and he went up into it. Then he let sound a great concours of trumpets taken from the enemy' and the Shadow Host withdrew to the short. There they stood silent, hardly to be seen, save for a red gleam in their eyes that caught the glare of the ships that were burning. And Aragorn spoke in a loud voice to the Dead Men, crying...'

This sounds like it ought to be said by the narrator. It sure does not sound like Gimli earlier, in the "The Ring Goes South" where he first speaks about the debacle on Caradhras, nor even in Moria. Surely his discoveries in Moria would have brought out such formal eloquence? No, they don't.

So, for me--and I stress that this is my response only and I don't seek to persuade others that this is the only response possible; nor do I criticise those who don't feel this way about my examples--the ornate style takes me out of the enchantment when it contradicts other kinds of style which the book had earlier led me to anticipate. And, yes, I have read Tolkien's Letter # 171 but his comments there are in response to a different point than the one I make here; Tolkien's points don't address what it is that breaks the enchantment here for me. If this be heresy, well, so be it. I still love the books.

[Lalwendë]

The style of language used in RotK is rather high-flown, but we must remember exactly what is happening here. These are grand events, world changing events which are witnessed by many, unlike the other world changing events (e.g. at Mount Doom) which are witnessed by few. Accordingly, Tolkien changed his style slightly here to fit in with such monumental events.

About Eomer's words, I don't find them so strange considering the lengthy verse recited as Boromir's body is sent off down the Anduin; it could be possible that there were established ways of orally reciting laments in Middle Earth. This idea was discussed in one of the CbC threads. Also, in a martial culture such as that of the Rohirrim, composing a few grand lines on the death of a comrade would be quite a common occurrence, and after the death of a King, I wouldn't doubt that solemn lines would come from Eomer quite readily.

If we consider that there is also the conceit of the whole tale being taken from the Red Book, as written down by Frodo, then these events are all written down as second hand. Frodo would have taken the accounts from other people, and as is common after such events, hyperbole would have been used to the full. There is further evidence to support this if we also think about how the style reverts to the earlier mode when the tale follows the Hobbits back to The Shire. The style during the scenes in and around Minas Tirith necessarily steps up a gear to reflect the importance of the events taking place, and reverts when we are once again with the Hobbits. I do not find this intrusive, in fact I would never have noticed it before it was mentioned to me, as it fits with the pace of the story.

[HerenIstarion]

I pondered about an issue and concluded I may be a baggageless man, or the next best thing (language issue, not other allusions). Indeed, I learned my English via Tolkien, and all I've read seemed natural to me at a time. To an extent that my own vocabulary consisted of 'lo!'s and 'deem's at earlier stages, and I've been accused of talking 'archaic garbage' once on another forum. Yet, having little notion of how 'modern English' should sound, I found it normal

On the other hand, the change of style does not break anything for me even now, when I have acquired some bags, for it also seems natural - further hobbits (the nearest thing to modern world to be found in ME) get from the Shire, more olden everything gets. It feels like diving into time, and the deepest levels should contain ancient fish, not found on the surface. I would have been dissapointed if Eomer recited in Bilbo's 'bussinesslike manner' reserved for people trying to borrow from him. That would certainly break the enchantement ;)

Besides, events acquire almost biblical scope towards the end - it is the Black Gate to be passed by the King symbolism, it seems suitable to speak 'high'. (I know I mostly repeat Lalwendë's post here, I just want to add 'Biblical' to the 'to reflect the importance of the events taking place')

It uplifts rather than breaks. But individual cases may vary, of course.

[davem]

'Oh, like, no, man! The King's like dead, dudes! What a bummerrrr!' ;) :D

or

This is an epic romance not a modern novel..

The battles are described in what I would call stirring but realistic detail. Now, here we have an extemporaneous poem. Can such be written in the heat of battle? It seems implausible. Is Éomer reciting old verse from long ago, such as Tolkien discussed in his essay on "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth"? It doesn't seem quite plausible either, to find a song so suited to the exact situation.

I'm not sure this was 'written in the heat of battle', because it does strike me as 'old verse from long ago'. First of all it does not specifically mention Theoden, secondly, I would expect someone from an oral culture to have a head full of poems & snatches of verse. To my mind its the furthest thing from 'surprising' that Eomer would have a verse like that in mind. He's in battle & probably at that moment has his head full of the old lays - probably during their rest periods on the way to Minas Tirith they would have had bards singing those very lays.

Besides, the all Rohirrim speak in an archaic manner. I actually find it a little more likely that Eomer would find a snatch of that kind of verse in his head at that moment than that Eowyn, on confronting the WK would come out with 'Begone foul Dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!' But I have to say that is analysing after the fact. When I read that chapter I'm so caught up in the events that none of that occurs. I must say that if you're reading The Battle of Pelennor Fields & find the spell is broken by something as 'trivial' as Eomer reciting a few lines of verse that's something I really don't get at all.

This is the problem with an 'analytical' reading, when you refuse to just let the story grab you and sweep you along - you're always at a 'distance' from what's happening, always weighing it up & asking yourself whether 'this' or 'that' is convincing. Its like watching a movie on dvd & stopping it every few moments to do a critique of it. Its this approach to reading & re-reading that inevitably lessens the magic of the experience.

As far as I'm concerned Eomer recited those lines over Theoden's fallen body in the heat of that battle - & do you know why? Not for the reasons I gave earlier, but because when I read that episode it feels right.

[Bêthberry]

I have no quarrel with anyone who is happy reading the archaic/ornate style and, as I said earlier, my intention is not to persuade people to my point, simply to respond to the thread topic. However, I would like to make a few comments about some of the points raised.

Lalwendë, you raise several interesting points, but my problem with these passages is not the general need for a more formal style to suit the earth-shattering events. I would be quite happy reading a story with great heterogeneity of style. It is how the style is handled in the particular contexts. Also, I find that we tend to bring in this conceit of the Redbook to explain away many difficulties of the text--do we really at the time of reading say, 'Oh, this is the Redbook's writer writing here and not the story's usual narrator'--do we remember that all in the breathless excitement of reading--but I don't think we've ever really had a thread to examine this conceit closely. Frankly, I don't think it works here as a justification for radical changes to character's style of dialogue.

Interesting that you bring in the verses recited over Boromir. That leave-taking scene has always given me a strong sense of the importance in Middle-earth of the rituals of death and remembrance and lamentation. I think some sort of recitation by Éomer would be absolutely fitting and in keeping with the nature of the Rohirrim. All I am saying is that to my ear this passage was abruptly handled and I would, to keep the enchantment up, like more writing devoted to this scene, to establish its tone and tenor.

Nothing, I think, can address the issue of why the style of dialogue--one of the fundamental aspects of characterisation in this work--changes so fundamentally.

Heren, right you are to point out that you learnt your letters at Tolkien's knee! ;) It is possible that someday we could have a long discussion on what is "natural"--for that feeling is a function of various qualities and not an absolute standard--but that is probably for another time.

I don't wish to belabour my readings. I simply gave in response to littlemanpoet's example some examples of my own and I will now shut up.

Interesting that no one here has replied to littlemanpoet's observation that Sam's "lor' help me" is inappropriate to Middle-earth. Any thoughts?

[Lalwendë]

Also, I find that we tend to bring in this conceit of the Redbook to explain away many difficulties of the text--do we really at the time of reading say, 'Oh, this is the Redbook's writer writing here and not the story's usual narrator'--do we remember that all in the breathless excitement of reading--but I don't think we've ever really had a thread to examine this conceit closely. Frankly, I don't think it works here as a justification for radical changes to character's style of dialogue.

This is the only time I've used the conceit of the Red Book as an explanation, as it doesn't seem to be relevant all the time, or else another explanation can be found within the text; I prefer to use these where possible. For the same reason I don't like to use the argument of Deus Ex Machina to explain plot twists; I always feel there has to be a reason within the text for everything. Yet here the conceit does seem appropriate as we are talking not about a part of the plot or the history of Middle Earth, but the writing style, particularly the authorial voice, and the conceit of the Red Book is a part of that.

The other interesting thing is that on my early readings I never noticed the change in style as something strange or abrupt, and I only notice it now because it has been brought to my attention by other readers. For me, the change in style works without feeling in any way strange.

[davem]

Also, I find that we tend to bring in this conceit of the Redbook to explain away many difficulties of the text--do we really at the time of reading say, 'Oh, this is the Redbook's writer writing here and not the story's usual narrator'

One could make a stab at an explanation along these lines...

Tolkien has set up in the foreword the conceit of LotR being a translatioon of the Red Book. It is a work with two main narrators - Frodo & Sam, but we are also told that the accounts have been 'supplimented by the learning of the wise'. We are also informed that the book from which Tolkien 'translated' the story was not the original book but a copy. He even includes an aside by Findegil the King's copyist.

What we seem to have then, is a version of the original work, which has been 'supplimented' through various copies & finally translated[ by an Oxford Don in the 1940's.

I think these multiple narrators/translators can easily account for variations in style. We are dealing with something akin to the way oral tales change over the years & 'grow in the telling' - albeit to a lesser degree. If the language in the Hobbit focussed part of the story is less 'archaic' & that in the Rohan/Gondor focussed part more so that is perhaps simply because the version Tolkien translated was not the original Red Book but one that came from the scriptorium of Minas Tirith. For Findegil, Gondor & Rohan were known commodities, & also as a Gondorian he would have taken a certain approach to the way his people & their nearest allies were presented in the historical record. Being less familiar with Hobbits (one assumes) he would have been less likely to tamper with those sections of the story, for fear of making a fool of himself.

Finally, we have to take into account the character of the ultimate translator, Professor Tolkien himself. He will necessarily bring a certain personal style to his translation.

All this, btw, remains within the approach of attempting to experience the story directly, because the figure of 'Tolkien the translator' is just as much a character within the legendarium as any inhabitant of Middle earth.

[Bêthberry]

I don't wish to turn this into an "I said/you said" argument which does not move the discussion forward, but I do want to clarify a point. I didn't say, Lalwendë that you personally used the Redbook as a handy recourse. The pronoun I used was we and I choose it deliberately (is there a BD 'we' as well as a royal we? ;) ), for this point has been used in the past by many others (myself included I bet), at least as I recall some of the many discussions in my time here, so I wasn't so much stating something about your argument, as the general tendency "we" have here.


I only notice it now because it has been brought to my attention by other readers.

Does that mean that we can't learn new things from our discussion here but must always return to our own first readings? Is something invalidated if we didn't notice it in our first flush of love reading? And what if someone noticed it on first reading/reading in the context of abandonment to story? Does that make it irrelevant if one person sees it and others don't?


One could make a stab at an explanation along these lines...

Tolkien has set up in the foreword the conceit of LotR being a translatioon of the Red Book. It is a work with two main narrators - Frodo & Sam, but we are also told that the accounts have been 'supplimented by the learning of the wise'. We are also informed that the book from which Tolkien 'translated' the story was not the original book but a copy. He even includes an aside by Findegil the King's copyist.

What we seem to have then, is a version of the original work, which has been 'supplimented' through various copies & finally translated[ by an Oxford Don in the 1940's.

This kind of point is why I suggested a thread might be interesting, to see how far this conceit can be taken in the text itself.

As a general theory or a good stab, I think you have stated how it could possibly work, davem. However, I think for it truely to exist in the text to justify the stylistic differences, we would have to see far more evidence of its workings.

We would, I think, have to have the kind of text similar to the Bible, which is very much a heterogeneous text. We could see things like the incomplete collation of the two creation stories in Genesis. We would have the story 'interrupted' by ritual prescriptions and laws, as Leviticus interrupts the story of Exodus. (I am not stating this literally, but as an example of the kind of variation.) We could be swept away by various kinds of story elements, symbolic as well as prophetic, and by various types of narrators. We could have psalms and the Song of Solomon beside narrative. We could see how various chapters are dependent on previous ones for their story elements, as occurs in the New Testament. This is just an example for elucidating what I would think might appear in such a 'handed down' text. And I'm sure other old narratives would offer their unique elements of textual tradition. I'm not saying this is the only one. Nor am I discounting the possibility that Tolkien could use the conceit in his own unique way.

However, I think we would see far more variation in the style, in the story elements, in the narrators' voices than we have at the moment. Right now, I think the conceit of the Redbook and the translations of various authors is just a conceit, nothing more. I don't think Tolkien 'built it into' the story. It is a bookend piece, part of the delightful story elements, but I don't think it plays a part in the story proper. Thus, I don't think it can really account for the variations of style.

I think a thread about this might be interesting, so this thread can remain devoted to littlemanpoet's topic. And his example, which is sitll unremarked upon.

[davem]

'Lor' bless you...

Well, we have two alternatives - we can look within the secondary world for an explanation or outside it. Looking outside it, we have alternatives again. One, there is the possibility that it slipped past Tolkien - as Shippey points out it is the kind of exclamation a working class person of Tolkien's period make come out with, so Tolkien used it without thinking. Second, it is a kind of 'half hidden' Christian reference, which again could be conscious or unconscious on Tolkien's part. Third, we can consider the origin of the word 'Lord'. It is anglo-saxon & derives from the word 'hlaford' or 'loaf keeper', referring to the head of the household. So, not necessarily a Christian reference, but its possible.

Approached from within the secondary world it is both more difficult to account for but it is also more evocative - it leads us to ask 'who is this 'Lord' who Sam is invoking? Is this one of only two direct references in the whole of LotR to Hobbit religion (the other one being Merry's exclamation of 'Lawks!' in Three is Company).

What I'm saying here is that 'Lor'/Lawks' only become a problem if we read with primary world baggage in our minds. If we do, then these exclamations may break the spell for us, if we can leave that baggage at the door then far frombreaking the spell they actually add depth by providing a mystery to be solved. They actually make Middle earth a bit odder & more mysterious than it at first seemed. Did the Hobbits have any 'religious' beliefs at all?

Of course, whether Tolkien slipped up or not, what his actual reason was in using these phrases is another question. Its only their primary world connotations that risk doing any damage to our experience. In the other current thread, on 'What ain't there...' we're discussing exactly this kind of thing - the question is, didn't hobbits ought to have some form of belief? If so, what form would it take? Go with the 'conceit' for a moment. Tolkien has a text to translate, he comes across two references to some kind of 'Higher power' in this text, but without any context. What does he do - excise them, or substiute some modern colloquial equivalent? Probably the latter.

Hope this makes sense.....

[HerenIstarion]

Hlaford, supplied with 'lawks' and given the agricultural society of the Shire, may give rise to certain suspicions - Corn King type of religion? Which, viewed from the 'Primary World' persepctive, may be seen as just another 'consciouly so' hint at Christianity?

Mind that neither remark is that obvious. It would certainly be hard to suspend disbelief if Sam exlaimed 'Jesus bless you'. How many people consciously connect 'lawks' with Christianity these days?

We sing duet, sir davem :) But you are good at your own sig, and reptiles of the mind don't stand a chance, it seems.

I refer to the manifold authorship (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=316885) issues (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=315392):

Yes, much is altered in Tolkien's later writings. The difficulties arisen from such a situtation are usually solved by yours truly on the following ground - the whole of the legendarium is presented as collection of legends and stories by different authors. There is no need for different authors to agree on every point they recount

I suppose it works for LoTR too.

Imagine it is not reading, but listening in rounds by the fire-side, when each story-teller continues the threadline passed on by the previous one. They all speak the same story, but in different words and styles, and adding of their own slightly. Some extra beards not accounted for in previous telling, some extra feet to the height of the enemy, but that is minor, and the flow is what counts. Keep an eye on the fire for the enchantment, and don't let the knowledge of the fact it's being electrically heated distract you :)

General tendency, yes. We, Augustus Bonifacius Rex, Basileus etc tend to use it in such a way :D. Why not, if it is presented as such? Even if it is a trick, not 'real magic' on Tolkien's part, it works wonders.

Concluding thought: It was 'willing suspension of disbelief' was it not? The accent falls on 'willing' here.

[littlemanpoet]

Of course, it could be that Tolkien created that forst step in a way which is a lot more subtle than transitional fantasies, but I would argue that the very oddness of The Shire, and the fact that it represents no England that ever existed beyond the poetic constructs of memory, does make it immediately immersive.

I think you're right. This thread is especially for me a means of thinking about the writing/reading process in terms of my (to be post mortemly published I'm sure) work of transitional fantasy. The primary world that I feign in my story is, as you say in regard to Austen and others, not real. It only has to be real enough to enchant the reader; that is, as Fordim has reflected, for the reader to co-create the feigned reality. The degree to which Tolkien went to achieve this is frankly astounding, and maybe impossible to duplicate.

As for "out of sync", I see how that applies to the Shire. I will enjoy considering how that applies to my story.

As to specific examples (which I'm responding to out of context because I'm lazy and/or lack time):

Eomer's verse works for me because it's alliterative and within the oral tradition that Tolkien based the Rohirrim on.

Gimli's high-flown speech in the Last Debate seems like it needs the "multiple writers" explanation, because he just didn't talk like that earlier. Think of his words to Eomer at their first meeting. Or to Galadriel at the gift giving.

I like Eowyn's "dwimorlaik" very much. It just feels so Germanic/Anglo-Saxon.

As for the attempted explanations of "lawks" and "Lor'", that stuff didn't stand out to me in my "love reading". But then I was only age 12. Nor did it stand out to me in any reading before this current one. The only way that this works for me is to use the conceit that Tolkien is translating some generic semi-polite expletive.

(1)Does that mean that we can't learn new things from our discussion here but must always return to our own first readings? (2)Is something invalidated if we didn't notice it in our first flush of love reading? (3)And what if someone noticed it on first reading/reading in the context of abandonment to story? (4)Does that make it irrelevant if one person sees it and others don't?

I hope you don't mind my numbering for the sake of referential short hand:

(1) This question is more difficult than it seems on the surface. Whereas the discussions here and knowledge gleaned elsewhere do enrich our understanding and appreciation of LotR and other of Tolkien's works, it comes at a price. At least, we (some of us) are required to "pay more" in terms of trying to experience secondary belief in re-readings.

(2) Certainly not! But knowledge comes with a price of that first naiveté lost (and I mean that in the best sense of the word).

(3) It will affect the reader's experience of the story such that it may hinder secondary belief.

(4) Certainly not! It will at least make for interesting discussions on this thread! :D

It was 'willing suspension of disbelief' was it not? The accent falls on 'willing' here.

No, actually it's slightly more complicated. Willing suspension of disbelief is necessary once the enchantment has already been broken. Secondary belief, by contrast, is the reader "co-creating the feigned reality" with the author. I do find davem's argument persuasive that in a well-feigned secondary reality it is the reader's responsibility to work with the author. However, I still think that the more one knows about writing and reading, the greater the difficulty in co-creating. This is also true given a greater difference between Tolkien's cultural context and the reader's; no fault of either writer or reader, but a consequence nonetheless.

[Bêthberry]

However, I still think that the more one knows about writing and reading, the greater the difficulty in co-creating. This is also true given a greater difference between Tolkien's cultural context and the reader's; no fault of either writer or reader, but a consequence nonetheless.

Just some musings about this. Do you mean that, with subsequent readings and more conscious awareness of literary affects, that the sense of the true meaning of ordinary life, which is revealed through the enchantment with the subcreated world, is lost? Or do you mean that the link between the two becomes harder to maintain? Would this mean that writers themselves no longer experience this joy, either in their own writing or when they read other fantasy?

I would have thought that, since Tolkien's view of the imagination is tied in so closely with language, the creation of meaning, that the more one understands how words mean, the more one is able to join in that subcreative activity. (By the way, I don't deny the importance of the reader working with the text. I would use text rather than author.)

It seems to me that any sense of fantasy which is so heavily based on the virginal or naive first reading has to be doomed to a kind of linguistic fall unless one can account for new meanings which come to the imagination upon subsequent readings. Or if there is some other kind of relationship between primary and secondary world. If the only value of fantasy is this defamiliarising quality which makes us see our world newly, then once that act has been achieved, ...

The other point which can be made is to ask whether these breaks you feel in the enchantment are sufficient to destroy the final overall affect of consolation, recovery, joy. I mean, how long must an epiphany be?

By the way, I've just read some stuff about George MacDonald, who of course greatly prefigured Tolkien and Lewis in attributing the value of the imagination to fantasy. I thought it might be useful here to consider.


One difference between God's work and man's is, that, while God's work cannot mean more than he meant, man's must mean more than he meant. For in everything that God has made, there is layer upon layer of ascending significance; also he expresses the same thought in higher and higher kinds of that thought; it is God's things, his embodied thoughts, which alone a man has to use, modified and adapted to his own purposes, for the expression of his thoughts; therefore he cannot help his words and figures falling into such combinations in the mind of another as he himself had not foreseen, so many are the thoughts allied to every other thought, so many are the relations involved in every figure, so many the facts hinted in every symbol. A man may well himself discover truth in what he wrote; for he was dealing all the time with things that came from thoughts beyond his own.

This rather fits the Tolkien letter you referred to earlier, that he had not initially seen things in Galadriel that he later saw (or had pointed out to him). So, if Tolkien had a sense of coming closer towards discovering the story rather than inventing it, why cannot the reader also have this experience, as the two are joined in the act of subcreating?

I'm not sure any of this is very coherent or lucid.

[davem]

It seems to me that any sense of fantasy which is so heavily based on the virginal or naive first reading has to be doomed to a kind of linguistic fall unless one can account for new meanings which come to the imagination upon subsequent readings.

I don't think its about basing our sense of fantasy on 'on the virginal or naive first reading'. Its about (for me) finding new depth & meaning within the secondary world rather than attempting to supply that depth & meaning from an external source - ie the Primary world.

This rather fits the Tolkien letter you referred to earlier, that he had not initially seen things in Galadriel that he later saw (or had pointed out to him). So, if Tolkien had a sense of coming closer towards discovering the story rather than inventing it, why cannot the reader also have this experience, as the two are joined in the act of subcreating?

This should be our goal on re reading any text, but we should look to the text itself (& the supplimentary work by the author) & our own speculations & surmises about it rather than attempting to find 'relevant' connections outside it - if we want the enchantment to deepen. If we bring in too much of the primary world we may find that the secondary world isn't strong enough to hold it & it will start to unravel - this is our part in the co-creation of the secondary world. We have to assist in the building of it, rather than simply standing around, looking at things & saying 'You know, this is really such & such - I think I'm being had!.'

In his continuing 'meditations on Galadriel Tolkien 'realised' that she was a kind of Virgin Mary figure in the sense that they shared certain symbolic attributes, but she never became merely an allegory of Mary. She could always stand alone as a figure within Middle earth.

Now, I'm not saying its not interesting to make connections between Middle earth & the primary world - I've indulged in that kind of play myself, but while it can be entertaining what I've found is that it takes me away from the actual experience, the 'enchantment'. Its fine to say 'This reminds me of so & so' - in fact, we can't help but be reminded in some cases, but to go beyond that & say 'This must equal that, they're the same thing' is asking for the spell to be broken.

[Formendacil]

You know, there's a reason it has taken me until Page 3 to post in this thread. Like Lalwende in the "Choices of Master Samwise" thread, I dislike tearing apart the text to find the "hidden meaning" in it. And this thread, while intent on searching out the holes that Tolkien left in it, not the holes of our own making, seems a little to close to that for my comfort.

However, a thought occurred to me that I thought bore mentioning, here if not elsewhere. Here it is:

The "enchantment" that the Lord of the Rings puts on us is much like the golden eggs of nursery rhyme fodder. Both are beneficial to us, and bring a great deal of joy into our lives. However, how is it possible for a goose to lay golden eggs? In the fable, which I no longer fully recall (*ashamed*), the owners of the goose kill her to get at the eggs, and thus obviously ending the enchantment.

And it seems to me that to over-examine the cracks and holes in the book's enchantment is tantamount to killing the goose. In doing so, are we perhaps ending any future benefit, any future enchantment?

I'm not convinced, but the parallels seems clear...

Avoiding such discussions in general,

Formendacil

[littlemanpoet]

Do you mean that, with subsequent readings and more conscious awareness of literary effects, that the sense of the true meaning of ordinary life, which is revealed through the enchantment with the subcreated world, is lost? Or do you mean that the link between the two becomes harder to maintain? Would this mean that writers themselves no longer experience this joy, either in their own writing or when they read other fantasy?

No, not lost; yes, harder to experience. Writers can experience secondary belief, but it is harder. Secondary belief has become harder for me to experience the more I understand about the craft of writing. It has been the same kind of experience for me regarding music, all my life. I was taught early to be discriminating in my taste of music, and the reasons why. the result has been that music that moves most people fails to move me because its faults are too glaring. It might be too repetitive, or the melody might be too trite, or the chord progression might be too redundant, or the style might be so like everything else currently in vogue that I can't even hear it as other than trite. With writing and reading it's a little different, but not much. A story doesn't hook me as easily as it might have a few years ago. I'm too aware of the techniques the writer has employed, and especially the failures and second and third rate stuff.

EDIT: But mostly, if a story doesn't have any of that indescribable atmosphere, that air, that breath of wonder and grasp of life right on the cusp of faery that I discovered in Tolkien, I put it down after just a couple of pages. There are some writers who can still do this for me. O.S. Card, LeGuin, our own mark12_30 (Helen), and a few others.

I would have thought that, since Tolkien's view of the imagination is tied in so closely with language, the creation of meaning, that the more one understands how words mean, the more one is able to join in that subcreative activity.

And so it is, but only when the writer is at a high enough standard of craft such that the "trees in the forest' don't call attention to themselves and away from the story itself. This has happened very rarely in my current re-reading of Tolkien, but it has happened now, twice in five chapters.

If the only value of fantasy is this defamiliarising quality which makes us see our world newly, then once that act has been achieved, ...

....one starts writing one's own fairy stories. ;) ... which is what Tolkien and Lewis agreed to do, precisely because nobody was writing the kind of stuff they wanted to read. I'm not sure theirs was the same dilemma I face with broken enchantment, but it resonates the same.

The other point which can be made is to ask whether these breaks you feel in the enchantment are sufficient to destroy the final overall affect of consolation, recovery, joy. I mean, how long must an epiphany be?

I tend not to experience this "crj" trinity by reading LotR anymore. It's why I re-read Smith of Wootton Major so often. But I did have a few brief moments of recovery. For example, when the Barrow Downs are mentioned before (?) the Hobbits make it to Tom Bombadil's house, I felt that same old thrill as the first time I read the book; and oddly, it was associated with the Pauline Baynes map, which I must have had before me as I read!

Your mention, Bêthberry, of George MacDonald, is appropo to the idea of reader as co-creator with the author. But what this necessarily means is that Middle-earth as it exists in your imagination, and Middle-earth as it exists in mine, are at variance with each other, to what degree no one can say. Is yours better than mine, or mine better than yours? Of course not! As we converse about them, your M-e informs mine and mine informs yours, and understanding and appreciation grows. This happened for me most recently in regard to an insight Lalwendê had, regarding the apparent ability of Sauron and his Nazgul to unbody a spirit then torment that spirit, not allowing it to escape into death. When I first read her insight I thought "Nonsense!" But as I saw more and more references to it in my own readings of LotR, I realized that Lal was right, and that my own understanding of this point had been enhanced, against my initial inclination!

This should be our goal on re reading any text, but we should look to the text itself (& the supplimentary work by the author) & our own speculations & surmises about it rather than attempting to find 'relevant' connections outside it - if we want the enchantment to deepen. If we bring in too much of the primary world we may find that the secondary world isn't strong enough to hold it & it will start to unravel - this is our part in the co-creation of the secondary world. We have to assist in the building of it, rather than simply standing around, looking at things & saying 'You know, this is really such & such - I think I'm being had!.'

Whereas I think this is the best way to read LotR, and any work of fiction - the first time, I think that you overstate the case in regard to drawing from the primary world in order to find meaning or increase understanding and appreciation/enjoyment. If we are indeed co-creators of the writer's world within our own imagination, drawing from the primary world is both inevitable and desirable. In fact, davem, you do it as much as anybody. Fractals, anyone? ;) I think you've stated it well in the final paragraph of your most recent post.

And it seems to me that to over-examine the cracks and holes in the book's enchantment is tantamount to killing the goose. In doing so, are we perhaps ending any future benefit, any future enchantment?

Quite. This was the reason I introduced the thread with my "warning". If you recall, Warning: this thread may be hazardous to the enchantment Tolkien's stories weave on you. Proceed at your own risk. I was not joking.

[HerenIstarion]

Dear Cecil:

Cecil, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schroedinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, Cecil, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schroedinger's zoo.

--Randy F., Chicago


Dear Randy:

Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our ***** still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

CECIL ADAMS


Following Terry Pratchatt, I may add that Enchantement in a box may be in a third state too, that is, bloody furious because of being put into the box in the first place. Wear protective gloves before you proceed (at your own risk ;)) to open it....

[davem]

Whereas I think this is the best way to read LotR, and any work of fiction - the first time, I think that you overstate the case in regard to drawing from the primary world in order to find meaning or increase understanding and appreciation/enjoyment. If we are indeed co-creators of the writer's world within our own imagination, drawing from the primary world is both inevitable and desirable. In fact, davem, you do it as much as anybody. Fractals, anyone? I think you've stated it well in the final paragraph of your most recent post.

I do, but I think I also stated (somewhere) that it is likely to break the enchantment. I also said that this should be the 'third stage' in our approach to reading- stage 1 is to try & experience the story as story - which is not necessarily to read it without any thought. The whole 'translator conceit' may be part of that, because it is part of what we have from the author, part of the creation itself, along with the background history of the secondary world, the variant texts, etc. Stage 2 is attempting to understand the author's motivations & influences, from his backgorund knowledge, influences, personal history, etc (John Garth's suggestion of Tolkien seeing the world 'through enchanted eyes' in the way his WW1 experiences may have played a part in the writings (as in the way that his time on the Somme may have affected the story of the Fall of Gondolin in BoLT, etc). Stage 3 would be exploring what we bring to our reading out of our personal experience. My point is that only in stage 1 are we likely to experience 'enchantment' & the more we focus on stages 2&3 the more likely we are to experience the loss of that enchantment, because we are bringing things into the secondary world that have no place there.

There is a difference between bringing our 'experience' of 'trees, hills & rivers, of bread & stone, wind & sunshine to the secondary world, because these things help to personalise the secondary world & make it as much ours as the author's, & bringing our knowledge of mythology, history, psychology, etc, to the secondary world. This is, I think, what Tolkien was referring to by the demolishing of the tower to see where the stones from which it was built originally came from, or asking the origins of the bones from which the 'soup' was boiled.

It depends what you want - enchantment, or a knowledge of the writer, or even a greater knowledge of yourself. Of course, its possible that stages 2 & 3, may feed back into your experience of stage 1 'unconsciously' (but we can't know about that or the way it affects us ;), but we should try & avoid the stages blurring into one. whenever we read the book we should always try & read it fresh, as if we're travellers in that world, not see it as a 'quarry' for other things.

As to the 'fractals' thing, that was really just an analogy to make a point, rather than an attempt to imply that fractals have anything to do with it. It would be very easy to get distracted from the direct experience of the story if we have that kind of baggage in mind as we read.

[Lalwendë]

This happened for me most recently in regard to an insight Lalwendê had, regarding the apparent ability of Sauron and his Nazgul to unbody a spirit then torment that spirit, not allowing it to escape into death. When I first read her insight I thought "Nonsense!" But as I saw more and more references to it in my own readings of LotR, I realized that Lal was right, and that my own understanding of this point had been enhanced, against my initial inclination!

This itself came from another re-reading, and it wasn't something I'd ever picked up on before. The last reading was carried out in the wake of reading many of Tolkien's later writings such as Osanwe-kenta and Morgoth's Ring. It shows that each reading is different to the last, that different points interest me or seem to jump out from the page. I do think that we bring our recently acquired knowledge to each re-reading in this way, or was it that I was consciously reading with 'care' as I was taking part in the chapter by chapter discussions? Would I have noticed this had I not been taking part in those discussions?

There is a difference between bringing our 'experience' of 'trees, hills & rivers, of bread & stone, wind & sunshine to the secondary world, because these things help to personalise the secondary world & make it as much ours as the author's, & bringing our knowledge of mythology, history, psychology, etc, to the secondary world.

Following on from what davem says here, are there right and wrong types of knowledge to bring to a reading if we are to read in the way he talks about? I often will read something which reminds me of something else in mythology or history, often strikingly so. But what I tend to do is consider whether Tolkien would have known about that correlation, wonder if he was making a play on something else and so forth. I did this last year when I watched a documentary on Newton and made a link to Saruman's breaking the Light. It was a consideration I wished to play with as I felt sure Tolkien would have been fully aware of Newton's experiments. Is this a valid comparison to make if we consider it within the bounds of whether Tolkien would have possessed that knowledge?

EDIT: And just to add context to the question, when I saw the documentary on Newton it immediately threw into sharp relief what had previously, to me, been a quite difficult to comprehend part of the story. I suddenly 'understood' exactly what Saruman had been doing or attempting to do. Or did I? Did I just apply that knowledge to what I was reading of this secondary world?

[littlemanpoet]

...are there right and wrong types of knowledge to bring to a reading if we are to read in the way he talks about? I often will read something which reminds me of something else in mythology or history, often strikingly so. But what I tend to do is consider whether Tolkien would have known about that correlation, wonder if he was making a play on something else and so forth. I did this last year when I watched a documentary on Newton and made a link to Saruman's breaking the Light. It was a consideration I wished to play with as I felt sure Tolkien would have been fully aware of Newton's experiments. Is this a valid comparison to make if we consider it within the bounds of whether Tolkien would have possessed that knowledge?

Valid? Why wouldn't it be? Granted, Newton's light is primary world light, while Tolkien's is subcreated Light; there seem to be spiritual, or at least mythical overtones in Tolkien not to be (readily) found in Newton, but an understanding of Newton's light can surely serve as a basis for enhanced understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment, no?

Hmmmm..... but if that can be, is there any real difference between that and a comparison between Shelob and Lilith? There may be more that is different than similar, but that merely says what is true of most comparisons. The similarities are what cause comparisons at all, and might not knowledge of Lilith reveal things about Shelob? It might break the enchantment to think of Newton or Lilith on a first reading, but once the first reading is done, the enchantment cannot (I think) truly ever be completely recovered for anyone (despite protestations to the contrary), because LotR was designed to be an enchantment that must come to an end. .... "Well, I'm back."

[davem]

I've said I don't have any problem with 'applying' whatever the reader finds applicable. But we enter into a difficult area - what about the 'application' of racist theories, or the 'application' of the atomic bomb to the Ring, or the 'application' of WW2 generally to LotR?

I suspect most of us would have some dispute with any of these 'applications' - particularly the first.

The danger with 'application' is that it can merge subtly into allegory, so that the Ring becomes seen as 'nothing but' the bomb - Shelob 'nothing but' Lilith, or Saruman 'nothing but' Newton, etc. If we are careful to keep the 'applications' seperate from the meaning there won't be a problem - we may even gain some insight into ourselves & what the text means to us. But as I say, there is a danger that we give too much weight to our applications to the point that they become 'necessary' to our understanding & the story we're reading is placed 'in the service' of another story.

If the Secondary World is well enough constructed then it will not require such input from the Primary World - if it does, then it has not been well enough put together & the author has failed to enchant us. Also, the more aware we are in our reading of theses applications, the more we will be distracted, pulled out of the Secondary World into the Primary world, because the necessary dividing line will be lost.

The similarities are what cause comparisons at all, and might not knowledge of Lilith reveal things about Shelob?

Well, will it 'reveal' things - ie, give us insight into Shelob as Shelob, a character in Middle earth, or will it simply be a conflation of the two, so that in the end we end up with no clear sense of either. Apart from general similarities, how much alike are they? Of course, these 'applications' are useful as a kind of 'shorthand' in discussing the text with others (like the fractals image) but we have to use them carefully when it comes to applying them to our own reading as we read.

[Saurreg]

I've said I don't have any problem with 'applying' whatever the reader finds applicable. But we enter into a difficult area - what about the 'application' of racist theories, or the 'application' of the atomic bomb to the Ring, or the 'application' of WW2 generally to LotR?

I suspect most of us would have some dispute with any of these 'applications' - particularly the first.

The danger with 'application' is that it can merge subtly into allegory, so that the Ring becomes seen as 'nothing but' the bomb - Shelob 'nothing but' Lilith, or Saruman 'nothing but' Newton, etc. If we are careful to keep the 'applications' seperate from the meaning there won't be a problem - we may even gain some insight into ourselves & what the text means to us. But as I say, there is a danger that we give too much weight to our applications to the point that they become 'necessary' to our understanding & the story we're reading is placed 'in the service' of another story.

If the Secondary World is well enough constructed then it will not require such input from the Primary World - if it does, then it has not been well enough put together & the author has failed to enchant us. Also, the more aware we are in our reading of theses applications, the more we will be distracted, pulled out of the Secondary World into the Primary world, because the necessary dividing line will be lost.



Well, will it 'reveal' things - ie, give us insight into Shelob as Shelob, a character in Middle earth, or will it simply be a conflation of the two, so that in the end we end up with no clear sense of either. Apart from general similarities, how much alike are they? Of course, these 'applications' are useful as a kind of 'shorthand' in discussing the text with others (like the fractals image) but we have to use them carefully when it comes to applying them to our own reading as we read.

A very good post davem. Got me thinking again, as you had in the other thread.

I heed your urgent call not to infer and deduce wild allegories that are not in the works at all. I personally think that people who make such wild accusations have chips on their shoulders and their own demons to exorcise.

However may I build on your point that different people of different background and cultures hold different points of view and thus "apply" differently. Those real-world applications that you mentioned have never crossed the minds of my mates and myself for that matter of fact when we read LoTR. On the whole we enjoyed the book as a good fantasy read and the notions of racism, industrialism and allegories wide-scale war and weapons of mass destruction never crossed our minds.

A good non-Tolkien related example of what I am trying to relate here is my experience is English Literature for the GCE "Ordinary" Levels. Our literature text was Macbeth and our teacher was an English woman. She tried her best to make us read into the play in her point of view and understand the commonly interpreted themes in it, but us Asian students were unable to do so no matter how hard we tried. To us, all her analysis and explanations were unconvincing at at times irrelevant to what we thought. It was an exasperating period for both sides and we were finally reduced to the state of her simply reciting her notes and points of each scene and us scribbling them down and memorizing for the exams.

Those of us who memorized and regurgitated the contents of our brains score pretty well for the paper. The braver lot who tried their very best to appreciate the play and then write down their own thoughts on the discussion questions fared poorly - even though we all latter agreed that those poor souls' answers made more sense than the Cambridge model answers.

[Lalwendë]

If the Secondary World is well enough constructed then it will not require such input from the Primary World - if it does, then it has not been well enough put together & the author has failed to enchant us. Also, the more aware we are in our reading of theses applications, the more we will be distracted, pulled out of the Secondary World into the Primary world, because the necessary dividing line will be lost.

When I first applied my knowledge of Newton to Saruman, an initial thought was that Tolkien could have been saying something negative about science and scientists by using Newtonian experiments as a metaphor for what Saruman was doing. I also thought that Saruman was actually replicating what Newton had done, and got very excited speculating about the possibilities! But even though I still see the connections as incredibly strong, I must accept that the Newtonian imagery was simply metaphor. davem is right that the primary world can intrude if we are not careful, as this experience showed me that in my rush of excitement at discovering a clever link, I had forgotten that this was indeed Light and not mere light.

Still, it was great fun to speculate, and I now have a more clear idea of what Saruman might be like, whereas before, my idea of him had been quite slippery and elusive. So maybe there are some grey areas where primary world ideas or images can actually help us to gain a deeper understanding, as long as we ensure to keep a clear head and ask if such ideas or images are relevant to Middle Earth?

once the first reading is done, the enchantment cannot (I think) truly ever be completely recovered for anyone (despite protestations to the contrary), because LotR was designed to be an enchantment that must come to an end

I detect the sound of a can of worms being opened. Can that enchantment be recovered? I would argue that no reading is ever quite like the first time, as with wondering eyes we first take in the sights of Middle Earth. But that first read depends a lot upon the plot, on the fact that we don't know what is going to happen. Readings at a later date are different, as we have more opportunity to stop for a moment and take in a view or appreciate the scent of the elanor. These readings are (or should be) as full of enchantment as the nature of ME makes us feel that way, but it is a different type of enchantment.

[Bêthberry]

Busy days make keeping up with this thread difficult, but here is a stab.


Your mention, Bêthberry, of George MacDonald, is appropo to the idea of reader as co-creator with the author. But what this necessarily means is that Middle-earth as it exists in your imagination, and Middle-earth as it exists in mine, are at variance with each other, to what degree no one can say. Is yours better than mine, or mine better than yours? Of course not! As we converse about them, your M-e informs mine and mine informs yours, and understanding and appreciation grows. This happened for me most recently in regard to an insight Lalwendê had, regarding the apparent ability of Sauron and his Nazgul to unbody a spirit then torment that spirit, not allowing it to escape into death. When I first read her insight I thought "Nonsense!" But as I saw more and more references to it in my own readings of LotR, I realized that Lal was right, and that my own understanding of this point had been enhanced, against my initial inclination!


Let's go back to your comment on one of these threads ;) about the connotations the word 'buccolic' has for you. This is a personal shading of the word which derives from your personal experience of reading the word in various contexts. It is not 'wrong' because it might deviate from other people's connotations of the word, as it has been created out of your reading experience. Not everyone has this same personal experience. Yet, in reading the context of your use of the words, people can come to understand your shading. And, as you read the context of another person's use of buccolic, you will, as the good reader you are, come to understand his or her use of the word. This variation in connotation is part and parcel of how we learn and use language. In fact, it is even given a special name in linguistics: "idiolect", to distinguish it from 'dialect.'

So, I would extrapolate, that everyone's reading of Middle-earth will contain differences, some slight, some larger, some very large, depending upon the distance between the communities of language to which each reader and the original author belongs. Learning a 'foreign' language is not a matter of making equivalences between words of the two languages, but of coming to understand the culture that produces the second language, knowing its similarities and differences from the native language. But in fact all language use, even of our own native tongue, involves this translating. And it is a translating that is not solely personal, but partaking of the interpretive community which uses that language.

It is somewhat similar, I think, to the Catholic Church's use of symbols and ritual to express meaning. Those symbols and rituals have different referents in different languages, but the participants will find congruency. (This is somewhat different from the Protestant approach, which to my mind is far more literal-minded, but that is another debate.)

Behind George MacDonald's theory was his belief that God orders the universe, and that ultimately all things will point to the divine meaning. This was I suspect also the unifying source for Tolkien's sense that ultimately we will be drawn to understand the fuller spiritual meaning in his tale. But Tolkien was happy for readers to take what they can from his tales, for he had faith that ultimately full or replete understanding would become available. This is why, I think, it is ill-advised to say there is only one way of reading a text. It think texts create their readers as much as readers create the text, and in that interchange, as you have suggested in your understanding of Lal's point about Sauron, lies how meaning is created. Perhaps we focus too intently on 'enchantment' as a complete surrender to the subcreated world, for always there is this inherent fuller meaning pointing to how the subcreated world will change us in the primary world. I don't think enchantment always has to mean some kind of pentecostal (I mean that in the orignal sense of Pentecost, what the English call Whitsuntide, rather than the pentecostal used by certain sects to reflect the emotive nature of their religious experience) burning of tongues with hot coals.


I heed your urgent call not to infer and deduce wild allegories that are not in the works at all. I personally think that people who make such wild accusations have chips on their shoulders and their own demons to exorcise.


While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I wonder what the benefit is of ascribing to people who don't share your opinion some kind of psychological problem or difficulty. What is the value, on a discussion forum, of characterising those who don't agree with you, negatively? What good will it do to reach understanding? Those who agree with your opinion will simply agree while those who disagree will not be persuaded to come over to your opinion since you, perhaps without realising it, insult them.

Your point also begs the question of "what is in the works". Tolkien himself was always discovering more of 'what was in his works'.

However, your example of the unfortunate English class studying MacBeth is a perfect example of what I am trying to explain.


Our literature text was Macbeth and our teacher was an English woman. She tried her best to make us read into the play in her point of view and understand the commonly interpreted themes in it, but us Asian students were unable to do so no matter how hard we tried. To us, all her analysis and explanations were unconvincing at at times irrelevant to what we thought. It was an exasperating period for both sides and we were finally reduced to the state of her simply reciting her notes and points of each scene and us scribbling them down and memorizing for the exams.

Those of us who memorized and regurgitated the contents of our brains score pretty well for the paper. The braver lot who tried their very best to appreciate the play and then write down their own thoughts on the discussion questions fared poorly - even though we all latter agreed that those poor souls' answers made more sense than the Cambridge model answers.

Here was your English teacher telling you what the text meant based on her interpretive community and based on her sense that there is one definitive way to understand the text. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider how time, place and cultural differences affect our readings because they affect our use of language.

And, by the by, I never, ever said Shelob was Lilith or was only Lilith. What I suggested was that elements of that legend partly inform her as well as informing Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowyn. But I have further thoughts to say about that chapter, which I will reserve for the Chapter by Chapter thread.

So, all in all, it seems to me with come up with some differing ideas about enchantment:

1) It occurs only once, the first reading, when we fall wholly and not-consciously thinking into the seeming reality of the subcreated world. In other words, the only way to experience this jcr is to first be enraptured.

2) It can be broken when elements remind us too forcefully of the primary world OR of the nature of writing as a created construct.

3) We can posit a concurrent, ongoing relationship between the subcreated world and the primary world, such that we don't have to hold the jcr in waiting until the reading is concluded.

4) We can posit a different form of reading theory that isn't so dependent upon this kind of Pentecost of experience.

What I think is of crucial value in Tolkien's defense of fantasy was less his arguement, based as it was on his Faith, but that he defended it as important to human nature at a time when it was relegated to the insignificant realms of children's literature. He made us aware of the importance of dragons in our imaginative lives, and, by extension, in our normal, waking lives.

Wow, this is a long way away from the thread's beginning. Sorry if I've rambled on.

[davem]

I suppose this opens up the question of the degree of 'feedback' we experience between the primary & secondary worlds. If our encounter with the secondary world feeds back into our experience of the primary, & that new experience of the primary affects out later experience of the secondary, does that increaingly enhance & deepen our experience of both? Or does it at the same time make the primary world more 'enchanting' (woods in the primary world seeming 'overshadowed' by Lorien, so that almost we expect to see Elves wandering under those once familiar trees but also make the Golden Wood less 'enchanting' by being too similar now to our experience of primary world woodland, so that we can't shake the memory of that pile of trash someone dumped under the trees?

Yet, if this world was once Middle earth, perhaps our reading will make us wish to do what we can to heal the natural world?

But I think this is different to bringing in ideas from myth, psychology, science & the like, because they are not things of the natural, primary world, but 'theories' & beliefs, & perhaps the problem is not taking natural objects of the primary into the secondary world, but these beliefs & interpretations in there.

The Shelob/Lilith thing is interesting because it brings up the question of what aspects of Lilith one applies & what aspects one leaves. Clearly the part of Lilith's myth referring to her marriage to Adam doesn't apply, for one thing. So, you're not bringing in Lilith qua Lilith, but only those aspects that you find 'applicable' - anything that doesn't apply is put on one side as not relevant to the discussion. Some would argue though, that the aspect I've mentioned is one of the most important & significant aspects of Lilith, because of what it reveals about the relationship of God to his creatures, & the way the culture which produced the myth understood the nature of the Feminine. Then again, the presentation of Lilith is not primal, anymore than the presentation of Hel in the Eddas is. They are, rather, biassed accounts of primal UnderWorld Goddesses of the culltures which were replaced by the makers of the current myths. The gods of one culture become the demons of the subsequent one.

Tolkien tended not to 'lift' mythological figures in any kind of complete way, & simply place them within a Middle-earth setting, but rather he would make use of what struck him in the stories he read. If Galadriel carries echoes of Mary, then it could be argued that Shelob carries similar 'echoes' of Lilith, but these 'echoes' would be of the aspects of those figures which he found relevant to his story. Rather than thinking 'I'll draw on Mary or Lilith here' I think it would have been more a case of him taking in 'bits & bobs' from the 'leaf mould' of his mind, which had become divorced from their original context & he made use of them to serve the story, rather than the story serving them. They are rather like the stones from which the tower was built. The man who built the tower didn't actually care about the origin of the stones - his only concern was being able to look out upon the Sea.

So, its not (in my opinion) about finding out 'how' Shelob or Galadriel came to be created, & what raw materials were used in their construction. They both stand or fall by what they are & the role they play in the story, & our experience of them.

[Bêthberry]

A quick quotation from Tolkien apropos of the applicability of the primary world, as I have little time today for replies. This comes from Letter #294 in response to a draft of an interview with Tolkien by Charlotte and Denis Plimmer.



Middle-earth ... corresponds spiritually to Nordic Europe.

Not Nordic, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories. Geographically Northern is better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to Middle-earth. ... Auden has asserted that for me 'the North is a sacred direction.' That is not true. The North-west of Europe, were I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man's home should. I love its atmosphere, andknow more of its histories and languages than I do of other parts; but it is not 'sacred', nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish. That it is untrue for my story, a mere reading of the synopses should show. The North was the seat of the fortresses of the Devil. The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a 'Nordic'.

This was written late in his life, in 1976. I would see this as Tolkien's use of a historical example to elucidate his text, not as a statement of a one to one correspondence between Aragorn/Gondor and the Holy Roman Empire.

[littlemanpoet]

If our encounter with the secondary world feeds back into our experience of the primary, & that new experience of the primary affects out later experience of the secondary, does that increasingly enhance & deepen our experience of both? Or does it at the same time make the primary world more 'enchanting' (woods in the primary world seeming 'overshadowed' by Lorien, so that almost we expect to see Elves wandering under those once familiar trees but also make the Golden Wood less 'enchanting' by being too similar now to our experience of primary world woodland, so that we can't shake the memory of that pile of trash someone dumped under the trees?

I'm sure this says far more about me than it does about broken enchantment (which is afterall a very subjective thing). I do have a reverence for trees, clouds, woods, ancient ruins, and open seas, that I might not have if I had never read Tolkien. On the other hand, what I tend to feel about the primary world is an emptiness, a lack of vitality, of enchantment. As wondrous and beautiful the "real world" is, I can't help feeling like something's missing, something that can only be grasped by the imagination. And it's not just the human stain of trash, suburbia, crime, what have you. It runs deeper than that. Arda is flawed by the designs of Morgoth. That is, the Secondary world Tolkien subcreated partakes of so much Real Life to do the degree that it is as flawed as the primary world. The world of the Fourth Age has lost much of the lustre. Light has been splintered. The Elves are leaving and enchantment is waning. I feel that both in Middle-earth and in our world, where the Elves are long gone and bereavement is the order of the day.

Yet, if this world was once Middle earth, perhaps our reading will make us wish to do what we can to heal the natural world?

Alas, we are fighting the long defeat, every bit as much as Galadriel and the Elves in the late Third Age. Arda must be remade. The Myth must be literally, primarily transformed. That's my belief, anyway.

So, its not (in my opinion) about finding out 'how' Shelob or Galadriel came to be created, & what raw materials were used in their construction. They both stand or fall by what they are & the role they play in the story, & our experience of them.

I agree. Thus, I think the disenchantment runs deeper. Light continues to splinter. The end of the Third Age was a time when those who lived then grieved the loss of so much that had thrived in the First Age. And now we are that far removed again from the Third Age, and have lost still more. It is as if the remants of Eden fade further with each passing year. And maybe it's just me wrestling with getting older.

[davem]

It is as if the remants of Eden fade further with each passing year.

But the memory & the yearning remain. So what does that tell us? Aren't those things as much 'Eden' as the physical trees & rivers that were 'once upon a time'? In fact, isn't that phrase. 'Once upon a time' (& 'over the hills & far away' - or as I prefer 'over the hills to faraway') part of the little bit of Eden that we all carry in our hearts?

The Elves haven't gone - not really - they still live, like the Hobbits, in that place. And its not all that far away, either - like the man said, 'Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate, & though I oft have passed them by, a day will come at last when I, shall take the hidden paths that run, west of the moon, east of the sun.'

Have you never looked at a distant horizon & felt that 'pull', that 'sense' that its just over there, & that if you set off, right then, you'd get there?

Of course, you can't just set off, because you have responsibilities here, things you have to do. But one day you will, because, just like Bilbo, you want to see 'Mountains again, mountains!'

Anyway, if you feel the way you say you do, I don't think you're all that 'old' - not really....

[littlemanpoet]

Heh. Not all that old, but sensing time slipping away, as if through the fingers like sand.

Oh, I'm glad Eden is in my heart, and thanks for reminding of the poem with the secret gate. That's very much a piece of my own writing - how could it not be, if Tolkien baptized my imagination, to borrow a phrase from CSL?

I used to feel like 'that place' is just over the horizon, but I always knew I was just kidding myself because flat now is too sapped of faery.

davem, I have to smile sometimes how you communicate with the rest of us on this and other threads, as if you have found the Gospel According to Tolkien and are trying with all your might to communicate the evangelium, trying to get us all to believe. On this thread you have presented a powerful principle, that belief is necessary before its object can be accepted. That has nothing to do with whether it was experienced - I think of CSL's dwarfs in The Last Battle, for example. I for one wish I could go back to the way things used to be for me, and just believe, but it's not in me to do so anymore. I'm going to have to struggle through to the next "whatever". I sense that maybe Fordim and Bêthberry may be facing the same dilemma as I? A pure guess, that.

[davem]

davem, I have to smile sometimes how you communicate with the rest of us on this and other threads, as if you have found the Gospel According to Tolkien and are trying with all your might to communicate the evangelium, trying to get us all to believe.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe you're right. I'm not consciously trying to convert anybody, though. I just say what comes to me.

I for one wish I could go back to the way things used to be for me, and just believe, but it's not in me to do so anymore. I'm going to have to struggle through to the next "whatever". I sense that maybe Fordim and Bêthberry may be facing the same dilemma as I? A pure guess, that.

I think that happens when you try too hard. I think enchanment happens when you stop trying to be enchanted - when you stop analysing yourself, & the story, & the author - all the whys & wherefores, the metaphors & tying yourself up in knots with textual analysis & deconstruction & sundry other forms of literary mumbo jumbo. I can't help thinking of Tom & Goldberry, laughing, singing & dancing, living in a constant state of wonder & enchantment. No 'evangelium' there, no desire to convert. Try to analyse Tom, to 'explain' him, & he'll vanish with a wink & a laugh, but accept him, follow him, &

'You shall come home with me! The table is all laden with yellow cream, honeycomb, and white bread and butter.

Then another clear voice, as young and as ancient as Spring, like the song of a glad water flowing down into the night from a bright morning in the hills, came falling like silver to meet them:
Now let the song begin! let us sing together
Of sun, stars, moon and mist, rain and cloudy weather,
Light on the budding leaf, dew on the feather,
Wind on the open hill, bells on the heather,
Reeds by the shady pool, lilies on the water:
Old Tom Bombadil and the River-daughter!
And with that song the hobbits stood upon the threshold, and a golden light was all about them.

(See that? I'm doing it again.... :p

[littlemanpoet]

I think enchantment happens when you stop trying to be enchanted - when you stop analysing yourself, & the story, & the author - all the whys & wherefores, the metaphors & tying yourself up in knots with textual analysis & deconstruction & sundry other forms of literary mumbo jumbo.

I'll plead guilty to analyzing myself, but not the rest. I'm just not objective enough for all that other stuff. What I do analyze (perhaps to my own enchantable demise) is myth and story in general. Perhaps (hah! who am I kidding?) .... It has to do with having a story to tell and fearing that I am unable to adequately ... to which the obvious answer is .... Write the d**n thing! Better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all. But if I write, I won't be here as much. Lousy excuse, since I enjoy the company here. But its part of why I started this thread in the first place. Here I am running off at the mouth, using y'all for my own purposes. Thanks, you've been kind enough to be an (maybe) unknowing, brain-picked sounding board.

[Bêthberry]

davem, I have to smile sometimes how you communicate with the rest of us on this and other threads, as if you have found the Gospel According to Tolkien and are trying with all your might to communicate the evangelium, trying to get us all to believe. On this thread you have presented a powerful principle, that belief is necessary before its object can be accepted. That has nothing to do with whether it was experienced

Interesting that you cast the discussion this way. And interesting that you smile at davem's zealous proselytising. I can't smile at it because it too much insists that there is only one way to read, one way to enjoy, one way to find that Other Land just over the next page whose scent you just might carry back with you to the waking world. Such fundamentalism I find limiting and even somewhat scary, however eloquently or kindly or sincerely meant. Or however truely or meaningfully experienced by one reader.

But even more interesting, littlemanpoet, is your contrast here between "accepted" and "experienced." That's a nice way of handling the differences on this thread, I think.

So, how or what will you take back to your writing? That you can provide the experience for the reader, but not necessarily the belief?

[davem]

Such fundamentalism I find limiting and even somewhat scary, however eloquently or kindly or sincerely meant. Or however truely or meaningfully experienced by one reader.

This is only a literary discussion. Being scared by anything I've said seems a bit of an over reaction. I'm stating as honestly as I can my own feelings & understanding. If I was advocating firebombing the 'scapegoats', I could understand your reaction, as it is, I can only say I think everyone needs to lighten up. I'm beginning to suspect the halls of accademe are haunted by professors & students in bullet proof gowns & carrying cans of mace, keeping a safe distance from one another in case an idea goes off & everyone gets hit by the shrapnel.

[HerenIstarion]

the halls of accademe are haunted by professors & students in bullet proof gowns...

hmm... that's probably because of quantum...

[littlemanpoet]

So, how or what will you take back to your writing? That you can provide the experience for the reader, but not necessarily the belief?

Something more humble. Simply that I must write the story I have to write, and will do the best I can. Whether I evoke the experience enough to cast the enchantment, only the reader can say. Belief is beyond my control.

Interesting that you cast the discussion this way. And interesting that you smile at davem's zealous proselytising. I can't smile at it because it too much insists that there is only one way to read, one way to enjoy, one way to find that Other Land just over the next page whose scent you just might carry back with you to the waking world. Such fundamentalism I find limiting and even somewhat scary, however eloquently or kindly or sincerely meant. Or however truely or meaningfully experienced by one reader.
This is only a literary discussion. Being scared by anything I've said seems a bit of an over reaction. I'm stating as honestly as I can my own feelings & understanding. If I was advocating firebombing the 'scapegoats', I could understand your reaction, as it is, I can only say I think everyone needs to lighten up. I'm beginning to suspect the halls of accademe are haunted by professors & students in bullet proof gowns & carrying cans of mace, keeping a safe distance from one another in case an idea goes off & everyone gets hit by the shrapnel.

I'm going to respond to what I've bolded above. "Zealous proselytising" is a phrase loaded with pejorative connotations. I too think it overstates the case.

Fundamentalism is not in and of itself evil, or even bad. It becomes so when it is misguided. That's not what's going on here.

This is only a literary discussion Not entirely accurate, I think. If it were, we wouldn't invest ourselves in these conversations the way we do. A simple literary discussion would be an exchange of equally respected opinions. Tolkien's works touch us at our core beliefs, and we write on these boards passionately. That's why we ruffle each other's feathers sometimes.

I'm stating as honestly as I can my own feelings & understanding. Yes, but you're also trying to be as persuasive as you know how to be. I don't consider that to be identical to zealous proselytizing, but you are trying to change others' minds. Why else would you have the sig you do?

Everyone needs to lighten up. This, and the sarcasm that follows was spoken in ire. Understandable, since you no doubt felt on the defensive. Rather than lighten up (except for H-I, of course! :)), we need to exercise courtesy and restraint. At least on this thread, if you please.

But even more interesting, littlemanpoet, is your contrast here between "accepted" and "experienced." That's a nice way of handling the differences on this thread, I think.

Yes, I think we often experience things we (at least initially) can't accept for what they are, not recognizing them for what they are. Fairy tale/fantasy/mythic story is thus an important form of literature, conveying to us unities that we normally wouldn't perceive. Perceived in narrative, they can be experienced "secondarily". It's still up to the reader whether these unities are accepted and/or believed, either secondarily or primarily. I hope that made sense.

[davem]

This is only a literary discussion Not entirely accurate, I think. If it were, we wouldn't invest ourselves in these conversations the way we do. A simple literary discussion would be an exchange of equally respected opinions. Tolkien's works touch us at our core beliefs, and we write on these boards passionately. That's why we ruffle each other's feathers sometimes.

Well, for me, it is a 'literary discussion' which I often take very seriously, but I know where to draw the line, & I often simply post what occurs to me as I write. For example, my post yesterday on Shelob/Lilith was pretty much a stream of consciousness & I had no idea what I was going to post when I sat down to write.

Yes, but you're also trying to be as persuasive as you know how to be. I don't consider that to be identical to zealous proselytizing, but you are trying to change others' minds. Why else would you have the sig you do?

Actually, I'm not - because I have no desire to be a 'guru', & I don't feel I've got anything to 'teach'. I'm not out to change anyone's mind to my point of view, because I rarely know exactly what my point of view is. That's why I tend often to contradict myself. My sig is there for two reasons: one as my 'get out of jail free' card - its my permission to contradict myself; second, it sounds clever.

Everyone needs to lighten up. This, and the sarcasm that follows was spoken in ire. Understandable, since you no doubt felt on the defensive. Rather than lighten up (except for H-I, of course! ), we need to exercise courtesy and restraint. At least on this thread, if you please.

Not 'ire'. Irony, if you like - or sarcasm - which I acknowledge is the lowest form of wit. I wasn't 'on the defensive', though, as (this may come as a disappointment to some) I don't take these discussions nearly that seriously. For me these boards are a means to explore ideas & concepts which I find interesting. If I come across as 'fundamentalist' or 'scary' that's something I can't help - just don't confuse me with mydowns persona.

If I say anything that anyone finds interesting or 'enlightening' that's fine, but its not my motivation for posting. If anyone is upset or offended, I can only repeat 'lighten up', get some perspective.

I don't know enough about anything to be a fundamentalist. Actually, I'm amazed anyone takes anything I post that seriously .

[HerenIstarion]

but you are trying to change others' minds

Welly well, what have I to say about the quote above? 'Observation changes object observed' would be the motto. Learning others' opinion makes us pick something new at times, and it does not follow the person we picked things up from tried to plant them into our own mind in the first place. It does not follow s/he was not trying to, of course, but both courses of action seem natural. If I hold something to be true (or even True), I'll try to communicate it along. There is no need to get angry with me for that :)

Rather than lighten up (except for H-I, of course!)

Yup, I'm the Mr. Happy here. That's also probably because of quantum.

Back to the titular, though: I still clinch to my original: Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

First reading in its light does not have to be the only time enchantement is present. Knowing what happens next subtracts (probably) from suspense, but that's plot related issue, not the 'World believability/state of being enchanted by it' as a whole.

But I stress on 'willing', for everything around, in the Primary World (the very book I hold in my hand and am supposedly absorbed in) may pull me out by the fact of its mere existence.

Recipe for authors as to how make one's work 'enchanting'? I'm not sure I can come up with one (you would have read my books if I could, I reckon), but let us give it a try:

So, whatever the setting, race of characters or plot, work of fantasy needs:

1. Moral chord 'good' chaps act along of. Closely similar to what is considered 'good' in primary word, to be recognisable without much effort
2. Logical ('natural') interaction of events (plotline, characters' behaviour and scenery/nature likewise). C should be consequence of B and A and so on. More threads to the carpet, more belief. Quantity than has the chance of becoming quality. The thing as complex as ME has signs of 'real world' (moons wane in 28 days, and do it subtly, without 10 foot billboards to advertise the fact, etc) to it, and is therefore believable

That's for believability. For enchantement, some more components are there.

3. General depression, sadness, sense of tragic loss etc etc... (this one belongs to first category likewise)
4. Beauty (whatever that may be, and it too, belongs to first category likewise)
5. Eucatastrophe following 'almost disaster' situation.

I won't expatiate on it, since there were numerous threads concerning the issue before. But the joy is, no doubt, convincing (strangely enough, as not all stories have happy ending in 'real life') and enchanting at the same time. Like if our heart finds it logical for things to end well, and our mind, though knowing it is not always the case, is sufficiently drugged by the event.

All was almost gone to the dogs, but handsome keen-eyed minstrel warrior, young Ultra Super Booper Lord having only seventeen seconds to save the world, saved it on seventeenth, because million to one chances always work.

Was that believable? Maybe not, but is it not enchanting? Neither? Still, if we disassemble LoTR, its backbone is quite similar. But example I've given was extreme. Hence the salt to the soup made of five types of meat - all things moderate, no extremities. If it is a Lord, let him be Ultra Lord, or Super Lord, or Booper Lord, but not all three at once. If you still want him to be all three, make him old and blind of one eye and a bit deaf for the minstrel.

Contrary or thanks to USBL's prowess in world-saving activities, it seems that believability may be there without enchantement, but the latter won't appear unless the world created is believable. I believe Slaughter Number Five and 1984, but I'm not enchanted, I'm rather horrified/repelled.

Believability or enchantement, than? Both.

Acceptance belongs to analysis, concepts present etc, it does not have to play part in belief (or state being enchanted). Suppose someone writes a story where all us turned upside down, Sauron is the hero, Gandalf the villain and so forth. Concepts as presented may not be accepted by the reader, but the book still has the chance of being believable (hopefully not enchanting though). But even without extremeties, does the concept of Eru the Creator bar the enchanted door to readers who do not accept the concept of Creator in the Primary World?

Or, to ask Finrod to my help, when 'heart leaps up in joy', there is belief (and enchantement may follow). Even if the mind does not accept the concept. Or even if it does - it is irrelevant.

Experience - um, is not it present in all works, good and bad? Meaning, unless reader stops reading, he experiences events in the story, creating mental images all along. Experience will be there even if the book does not pull any strings and is put aside after couple of pages. That of the few pages read will remain with the reader after the book is forgotten at all.

Random thoughts, all of them, what with me writing things off without much consideration now. Still, acknowledging the probability of the recipe being spoiled, or working only in my personal case.

cheers

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Is this thread still going?? Wow...seems to me that there's an awful lot of energy being spent on what is, in the end, an entirely subjective matter of readerly preference or response to the text.

I think the one thing we can deduce from this is that some people feel as though their responses to the text are "right" and therefore any resposne which is different from theirs is "wrong" and thus a threat.

Others think that their responses to the text are theirs alone and don't need to be related to anyone else's.

Still others think that there is no such thing as a response to the text, but the imposition upon it of the reader's own views.

And finally, still others seem to think that there is no reader, only the text.

I would suggest that the act of reading is itself the dynamic composite of all these positions at one and the same time. That's why it's so much fun, because there is so much happening in the tense and endless relation of author/text and reader/community.

My three Canadian cents (to make two American cents).

[HerenIstarion]

Brilliant summary, Fordim, I daresay :D

Especially the last one:

there is no reader, only the text

That's definitely because of quantum!

But if this is possible, than it's mirror reflection must be also possible, so there must be instances where there is a reader, but no text.

(Um, the last thesis is empirically proven too, by yours truly, when he craved after text, but had no means to afford one. Textless reader, as good as one can get in lab conditions)

[Aiwendil]

Fordim wrote:
Is this thread still going?? Wow...seems to me that there's an awful lot of energy being spent on what is, in the end, an entirely subjective matter of readerly preference or response to the text.

I think the one thing we can deduce from this is that some people feel as though their responses to the text are "right" and therefore any resposne which is different from theirs is "wrong" and thus a threat.


Indeed! I quite agree, which is why I haven't weighed in on this matter yet. It's one thing to say "this breaks the enchantment for me; what about you?" It's quite another to look for underlying truths about the text based on one's subjective experience. For my part, I don't find that the enchantment is broken at all - except, perhaps, by hyper-serious debates about what breaks it.

I do, however, think that there's an interesting phenomenon here - it's interesting that for some people the enchantment is a fragile thing and for others it is not. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that fact.

[davem]

And finally, still others seem to think that there is no reader, only the text.

But the text must exist apart from the reader, as a thing in itself. If the text changes us in any way at all it must be because it introduces us to new ideas & feelings, to something previously unknown. If we learn anything from it it must have supplied us with new information which we didn't previously have. My point is simply that it is that 'new information' which is of primary importance, & which must be given weight over what we already knew. The text changes us, & we become a different person (to a greater or lesser degree) to what we had been. The more open we are to the text the more we will be affected (changed) by it. As Bob Stewart says of 'Innerworld beings' 'they are 'real' within their own dimension. If we treat them as figments of our own imagination they will behave as such & our experience of the inner world will become a meaningless dream.

Now, admittedly, he is speaking of other, psychic, 'realities', but I think this idea gels with Tolkien's theory of Faerie, or 'secondary worlds'. The more we approach the secondary world as 'nothing but' a self creation on the reader's part, a construction by the reader based mainly on the reader's own 'baggage', the more it will become simply a 'mirror' which reveals only the reader's own psyche. The more we approach it as 'unknown', as 'new',as something we don't know, the more powerfully will it affect us, because we will be open to being changed by it. Gandalf, Frodo, Shelob, et al, are 'real' within their own world, they are not our invention, nor are they our mirrors of our unconscious contents. If they were they couldn't change us & we couldn't learn from them.

[littlemanpoet]

Excuse me for looking up at all the raised noses around here. You can see a lot of ugly nose hair from way down here.

Here is another case of broken enchantment. I was reading The Council of Elrond, specifically Gandalf's description of Orthanc. By the time I got done with the paragraph, it occurred to me that Tolkien usually reserved such detailed descriptions to the narrator's voice. Having Gandalf go into such extreme detail, spoken, even in Council, seemed mistaken to me. Gandalf didn't talk like that anywhere else, and shouldn't have here. I tease myself with the notion that the 70 something year old Tolkien might have read that paragraph and winced, or at least shaken his head, saying something like "what a wordy blighter".

Something else associated with this: I actually prefer that the enchantment be broken for me in such cases, because it attests to a felt change of consciousness which I value. I can still enjoy the story for the most part, but I enjoy the felt change of consciousness even more. If you don't know what felt change of consciousness is, check out Owen Barfield.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

[davem]

I was reading The Council of Elrond, specifically Gandalf's description of Orthanc. By the time I got done with the paragraph, it occurred to me that Tolkien usually reserved such detailed descriptions to the narrator's voice. Having Gandalf go into such extreme detail, spoken, even in Council, seemed mistaken to me. Gandalf didn't talk like that anywhere else, and shouldn't have here.

But Gandalf, as an Ainur, would, it seems to me, in this situation,adopt the role of 'impartial' narrator, passing on information to other council members. He can also seem as if he is 'bragging' in the Council, reporting his 'clever' responses to Saruman. I think he is being quite impartial. We have to keep in mind his true nature, & I think if we do his speech is in character. He may be in Middle earth, but he is not of it. As Tolkien put it he is effectively an 'incarnate angel'.

This is all a matter of opinion, of course, & one responds subjectively to events in the book, but what breaks the enchantment for one reader doesn't break it for another, so I can only say again, that I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien 'failed' at any point, & where the enchantment is broken for each individual reader it is that reader's individual 'baggage' that is responsible. So, we learn more about ourselves from this exercise than we do about the story or its writer..

[Bêthberry]

But Gandalf, as an Ainur, would, it seems to me, in this situation,adopt the role of 'impartial' narrator, passing on information to other council members. He can also seem as if he is 'bragging' in the Council, reporting his 'clever' responses to Saruman. I think he is being quite impartial. We have to keep in mind his true nature, & I think if we do his speech is in character. He may be in Middle earth, but he is not of it. As Tolkien put it he is effectively an 'incarnate angel'.


Really? Do readers of LotR know that Gandalf is an Ainur, and indeed what an Ainur is at this point of the story?

Was Gandalf called an 'incarnate angel' in the story or in the Letters?

In short, how do we know what his 'true nature' is at this point in the story?

[davem]

Really? Do readers of LotR know that Gandalf is an Ainur, and indeed what an Ainur is at this point of the story?

Was Gandalf called an 'incarnate angel' in the story or in the Letters?

In short, how do we know what his 'true nature' is at this point in the story?

We know he is more than he appears. We are on a learning curve at this point in the story. I've never argued that the first reading of LotR is 'superior' or better than subsequent readings. I've never argued that any number of readings of LotR alone can bring out all the depth & meaning of the story. Indeed, Tolkien himself believed that LotR could not be understood fully without a knowledge of the Legendarium as a whole. My point is simply that the Legendarium should be experienced, as far as possible on its own terms, Middle earth seen as a world in its own right, its inhabitants as beings in their own right, not as 'echoes' of other things, not as being 'in service' to other things, not as ways of understanding ourselves or our world. Middle earth is best seen as a thing in itself. We may learn about ourselves & our world as a by-product of our experience of it, but that is not its purpose, & the more we think of it in that kind of 'mercenary' way, the less we will gain from our experience of it. Isn't that the difference between 'applicability' & 'allegory'? If it shouldn't be seen as an 'allegory' of our world, neither should it be seen as an 'allegory' of ourselves - our own personal history & experiences. This would be to use it for our own ends, place ourselves above it, looking down on it, seeing it as a 'quarry' for useful items.

The alternative to submitting ourselves to the Art is to submit the art to ourselves. Some things are greater than we little, temporary beings are & only pride prevents us from acknowledging this ('Though I say it as shouldn't, you might think.' ;) )

[Formendacil]

This is all a matter of opinion, of course, & one responds subjectively to events in the book, but what breaks the enchantment for one reader doesn't break it for another, so I can only say again, that I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien 'failed' at any point, & where the enchantment is broken for each individual reader it is that reader's individual 'baggage' that is responsible. So, we learn more about ourselves from this exercise than we do about the story or its writer..

What you say, Davem, and what you say in your next post, got me to thinking...

I agree with your general idea that reading is subjective, and that what breaks one person's spell will not necessarily break someone else's, and that it is thus impossible to determine on that basis that Tolkien failed.

However...

When you say that "I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien failed...", I'm not so sure that I agree. I would say that there is one definitive test that could be taken (in a purely theoretical world) that would determine whether or not he had failed:

His OWN reaction.

Several years later, sometime in the mid-60s, I believe, Tolkien states in one his letters (no idea which) that after re-reading the Lord of the Rings, he thought it a rather good book on whole, and that he had done a rather good job on it.

I wish I had a copy of Letters, or could remember this one better, because I seem to recall Tolkien's sentiment in it being that he had done a good job, and not one that he felt inclined to seriously change, but...

But he didn't think it perfect.

Now, we all ought to know that Tolkien's first and primary audience was himself. Had he been writing for the public, we would have gotten The Hobbit. Had he been writing for his job, it would have been Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight. So, if there were any places that Tolkien found, in his reflections at a more objective date, to have "broken the enchantment", these would seem to be me to be the most conclusive test.

Of course, such a test is purely hypothetical....

[HerenIstarion]

L241

That was 1944. (I did not finish the first rough writing till 1949, when I remember blotting the pages (which now represent the welcome of Frodo and Sam on the Field of Cormallen) with tears as I wrote.


L257

I now find The Lord of the Rings 'good in parts'.

[davem]

ormendacilWhen you say that "I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien failed...", I'm not so sure that I agree. I would say that there is one definitive test that could be taken (in a purely theoretical world) that would determine whether or not he had failed:

His OWN reaction.

But that's his own subjective opinion as a reader. He also stated in the Letters that he was, after a number of years, able to read the book as if it had been written by someone else. So, parts of it may have failed to enchant him, but those parts mey not fail to enchant other readers, so we still can't say there are parts which fail to enchant everyone who reads them. Even Tolkien had some baggage I suppose.

[littlemanpoet]

Are you trying to have it both ways, davem? But then, you don't take yourself seriously, so there's no reason we should either, right? Unless, of course, you are asking for subscription to the church of latter day Tolkienism (not tokenism), founded by the apostle davem for the sake of the gospel according to tolkien. It must be remembered, o chosen faithful, that the angel Olorin has appeared directly to the reader so that said disciple reader must know and believe in his or her heart (we are gender inclusive here) that Gandalf is an angel and speaketh at great length the mysterious descriptions of Orthanc, may Elbereth live forever.

[davem]

But then, you don't take yourself seriously, so there's no reason we should either, right

If I thought anyone was taking anything I posted here as seriously as you imply I would stop posting straight away. In the end its the ideas we discuss that are important, & I just wish people could find a way to seperate the ideas from the person posting them. Then maybe we could have some good, in depth, discussions here without people getting all het up & offended by what they read. I don't get hot & bothered by what others post because I just respond to them as ideas. My ideas are up for debate, discussion or trashing, not myself, so I don't worry about the negative response I get from others.

I can only say that if this approach has lead me to hurt or offend other posters I'm sorry, but I can only repeat I've always thought of this as a forum for us to discuss Tolkien's work, not each other.

[littlemanpoet]

Serious? Hardly. Just spoofing. Quite fun. I've heard it said that spoofing only offends those who do take themselves too seriously, but then who knows? You did allow yourself to become part of the topic. But I'll stop.

"Just because I'm in denial doesn't mean I've really lost - er - what did you say I'd lost?"

"Your memory."

"Oh. right."

[Bêthberry]

But Gandalf, as an Ainur, would, it seems to me, in this situation,adopt the role of 'impartial' narrator, passing on information to other council members. He can also seem as if he is 'bragging' in the Council, reporting his 'clever' responses to Saruman. I think he is being quite impartial. We have to keep in mind his true nature, & I think if we do his speech is in character. He may be in He may be in Middle earth, but he is not of it. As Tolkien put it he is effectively an 'incarnate angel'.



We know he is more than he appears. We are on a learning curve at this point in the story.

There's a big, big jump between saying Gandalf is an Ainur and saying 'he is more than he appears.' The latter could be said of all the characters in any story, that at the beginning, especially at such a momentous occasion as the Council of Elrond, there will be more to these characters than yet meets the eye.

To say that only a reading which knows The Silm can create a valid reading of Lot R is to demand a specific knowledge which was unavailable to almost all readers (short of CT and The Inklings) until the posthumous publication of The Silm. You are here now claiming that LotR cannot be understood without reference to other Tolkien texts, yet previously you were saying the LotR should be read without what you called baggage of other texts. To prioritise some texts above others is to engage in specious argument. LotR as its own unique text has to operate independently in order to charm readers.

What would appear to be important is the tantalizing potential of knowing that a "yet more ancient history" preceeded it, as Tolkien writes in the Second Edition. Hoping to catch such "glimpses" is a lot different than knowing Gandalf belongs to the form of creation set up by Eru. Things are held on the tenuous potential in LotR and not stated outright. That potentiality is, I argue, what we as readers are to experience, and not an explicit demand that the Legendarium explains everything.

In that second edition Tolkien stated what his purpose was, and it is an interesting purpose, for he does not claim he expected to hold readers constantly in thrall to some enchantment.


The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times mabye excite them or deeply move them.

It seems to me that to characterise any reading where enchantment breaks as a failure to attend properly to the text is to overstate and even mischaracterise what is happening.

[davem]

The 'baggage' I was referring to (which I should have expressed more clearly) was personal stuff, or ideas, concepts & connections external to Middle earth as a whole. Of course, the whole of Tolkien's extensive Me writings were not available to most readers, but they were available to Tolkien himself & LotR grew out of the earlier writings. For instance, the encounter with Shelob is heightened & deepened immensely by a knowlege of the story of the killing of the Two Trees, the rape of the Silmarils & the story of Earendel & Ungoliant. This 'background' information turns the episode from a fight with a monstrous spider into something far more significant & symbolic, & links back into Sam's statement about stories, & that he & Frodo are in the same story as Beren & Luthien & Earendel. The point is that Tolkien had those stories in mind as he wrote the confrontation with Shelob & if the reader also knows those stories he or she will read the encounter differently than if they don't. That is not bringing primary world baggage with them.

I wouldn't deny that readers who only have LotR can get a great deal from it, but Tolkien's struggles to get the Sil published alongside LotR show (aside fro his own comments in the letters) that he felt the background histories were necessary for a complete understanding of that work. The fact that he didn't struggle to get a volume of Anglo-Saxon, Middle Eastern, Finnish, Celtic, etc, myths & legends, fairy tales, other fantasy stories or historical accounts published as well, shows that he didn't consider a knowledge of those things to be necessary to such an understanding.

LotR was not considered by Tolkien to be a self contained story, but the culmination of the Legendarium.

LotR can be read as a stand alone work, & as you point out it has been, of necessity, read so for most of its history, but it was not intended by its author to be read so. Whether it has to stand or fall by whether it can be so read or not is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it was intended by its writer to be so read is not a matter of opinion. It wasn't. Expecting to fully understand LotR (as opposed to simply loving it & being enchanted by it) without knowing the rest of the Legendarium is rather like expecting to understand RotK without knowing The Fellowship or The Two Towers. One could read RotK & be enchanted & moved by it, but one wouldn't fully understand it - anymore than someone watching episodes 4,5 & 6 of Star Wars without knowing what happened in episodes 1-3 would fully understand them. The first three Star Wars movies (whatever one's opinion of them as movies) are necessary to give background & depth to the second three. What is not necessary, & would, in my opinion, get in the way would be watching the movies with a head full of ideas about comparative mythology, religion & the other movies 'referenced' by Lucas.

Being too aware of such 'baggage' while we are watching the movies would inevitably break the spell & reduce the whole experience to an intellectual exercise devoid of emotional involvement, but watching episodes 4-6 with the events of episodes 1-3 in mind will add meaning & depth to our experience. Episodes 4-6 had to be viewed as 'stand alone' movies for 20 odd years because episodes 1-3 weren't available to watch but George Lucas knew what they contained, & wrote episodes 4-6 as the culmination (unless you believe the 9 episode story arc tale) of his 'Legendarium', & events in the later trilogy only really make sense in the light of the earlier one. In the same way LotR was written by Tolkien as the culmination of The Sil.

So, while a full & complete understanding of both LotR & SW 4-6 requires a knowlege of the The Sil & SW 1-3 respectively, neither requires (or benefits from) any 'baggage' external to the secondary worlds they present to us.

[Bêthberry]

Being too aware of such 'baggage' while we are watching the movies would inevitably break the spell & reduce the whole experience to an intellectual exercise devoid of emotional involvement,

This is where I think we have our major disagreement. You call bringing in this so-called 'baggage' "an intellectual exercise devoid of emotional involvement" and that has been the thrust of your posts here (and, I think, of Lalwendë's also, in her division between purpose-lead reading and pleasure reading, an argument which did postulate personal experience rather than simply idea).

Such a position is fairly and honestly based, I would guess, on your stated wish to play with ideas about reading. But I don't think this state of emotional versus intellectual involvement is true for everyone, nor even that it is an absolute truth about the reading experience or any artistic experience. There are many people for whom such a division misrepresents their experience reading, watching movies, and responding to any art.

All reading goes into our head, into our memory of language and story, just as all movie watching does. Some people, when they first saw that scene where Luke returns to his aunt's and uncle's water farm after they have been brutally murdered by the storm troupers, were immediately and viscerally reminded of a similar scene in an old western movie, a powerful scene of loss, horror, grief, shock. This wasn't an intellectual exercise of saying, "Oh, yes, I do say, how Lucas employs the old western tale in space. Yawn." It was an emotional correlation. This correlation was not available to movie viewers who didn't see the old western movie, but that does not negate or invalidate the experience of those who did. And the experience is emotional.

What were these viewers to do? Stop and say, "Oh, away baggage memory!" ?

The difficulty with your theory of reading Middle earth is that it demands or assumes that readers be some kind of blank black board upon which Tolkien writes. This does not represent many people's experience of reading--indeed, of any art form. And, secondly, it suggest that any experience of primary art which readers bring to Middle earth is some kind of intellectual or logical imposition rather than a felt experience.

I think I'm going to check out Owen Barfield, as littlemanpoet suggested, to see about this "felt change of consciousness" he mentioned.


EDIT: I think it is very funny that I have just received a negative rep for my previous post here. This is the third negative rep I have received for posts on this thread or the Translator Conceit thread. They turn the discussion here into something personal and seem to have a particular sense of my own posts. Why are they funny? Because they have all been anonymous and because this one at least seems to object to my own particular way of reading. Gosh, I guess davem can tell us to go read "Splintered Light" and various other Tolkien studies, but the rest of us can't talk about other things. Anyhow, as I say, I find this vastly amusing. Here's the most recent comment:


it seems like the only point you are trying to make is to break davem down. This isnt a mensa meeting. Nobody logging into this website wants to read a book report.

[davem]

I think what you're talking about here is 'unconscious' baggage. What I'm talking about is conscious baggage, where we are deliberately looking for these connections & consciously interpreting what we read or view as we watch or read . The more we bring in these things the more we will detatch ourselves from what we are experiencing.

Every time such a connection occurs there is a 'split', a wrenching out of the secondary world into either the primary or another secondary world - 'Never our minds on where we are' seems to be a major problem. It is a lack of attention to what's actually going on in front of us.

The impact of the scene you refer to, of Luke's return to find his aunt & uncle dead, may be enhanced for some viewers by similar scenes in other movies, but it is more likely to prove a distraction from the actual events on screen, & produce a 'general' feeling of sadness & loss, rather than a specific feeling related to Luke's loss - we won't be empathising & connecting with Luke here, but with all the characters we've ever seen in similar situatons. Now, as I said, this will probably happen unconsciously with all viewers, but the more we focus on those other episodes, the less we will be focussing on the very specific case of Luke. Why tell this specific story rather than just show a series of old movie clips - that would produce general feelings of loss & bereavement more effectively. It is the specific story of Luke that moves us.

Actually, after seeing the the young Owen & Beru in the earlier movies, I find that scene takes on greater meaning & sadness for me, because I'm not stepping outside the secondary world. I feel sad that Owen & Beru are dead, not because similar characters in similar movies died in similar ways.

Edited to make sense.

Subsequently edited: I'm not sure what to make of the negative rep handed down to Bethberry in my 'defence'. I am flattered that anyone would wish to come to my defence at all, but I don't really approve of negative rep in principle & have never, & would never, hand any out. If anything anyone posts bothers me I will either shrug it off or come out 'fighting' :mad: :p .

In short, it makes me more than a bit uncomfortable to think anyone, & particularly someone I have (believe it or not!) the utmost respect for as a fellow Downer & sparring partner ;) should receive bad rep & that I may have played some part (however tenuous) in them getting it.

[littlemanpoet]

I think I'm going to check out Owen Barfield, as littlemanpoet suggested, to see about this "felt change of consciousness" he mentioned.

The best start with Barfield is Poetic Diction, which I own and have read through twice. I can honestly say I actually comprehend perhaps 70% of the work, and understand 40% of it. Very deep! All about language, its history, and its use, and he introduces, describes, and explains "felt change of consciousness" far better than I ever could. It was a seminal work, one that Tokien and Lewis were both very familiar with. It lies behind much of my theory in my "mythic unities" thread.

I think it is very funny that I have just received a negative rep for my previous post here.

Funny, I was going to positive rep you on that post, because I thought you stated the case not only clearly but effectively, but I gotta spread it around first.

Whether or not LotR is best understood with a knowledge of the Legendarium or not, Gandalf's little Orthanc speech in The Council of Elrond seemed more like the narrator's voice than the wizard's - - - to me. If others find the same thing, maybe that says something more about the author (not deity's) regarding the wizard. After all, Gandalf is used as the "final authority" on anything within the story.

[Celebuial]

I know you're all getting very intelectual at the moment on this particular thread, but I'd just like to add that a break in the enchantment isn't always a bad thing. For example if you are reminded of something from your childhood that makes you smile, or of a loved one, or a friend not seen in a long time, surely the enchantment has been broken if you are reminded that the 'real world' exisits; but surely this is not a bad thing?

It's nice to be enthralled by a tale and lost in the story/world, but isn'it better still if you are reminded of things forgotten or some 'real' thing? I think that this is a great thing and even though the enchantment must be broken for these things to happen. I like the idea that a novel can be personal, and that it can effect everyone in a different way. It seems to me that you seem to be arguing about why the enchantment is broken, you make it sound like a bad thing; but isn't this how/why a book can be so different to everyone? I think that if the enchanment is broken, sometimes this can add to the overall enchantment of the novel in the end. It allows you to personally identify with the work in a unique way.

Ok I'm done. Sorry if I babbled and if it's not all that intelligable (is that even a word?), but I tried.

[littlemanpoet]

Celebuial, if I ever look down my nose at people because I'm their supposed intellectual superior, then I deserve to be disowned as a fellow Downs member.

Thanks for the point you made. I think you're right. It reminds me of something Tolkien said in his "On Fairy Stories" essay about recovery. He meant that a good fairy tale helps you better appreciate something from your own life. If that happens in the middle of reading, and if that's a breaking of the enchantment, then I agree it's a good one.

[Formendacil]

When you say that "I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien failed...", I'm not so sure that I agree. I would say that there is one definitive test that could be taken (in a purely theoretical world) that would determine whether or not he had failed:

His OWN reaction.


But that's his own subjective opinion as a reader. He also stated in the Letters that he was, after a number of years, able to read the book as if it had been written by someone else. So, parts of it may have failed to enchant him, but those parts mey not fail to enchant other readers, so we still can't say there are parts which fail to enchant everyone who reads them. Even Tolkien had some baggage I suppose.

Of course he is a subjective reader. Of course he has his own baggage. My point was that Tolkien had written with himself, baggage subjectivity and all, in mind. Therefore, if this same "be-baggled" and sujectified reader read it a few years later and pronounced parts of it good or great, then those are the parts where Tolkien succeeded in exactly what he set out to do: to please his own subjective and be-baggled self.

[HerenIstarion]

Right you are, sir!

L294

If it is of interest, the passages that now move me most – written so long ago that I read them now as if they had been written by someone else – are the end of the chapter Lothlórien (I 365-7), and the horns of the Rohirrim at cockcrow.

[Celuien]

I don't necessarily think that personal experience is an enchantment-breaking intrusion, unless it suddenly introduces something incompatible with the story (as a very silly example, sending a snowmobile to Caradhras). Given that we all have our own backgrounds and experience, there probably is no such thing as a completely objective reader. There will be a conscious or unconscious emotional element to how an individual responds based on past experiences. Part of the enchantment for me is that I find a resonance with the story from my personal viewpoint. But, because I come from a different background than Tolkien, the probability is that I will have responded to the story, at least in some points, in a different way than he might have expected. And there are some elements (e.g. Galadriel and Mary) that honestly would never have occurred to me. Does it lessen my enchantment with the tale? No. Does it affect the way I understand the book? Yes, but I tend to reserve that more for an analytic approach.

Now, I'm not saying that analysis and enchantment are mutually exclusive events. It's just that I see enchantment more as the quality of being absorbed with or delighted by the story. With enchantment, I think there's less emphasis on the author's intent than on the reader response and vice versa with analytic approaches. Nor do I see one type of reading as less valid than another; it just depends on what you're looking for at the time.

Hope that makes some sense and isn't too repetitive.

[Evisse the Blue]

Bringing my own personal ‘baggage’ into the conversation, here’s the way I see it:

Some people say ‘Only connect’ : bringing other stuff into reading is perfectly fine because it enhances the experience, and it reveals new aspects. Analizing and interpreting the text are most welcome. The ‘enchantment’ is broken, when there are inaccuracies in the storyline, unbelievable (for the reader!) developments, changes of writing style that are unaccounted for.

Other people (actually, only Davem, as far as I gathered :p) argue for ‘Separating’: when you experience a work of art, be it a book, a painting, a piece of music, you experience it only in itself, and leave your opinions, memories, interpretations, analogies, aside. All this in order to experience more accurately what the author is trying to convey through that work of Art. Breaking of the enchantment occurs when the reader is incapable of exercising the mental discipline required to focus only on the said work of Art.

Have I got this right?

Well then. I must say that the aforementioned discipline of mind is what I most strive for. Not because of some theoretical inclination of it being the right thing to do, but because this is the way one can enjoy things the most. And – surprise, I find that I can achieve said discipline (not by an effort of will); but that it comes naturally only with works of Art that are very dear to me. So, when I read Lord of the Rings, my mind makes no leaps.
Examples:
Language: (changes of style, speaking in verse, etc): no problems. Obviously I am not that familiar with different styles of speech in English, so it presents a problem for me.
Eowyn - no problem there. In fact, the scenes between her and Faramir are one of my most favourite in the book. *shrug*
The Hobbit: I read it on its own. It's not that I don't connect it at all with the rest of the history of Middle Earth, but I prefer to enjoy it as a stand alone. Also, in the context of the work, what davem said makes sense: It was written by Bilbo and it was bound to sound 'easy going and fancy free'. Maybe things were not that funny or caricatured (including the Elves), but Bilbo saw them as such and presented them like that when he recounted his adventures.

But:
“All I’ve ever said was that the experience of the art (in as pure a degree as we are capable of) must come first, then we must (again as far as we are capable of doing it) attempt to understand what the artist intended to communicate, what he/she wanted to say to us, then, finally, can come – if we so desire it – our own interpretation of the text/painting/symphony.” (Davem)

That can't be known. In my opinion. It can never be known, so it's useless to even imagine you're trying: understand what the author is really meaning to say, that is. Let's say you read a certain passage and suddenly have a revelation: 'Wow, this rings so true. I feel I know exactly how the author felt when he wrote this, I feel I know exactly what he tried to convey to the readers." The more sure you feel of it, the higher the probability that you’re wrong. Because even if you do manage to control the ‘connecting’ at a conscious level, there’s still the unconscious ways your mind works to be taken care of. So the feeling of understanding what the author is trying to convey to you, the individual reader is actually the thrill of discovering yourself, a part of you that has been stirred by that passage, a corner of your mind and spirit that had been lying dormant until now. But that is it. We are all islands, and no man's holy grail is exactly the same as another's.

"Well, if one is not prepared to take risks in order to experience enchantment one cannot really complain if one remains unenchanted, can one? Though I realise that shutting up for 5 minutes & submitting oneself to a work of art in order for it to work its effect on one is a truly terrifying prospect & this is why I support the proposal that all art galleries display health warnings & that parental guidance stickers be applied to Bach cd's" (Davem)
Oh, I like that. This reminds me of that fragment in Fahrenheit 451 when the women were mortally afraid by the book smuggled home by Montag, and the reading of one poem caused something like a nervous breakdown in a seemingly normal and cheerful housewife. Talk about ‘baggages’.:p

One difference between God's work and man's is, that, while God's work cannot mean more than he meant, man's must mean more than he meant. For in everything that God has made, there is layer upon layer of ascending significance; also he expresses the same thought in higher and higher kinds of that thought; it is God's things, his embodied thoughts, which alone a man has to use, modified and adapted to his own purposes, for the expression of his thoughts; therefore he cannot help his words and figures falling into such combinations in the mind of another as he himself had not foreseen, so many are the thoughts allied to every other thought, so many are the relations involved in every figure, so many the facts hinted in every symbol. A man may well himself discover truth in what he wrote; for he was dealing all the time with things that came from thoughts beyond his own. (Bethberry, quoting George McDonald)
That is one of the best ideas ever. I’ve come across variations of it, but imo, this expresses it most clearly. Thanks for sharing it, Bethberry. It ties in, - at least the way I see it – with Davem’s affirmation that works of art are things that go beyond our own fleeting opinions. And the ones that truly last are those that deal with truths that are universal. Of course, one cannot argue that every little phrase in Lord of the Rings is filled with such meanings. But the fact that there are certain scenes that when we read them, almost everyone of us (including Tolkien as a reader, as I see from the quote provided by HI) - feels prickles down their spine; certainly speaks for a higher something. It may be eucatastrophe, or it may be simple domestic joy; whatever it is, the enchantment is there, for all of us.

once the first reading is done, the enchantment cannot (I think) truly ever be completely recovered for anyone (despite protestations to the contrary), because LotR was designed to be an enchantment that must come to an end (littlemanpoet)
How very true!
There is nothing like the first time. And the first time enchantment can never be found again, despite our many subsequent readings. Even if we have gained a different sort of pleasure, (knowing what to look forward to in the tale), the first enchantment (that is mostly made of wonder, and includes being totally oblivious to the surroundings) is forever lost. Indeed it's both funny and appropriate that Tolkien's books, which deal with nostalgia for things lost, awaken the same feeling in the reader. Our nostalgia is two fold: for the Elves that leave Middle Earth, never to return, and that of yet again reaching the end of the book; and the pang of sadness that comes with realizing you'll never experience that first-time enchantment again.

it's interesting that for some people the enchantment is a fragile thing and for others it is not. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that fact.(Aiwendil)
That is interesting indeed.
My first reaction, when I saw this thread and read LMP's 'warning' was 'back away as quick as possible' but then I kept seeing this thread reaching page 2, 3, 4, and I thought 'well. some people apparently are brave enough to take that chance and dissect things. I won't use the golden eggs metaphor, (although that was an astute observation, Formendacil), because I think it's a bit too harsh. ;) “Sometimes I don't want to see the pupeteers, sometimes I just want to see the magic therein; and sometimes I want to pry open the atoms to see why they spin”. So when I was in an atom prying open mood, I took up reading this thread and I must say it was worth the 3 hours I spent on it.

In fact, isn't that phrase. 'Once upon a time' (& 'over the hills & far away' - or as I prefer 'over the hills to faraway') part of the little bit of Eden that we all carry in our hearts?(Davem)
A little off topic question: is 'over the hills and (to) faraway a standard storyline phrase like 'once upon a time' and is it usually used to emphasize distance in terms of space? as in: 'very, very |very| far away?' ( in my language there's a phrase with a similar meaning that goes 'over (seven) seas and (seven) horizons'.)

[Bêthberry]

Whether or not LotR is best understood with a knowledge of the Legendarium or not, Gandalf's little Orthanc speech in The Council of Elrond seemed more like the narrator's voice than the wizard's - - - to me. If others find the same thing, maybe that says something more about the author (not deity's) regarding the wizard. After all, Gandalf is used as the "final authority" on anything within the story.

You know, littlemanpoet, I think perhaps this is the story teller coming out in you, for it strikes me that the dilemma here is that Tolkien has certain information that must come out and that it must be told under certain conditions. he choose finally to have Gandalf report the event, but that form of presenting the event created a tension between the character's knowledge and the narrator's knowledge. so to speak.

Tolkien could have chosen to present the Orthanc episode as it occured, but that might have first of all taken away the shock value of Saruman's defection as presented at the Council.

It might also have created too great an impact for Saruman's own words to be spoken, at a time when he must be seen as a traitor. In terms of the story mode, Tolkien choose as Milton did not not to make his villain attractive. There is no risk of being swayed by Saruman's words when they are simply reported words from the survivor of the episode.

To present the information in a scene between Gandalf and Elrond might run the risk of having them appear too much in control of the proceedings, giving them information which would have allowed them to sway the meeting. Here, at least, Elrond knows the general circumstances but he has not been acquainted with the precise details. Thus, his reaction becomes important at the Council.

There seems to be, too, details which are less relevant to Gandalf's Orthanc experience, such as the Gaffer's opinion of the new owners of Bag End, and the full dialogue between Gandalf and Butterbur at the Pony. I think they belong more to a narrator who loves his story and characters than to the wizard per se who must speak of his experience.

I would guess also that at some level Tolkien was aware that this account created a bit of a problem. After all, why give Gandalf his apologetic excuse for its length unless he (Tolkien) were aware that it did not sound enough like Gandalf?

I'm not sure if this is what you meant by telling us something about the author's attitude toward the character, but it strikes me that you are right that so much here is more suited to the narrator than the wizard. It's a writerly dilemma. Tolkien choose the most dramatic means to highlight the Orthanc episode without giving Saruman too much attention, but actually the story telling urge won out over the character.

[davem]

There seems to be, too, details which are less relevant to Gandalf's Orthanc experience, such as the Gaffer's opinion of the new owners of Bag End, and the full dialogue between Gandalf and Butterbur at the Pony. I think they belong more to a narrator who loves his story and characters than to the wizard per se who must speak of his experience.

Shippey comments on this speech of Gandalf, & maybe it would be useful to quote from him:

It is Gandalf's long monolgue, however, which shows most variety in its use of 'imapcted speakers', the direct speech of others quoted by Gandalf. Without that variety the immense amount of necessary plot-detail conveyed by the monologue would run flat. Several of Gandalf's (seven) 'impacted speakers' create, like Boromir, or Sauron's messenger, a sense of the ominous, more or less concealed. Perhaps the least significant, in terms of plot, is Gaffer Gamgee, whose job is only to tell Gandalf that Frodo & the others have left. He makes too much of this, as Gandalf says, 'Many words & few to the point', & Gandalf stresses what it is he actually says:

'I can't abide changes, not at my time of life, & least of all changes for the worst.' Changes for the worst.' he repeated many times...

People draw information not only from what is said, but from how it is said. The continuous variations of language within this complex chapter tell us almost subliminally how reliable characters are, how old they are, how self-assured they are, how mistaken they are, what kind of person they are. All thisx is as vital as the direct information conveyed, not least, as has been said, to prevent the whole chapter from degenerating into the minutes of a committee meeting. (Author of the Century)

If we read Gandalf's description of Orthanc (this one, I think, is the one LMP is referring to :

'However, I wrote a message to Frodo, and trusted to my friend the innkeeper to send it to him. I rode away at dawn; and I came at long last to the dwelling of Saruman. That is far south in Isengard, in the end of the Misty Mountains, not far from the Gap of Rohan. And Boromir will tell you that that is a great open vale that lies between the Misty Mountains and the northmost foothills of Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains of his home. But Isengard is a circle of sheer rocks that enclose a valley as with a wall, and in the midst of that valley is a tower of stone called Orthanc. It was not made by Saruman, but by the Men of Numenor long ago; and it is very tall and has many secrets; yet it looks not to be a work of craft. It cannot be reached save by passing the circle of Isengard; and in that circle there is only one gate.

we see that Gandalf is actually giving important information to the other Council members, most of whom will have little or no knowlege of Saruman. He is telling them why Saruman is a threat - he lives in an impregnable fortress, which he himself did not make. It (& by extension Saruman himself) 'has many secrets'. He is also explaining why he himself found it so difficult to escape from there. Saruman is Orthanc in a very real sense. A detailed description of Orthanc actually tells us a great deal about Saruman himself.

Also, taking the risk of being accused of importing primary world baggage into Middle earth ;) we know that in oral cultures - which Middle earth still is to a great extent - people tended to have a greater capacity to visualise what was described to them if they were given enough information (Peig Sayers, the great Irish storyteller, tells us that the way she managed to remember long stories after only a single hearing was that when she heard the stories she would look at a blank wall & 'see' what was being described. In other words, such descriptions would serve not just as a source of information, but also help too create an image for the listeners).

Gandalf, it seems to me, is giving a lot of important information to an audience who are largely ignorant of what is happening in their world. He does this through the words of a number of different characters, & through descriptions of place. He has a lot to pass on, & he has to make sure his audience take it in. The most effective way to do this (& this applies equally to the reader) is to relate his information in the form of a story. In this sense he does take on the role of 'impartial narrator', but I'd argue that this is entirely right & understandable. Put yourself in the place of one of the Council members & think how much Gandalf is telling you. The kind of mental pictures he is creating would be an invaluable aid in holding all that he's telling you in mind.

[littlemanpoet]

I would guess also that at some level Tolkien was aware that this account created a bit of a problem. After all, why give Gandalf his apologetic excuse for its length unless he (Tolkien) were aware that it did not sound enough like Gandalf?

Bêthberry, you may credit me with more than I deserve. My sense that Gandalf's words sound more like the narrator in describing Orthanc, has to do with having learned much about the writing craft in the last five or so years. The above quote represents the kind of thing I've learned: when a writer uses a character to apologize for something that is not necessarily character related, it is often the writer apologizing to the reader because said writer knows s/he has not done as well as s/he could.

In the interest of getting really, really specific and entirely breaking the enchantment for those who care to read.....

'However, I wrote a message to Frodo, and trusted to my friend the innkeeper to send it to him. I rode away at dawn; and I came at long last to the dwelling of Saruman. That is far south in Isengard, in the end of the Misty Mountains, not far from the Gap of Rohan. And Boromir will tell you that that is a great open vale that lies between the Misty Mountains and the northmost foothills of Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains of his home.

The above part works for me, because Gandalf is speaking to the audience sitting in Elrond's circle.

But Isengard is a circle of sheer rocks that enclose a valley as with a wall, and in the midst of that valley is a tower of stone called Orthanc. It was not made by Saruman, but by the Men of Numenor long ago; and it is very tall and has many secrets; yet it looks not to be a work of craft. It cannot be reached save by passing the circle of Isengard; and in that circle there is only one gate.

This second section is what broke the enchantment for me. Whereas in the first, Gandalf is naming others around the council, here in the second he does not .... and that seems to me to be because it is the narrator's voice that has taken over, giving the reader important information that the writer couldn't think of a better (more timely, more suspenseful) way to convey. It may well be that it is important information for the council members to learn from Gandalf, but that does not mitigate the fact that the voice is the narrator's rather than Gandalf's here.

And now to commit heresy:

'However, I wrote a message to Frodo, and trusted to my friend the innkeeper to send it to him. I rode away at dawn; and I came at long last to the dwelling of Saruman. That is far south in Isengard, in the end of the Misty Mountains, not far from the Gap of Rohan. And Boromir will tell you that that is a great open vale that lies between the Misty Mountains and the northmost foothills of Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains of his home. But Isengard is a circle of sheer rocks that enclose a valley as with a wall, and in the midst of that valley is a tower of stone called Orthanc. It was not made by Saruman, but by the Men of Numenor long ago; and it is very tall and has many secrets; yet it looks not to be a work of craft. I came to Orthanc, passing through the lone gate in the circle of Isengard, for it cannot be reached any other way.'

So you see, it's possible to improve upon Tolkien. :p No, I don't really think I've improved upon him. But my alteration does show one way that Gandalf's voice could have provided the information instead of the intrusive narrator. I'm sure someone must come to Tolkien's defense and show how my alteration actually ruins the effect. I eagerly await it. :)

[HerenIstarion]

Someone must defend, you say?
I'll try my hand, than.

Your Honour, respected Jury!

The paragraph presented by sir Prosecutor is, on its large, presenting respected sir's impression. Defense must rely on age old practice of fighting fire with fire, your Honour, and present the Jury with just another impression, with your kind permission.

If we rely on wider range of sources than LoTR, we'll see Gandalf, or, as he is known to some, Olórin is professional conjurer of mental images... oft he walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom... what baggage? No, your Honour, I do not think you should accept respected Prosecutor's protest, as the sources I refer to are all placed within the bounds of Middle Earth's secondary world... All right, your Honour, let me shift an angle than...

Gandalf, even if we look through evidence presented by LoTR, and LoTR only, is a professional narrator, and his goal, frequently, is production of certain reaction in his audience. More often than not he provides all kinds of information and does so without relating data provided to his own direct action or participation in the events recounted, seeking positive emotional reaction of his listener. Good example is the story of the Ring he provides Frodo with at latter's premises in Bag End:

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles

Not does he rely on prose narration only, but often draws in his wide education in contemporary poetry in conjuring up desired reaction in his audience:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie


He does similar thing on Last Debate:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule

Yes, your Honour, I'll proceed in essence in a minute, and I'm sure I can show how does all I've been telling you up to now relate to Gandalf's case at the Council of Elrond

What Gandalf does at the Council, is an effort to convey the danger Saruman (who is an entity yet unknown to the most part of the audience) presents.

He starts off recounting who Saruman was, and who is now become. Though information may have been conveyed in direct dialogue, direct dialogue would have been devoid of feeling Gandalf is trying to stir, but present bare data.

It cannot be reached save by passing the circle of Isengard; and in that circle there is only one gate.

Produces ominous premonition, feeling of something magical, dangerous and impassable. It does imply Gandalf has passed it, but it also implies passage was a deed not many would dare, somehow adding up to his repute as dangerous and cunning wizard himself.

I came to Orthanc, passing through the lone gate in the circle of Isengard, for it cannot be reached any other way.'

Ruins the carefully built image of secret and ancient wizardry, wondrous might of Númenor, kingdom mentioned during the council for the first time in the narration, I believe (apart from prologue, were it may have slipped reader's attention), If 'I' passed the gate that easily, why should others meet any obstacle? Such an emotion is undesirable to Gandalf than and there.

Finally, Defense has no other way but to conclude the way Gandalf assumes 'narrator's role' is just natural style for him on important occassions. Whilst he may be dark and secretive when directly questioned, he comes out ominous and even 'legendary' and 'mythical' on committee meetings and military briefings.

Respected Jury, presenting Defense's impression to match that of sir Prosecutor's, we plead the case of the Defendant, and are sure you will make the right decision, ladies and gentlemen!

[Mister Underhill]

On the charge of Breaking the Enchantment in the Second Degree (pursuant to Literary Code 128.341a), we the jury find the Author--

Not guilty!

Excellent defense, HI. Gandalf is, by calling and by personal inclination, a storyteller himself. In describing Saruman's dwelling, Gandalf also hints at the nature of Saruman himself -- tall, full of secrets, perilous, not to be judged by his appearance.

You'll be lucky, lmp, if the Defendant doesn't counter-sue for Emotional Distress Caused by Nitpicking. ;)

[Bêthberry]

Well, I see that Mr. Underhill has riden into town in the classic manner of all good westerns--our Dread Horseman remember--and decided to take upon himself the role of all twelve jurors. ;)

I am woefully late--call me Poster of the Woeful Timeframe--but there are some points I wish to reply to some posts back. So, let me sidestep this legal drama, despite my temptation to use a judicial procedure I heard about on Law and Order whereby judges can dismiss a jury's verdict (only in America, you say?), and answer some points davem made. Perhaps my case will be strengthened by this delay and my respected sparring partner will have forgotten the frame of mind in which he composed his extemperaneous post! ;)

I think what you're talking about here is 'unconscious' baggage. What I'm talking about is conscious baggage, where we are deliberately looking for these connections & consciously interpreting what we read or view as we watch or read . The more we bring in these things the more we will detatch ourselves from what we are experiencing.

No, if I had meant to use the word 'unconscious' I would have done so. :)

This dichotomy between conscious/unconscious and pure attention/ wrenching split is part of your theory, davem, but it is not part of what I am talking about. In fact, it reflects your procedure here, in that you take our words and ideas and recast them into your frames of reference. To our detriment of course and the merit of your argument. (Who's to say that we don't all do this?) I want to go back and examine this a bit. All the way back to post #9. (And, no, this was not a love potion # 9. *insert grinning smilie here so I don't exceed my limit*).


I think the point is that if the artist does their job well, & we don't fight too hard, put up too many obstacles between ourselves & them, don't allow (or make) too much 'noise' to disturb us then there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective.

A bit like someone talking in the cinema - it will distract us from the movie, take us out of the secondary reality, & jerk us back into the primary world of sitting in a big darkened room watching flickering images on a screen. Of course, it is entirely possible that the disturbing voice which breaks the spell may be our own!

Another question would be why we're so prone to disenchanting ourselves? Perhaps we've forgotten how to shut up & listen, or maybe we've simply gotten so used to only listening to ourelves that anything which contradicts or challenges our own 'secondary world' of beliefs, values, concepts & connections can't hold our attention - we simply want to be told what we already know. If an author says something that can't be fitted easily into our own secondary reality then we stop listening & walk away.

Here we have the idea that the reader's connections ("Only connect" Auden I think it was, said) in the process of reading reflects bad manners: we "don't shut up" ; we "listen only to ourselves", we don't want to hear anything which challenges us; we only want to hear what we already know; we walk away from difference.

Now, this is hardly an accurate summation of my position. It is a lovely form of rhetorical debate--create a strawman who is thus easier to knock down--but it does not represent what I have maintained happens when reading. My point in post #7 had, in fact, mentioned


Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?

So, I had already considered that in some measure the good reader must begin with some kind of desire to attend to the text and even be willing to fall under its sway. Nor, I think, have my posts shown the kind of tendency suggested here, that of small minded refusal to listen to difference and new meaning. This state of respectful attention does not, as I said above, make the reader into a blank slate upon which the text writes. That, I argue, is a psychological and linguistic impossibility. Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Each text is, if you will, an idiolect, with its own frame of reference. Yet that idiolect is part of the dialect which Tolkien referred to as the 'Common Speech' inevitably turned into modern English (Appendix F). No reader can forego his or her knowledge of that language as he or she reads. (Probably the only reader for whom such was/is possible is our redoubtable HerenIstarion, who, he claims, learnt English by readingTolkien. And we all know and love the idiosyncratic style of our Istarion--I say this affectionately, let none take it the wrong way.)

So, my comparison of Shelob, for instance, was not an analytical imposition, but arose from the associations of the description Tolkien gave me. I can later 'step back' and ask if those associations were truly applicable, but I cannot deny their occuring as I read. This is the state of reading for many of us [edit to remove over generalisation of 'all']. One does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.

Now, on to some other points where I wish to question the construct you use to interpret, in this case, Star Wars.


The impact of the scene you refer to, of Luke's return to find his aunt & uncle dead, may be enhanced for some viewers by similar scenes in other movies, but it is more likely to prove a distraction from the actual events on screen, & produce a 'general' feeling of sadness & loss, rather than a specific feeling related to Luke's loss - we won't be empathising & connecting with Luke here, but with all the characters we've ever seen in similar situatons. Now, as I said, this will probably happen unconsciously with all viewers, but the more we focus on those other episodes, the less we will be focussing on the very specific case of Luke. Why tell this specific story rather than just show a series of old movie clips - that would produce general feelings of loss & bereavement more effectively. It is the specific story of Luke that moves us.

You make the assumption here that SW is only Luke's story, only personal, and that only the personal story can move us. This is like saying LotR is only Frodo's story. It is that, but much more. And with Luke. The personal is intimately connected with the cosmological, so there is no reason why viewers should, from this moment, not begin to piece together Lucas' frame of reference. They don't have to start here--like any good story, there are other points in SW where the reader can begin to understand how the historical events impact upon the personal--but it is available. To deny that is, once again, to posit the creation of meaning only after the fact rather than in process. It is also to make a claim about Luke's story as the only story.

We can love and be moved by Luke and Frodo even while attending to the 'larger' meaning of the Force or the Dark Side or the tantalising references to the history 'behind' Frodo's story, which ironically for some readers of LotR comes at the same time rather than before or, even, after the book closes.

As I said, this is backtracking a fair ways, but it seemed to me time to point out that the almost Manichean dichotomy which davem supplies in his view of reading is not the same framework I suggest.

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps the Prosecutor gets no chance in legal courts to speak once more after the Defense rests, but here on the BDs, I'll take my chance, even if judge and jury have already decided the case.

You examples from the Defendant's texts, respected Defender, do me the favor of rebutting the very thing you claim for them.

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles.

I have bolded text for the sake of the hasty jury. You see, these four little words render this bit of Gandalf's talk as conversation, not mere narration. Thus, it does not apply as strict narration.

The poem Gandalf recites, to which my respected colleague has referred, is a quotation by Gandalf of someone else's rendered speech; therefore, neither can it apply as narration.

From the Last Debate:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

Here again Gandalf is speaking to a group, including himself in it. Note the bolded text. This is in essence a sermonette, not a narration.

At this point I must ask for a brief recess, as my other job calls me away. I shall address the compared original with the alteration as soon as I can. I thank you for your time, my esteemed colleagues.

[Lalwendë]

Gandalf's different ways of speaking can be accounted for if we consider who he is speaking to. At The Council of Elrond, he is not only speaking to a diverse group of people, a meeting of the great and the good, he is also speaking to Frodo. His narration must be inclusive of all his audience, and so he takes care to fully express the sense of the peril he has gone through, knowing that some listening will need to hear more detail.

At The Last Debate he is speaking to a gathering of leaders after a great battle, to discuss tactics and not least of all, to inspire these leaders to take the right decisions which will lead to victory. He uses the 'royal we' to include himself in what must come, to let his listeners subtly know that he will be with them whatever is decided. This is something politicians often use in speeches - they rarely talk of "you", but instead use "we". If the PM said "you must build a fairer society" it has a different meaning to "we must build a fairer society". Note also that he would be unlikely to say "I must build a fairer society". :rolleyes: Yes, his words did sound like sermonising, but that is close to his purpose.

Gandalf uses many voices to speak, as he has many reasons for saying what he does, and he speaks to many different audiences. I don't find this inconsistent myself, it seems appropriate to his character.

Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

This is the state of reading for us all. Once does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.

What is the nature of reading? This is just one theory (and relatively recent as far as I can remember) of how we read yet there are others, so it is not how we all read if experience is different for other people.

Even with the individual there can be differing ways that they read. As I've said before, when I read a report I read and interpret at the same time - possibly because this saves me time, possibly as what I am reading is so dull I have to look for some purpose to it, possibly as I have simply been trained to read such texts in that way.

When I read poetry I read first simply to enjoy the words, any interpretation must come at a much later stage - I view poetry as akin to painting, which should first be experienced for what it is, allowing an emotional reaction to be the first that we experience, before the structure is analysed. With poetry then, I do put the language and words into a holding pattern. As with a painting, those words have been carefully placed to make a picture which should first be viewed as the artefact that it is before we go in to dissect it (which in itself is enjoyable with poetry). I say 'should' as we do not always do that, and I often find that it is this learned practice which puts many young people off poetry, as they simply never get to see the picture as it is and first have an emotional reaction.

I think that when we all first read LotR we had little or no notion of interpretation, certainly those of us who read at a relatively young age; the story is constructed and plotted so that we would have little time or inclination to interpret, as we would just want to know "what happens next?". As are all good stories. Yes, we may have been struck by odd points along the way where things reminded us of this or that, but interpretation would not really be an issue when engrossed in a thrilling plot and a fantastical world. I'd say that it is what happens to each reader afterwards that diverges. Some still read innocently, some read interpretively, some read hoping to see more of Middle Earth than they saw last time around.

[Bêthberry]

This is the state of reading for us all. Once does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.


What is the nature of reading? This is just one theory (and relatively recent as far as I can remember) of how we read yet there are others, so it is not how we all read if experience is different for other people.

Even with the individual there can be differing ways that they read. As I've said before, when I read a report I read and interpret at the same time - possibly because this saves me time, possibly as what I am reading is so dull I have to look for some purpose to it, possibly as I have simply been trained to read such texts in that way.


First of all, Lal, I will say I am sorry for that broad generalisation of "all". I will happily edit so that my point does not exclude those who have different reading experiences (and I will note the edit). As for the "relatively recent" part of the theory, of what import is that?


When I read poetry I read first simply to enjoy the words, any interpretation must come at a much later stage - I view poetry as akin to painting, which should first be experienced for what it is, allowing an emotional reaction to be the first that we experience, before the structure is analysed. With poetry then, I do put the language and words into a holding pattern. As with a painting, those words have been carefully placed to make a picture which should first be viewed as the artefact that it is before we go in to dissect it (which in itself is enjoyable with poetry). I say 'should' as we do not always do that, and I often find that it is this learned practice which puts many young people off poetry, as they simply never get to see the picture as it is and first have an emotional reaction.

I think that when we all first read LotR we had little or no notion of interpretation, certainly those of us who read at a relatively young age; the story is constructed and plotted so that we would have little time or inclination to interpret, as we would just want to know "what happens next?". As are all good stories. Yes, we may have been struck by odd points along the way where things reminded us of this or that, but interpretation would not really be an issue when engrossed in a thrilling plot and a fantastical world. I'd say that it is what happens to each reader afterwards that diverges. Some still read innocently, some read interpretively, some read hoping to see more of Middle Earth than they saw last time around.

I think part of the difference here might lie in how we each use this word 'interpretation.' What is involved in "enjoy the words"?

Do you mean you merely listen to the sound without making any determination of what the words mean?

Interpretation is the act of deciding which meaning of a word pertains to the text. It does not necessarily mean all the convoluted analysis your teachers put you through. For example, readers choose which of the thirty or so meanings of "beat" applies to this particular context, or which meaning of "sound".

Even 'what happens next" means interpreting the words, or making guesses about what might happen. For instance, when Gloin interrupts Gandalf at the Council of Elrond, and Gandalf refers to all the differences between elves and dwarves, and then what happens but Elrond sends Gimli out with Legolas! Well! This is exciting stuff and what reader does not wonder what might come of this strange pairing. This is the engagement with words which is part of the interpretive process. Some readers will attend to the thrilling action part, some to the story of the elves, some to the natural description. But even at the most basic level of reading for story, for what happens, 'interpretation' takes place for us to make sense of what the words refer to.

At least, from this idea of reading.

[davem]

Here we have the idea that the reader's connections ("Only connect" Auden I think it was, said) in the process of reading reflects bad manners: we "don't shut up" ; we "listen only to ourselves", we don't want to hear anything which challenges us; we only want to hear what we already know; we walk away from difference.

Well, I'll see your Auden quote & raise you a Dante one: 'Look, & pass.' Does the artist have anything new to teach us? If so, we should try & experience the art in as 'unbiassed' a way as possible. I'd say that interpretation is what we do with that 'unknown quantity' not the unknown quantity itself. There is something 'objective & unknown' in the art, & that is the really valuable thing about it. My argument is not that spontaneous associations are 'wrong' in some way - they're inevitable - I'm saying that if you stop focussing on the art deliberately & follow your associations in spite of the art, you have broken the spell. Accept the fact of the association, but then put it aside for later - if you wish.

So, I had already considered that in some measure the good reader must begin with some kind of desire to attend to the text and even be willing to fall under its sway. Nor, I think, have my posts shown the kind of tendency suggested here, that of small minded refusal to listen to difference and new meaning. This state of respectful attention does not, as I said above, make the reader into a blank slate upon which the text writes. That, I argue, is a psychological and linguistic impossibility. Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Maybe we're back to the Freudian vs Jungian thing. Frued's approach in interpreting dreams or fantasies was what he called 'free association'. Basically, he believed the only way we could get to the truth about our own unconscious processes was to try & 'trick' it into revealing itself, by freely associating ideas to the events & symbols in our dreams & fantasies, because effectively they are 'allegories' which have to be interpreted. Jung, on the other hand, believed that far from trying to hide & conceal things from us, the unconscious is trying to reveal itself to us in the clearest & most simple way possible. So, Jung's approach was to always focus on the actual dream & avoid as far as possible running away from it.[/QUOTE]

So, my comparison of Shelob, for instance, was not an analytical imposition, but arose from the associations of the description Tolkien gave me. I can later 'step back' and ask if those associations were truly applicable, but I cannot deny their occuring as I read. This is the state of reading for us all. Once does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.

This is what I'm arguing against: I'm not saying you should deny the association with Lilith that arose while you were reading - a Freudian would say you had discovered the 'real' meaning & value of the story for you in that association: You have 'discovered' your 'Lilith complex' or something. What I am saying is that Lilith does not belong in Middle earth, so you have introduced, by association, a distraction. A Jungian would probably ask you why you were 'running away' from Shelob - what is it about Shelob that you are trying to 'avoid'?

I'd say that, far from reading (or listening to a piece of music or looking at a painting) always being an ongoing 'process of interpretation' the 'process of interpretation' is an optional extra - not the Art itself - our response to which is 'experiential' (struggling to express what I mean here :( ). Interpretation is what we do with that experience (or perhaps what we do to it). The art exists 'objectively', our interpretation of it is subjective - or rather our interpretation of our experience of it is. Our experience is our primary response, not our interpretation. I'd say, therefore, that reading (etc) is an 'ongoing process of experiencing' & that the process of interpreting may or may not take place, & may, or may not, be 'ongoing'.

You make the assumption here that SW is only Luke's story, only personal, and that only the personal story can move us. This is like saying LotR is only Frodo's story. It is that, but much more. And with Luke. The personal is intimately connected with the cosmological, so there is no reason why viewers should, from this moment, not begin to piece together Lucas' frame of reference. They don't have to start here--like any good story, there are other points in SW where the reader can begin to understand how the historical events impact upon the personal--but it is available. To deny that is, once again, to posit the creation of meaning only after the fact rather than in process. It is also to make a claim about Luke's story as the only story.

Ok, But the story is focussed on Luke - Luke is like Frodo in that what happens to him is the core of the story. I was referring to the specific incident of Luke's return home to find his aunt & uncle dead. Plus, the film is called A New Hope, so I think the focus of that movie is meant to be Luke - but this is a small point.

[littlemanpoet]

Nothing personal, but I think introducing Freud and Jung into this discussion is bound to unnecessarily complicate things with a whole new battery of conundrums. I just don't think that's what this is about. Whether a reader is "avoiding" or "revealing" something from deep inside, seems by and large beside the point. If something occurs to someone, who says it has to be a psychological phenomenon at all? I grant, of course, that we all have our psyches, and that they're active in the reading process, but I'm telling you, this is a much bigger can of worms than Lal suggested I opened a page or so back.

Okay, now, back to the jurist's chair.

My esteemed colleague from the Defense is, I confess, quite right that the Prosecution's mock-up, while succeeding in striking a personal tone, loses much if not all in dire atmosphere. I did recognize that right off, but decided to let it go as lights-out was quickly approaching. It seems I therefore have two choices. One is to niggle my way to a version that succeeds where Tolkien does in dire atmosphere, as well as where the Prosecution asserts that he fails, in Gandalf speaking as Gandalf would. This in itself faces the twin obstacles of likely failure in terms of the textual goal, and, not proving my point.

As an aside, yes, I am still asserting that Tolkien failed in this particular case, to write as well as the story required. I grant that what the story required may have been impossible, given the constraints into which he had written himself. Which are: (1) presenting a flashback in which the general outcome is already revealed, thus negating the plot suspense; (2) presenting setting information in such a way that both characters and reader learn what must be known in order to fully appreciate the situation both of Gandalf and the Free Peoples in general. Tolkien found his suspense Saruman's betrayal and Gandalf's means of escape. We readers are fascinated with this depiction of evil rationalizing itself as good, along with wondering how Gandalf got out of the fix Saruman had him in. The upshot was that Gandalf had to convey narrator type information while remaining believably Gandalf. I do think that Tolkien almost pulled it off.

The aside aside, the evidence that will prove my point must be produced, which is to present examples of narrator voice and of Gandalfs voice in conversational story-teller mode, and exhibit the differences for all to see.

I grant that the 12 in 1 jury and judge is right in calling this nit-picking, but these nits are those that must be picked in order to counter the arguments of my esteemed opposition. And now for the research. This could take time, so the Prosecution will recess, regardless of whether the defense does or not. So there. Nyah nyah nyah. :D

[Lalwendë]

As for the "relatively recent" part of the theory, of what import is that?

I cannot remember exactly which critic developed (or popularised) the theory that the reader constructs meaning, but as it was relatively recent, it must be borne in mind that theories do change and maybe a better one will come along. So what I suppose I am trying to get at is that I would not settle for one theory of how we read. I have to say that I do like this theory, as I like theories which allow for many possible truths, yet the fact that we seem to all have our own ways of reading, and that there are many purposes for reading, suggests that other ideas must be given consideration too.

What we have to accept if we follow such an idea to the exclusion of others is that it does allow for interpretation which we may find at best silly and at worst offensive. If the reader does indeed construct meaning then taking the theory to its most extreme levels then we can say anything we like about a text as long as we can find lines that seem to back up our statements, despite maybe knowing that the author would have been abhorred by our interpretation.

As someone who likes to consider different angles to many things I do like the idea of being freely interpretive, but then I have to step back and consider that if I want to know what the author intended, then I must not rely on this one way of looking at a text, I must look in other ways.

This again leads on to how I read poetry. To enjoy the words without interpreting them, I mean that I listen to/read the way the words are grouped, the sounds and shapes they make, and the immediate meanings they conjour up. The joy in this is that when it comes to looking at that poem in depth, there is much more to be found; a word can be discovered to have another meaning, or the placing of a comma can make a big difference. But like a piece of artwork, poetry is best seen on the surface at first, before we look at what it is made from. If you have an artwork on your wall, you do not often look at it in depth, you simply enjoy it. This does not mean you cannot enjoy peering at where the brushstrokes are, but if you know more about how the brushstrokes have been placed than you do about the way the picture makes you feel when you look at it, then the purpose of the artwork is lost. If that makes sense? :)

I think much the same approach can be applied with films. I don't often watch "the making of..." documentaries as I can find they spoil the magic of a film. And taking this back to Tolkien, I think the ultimate enjoyment that can be had from the books is from simply enjoying the world he created The next best pleasure is in trying to find out more about it, what he intended by it all, and to find out what he meant, I have to suspend, to a certain extent, my own beliefs and try to understand what his may have been.

But this again, is another theory of reading, possibly veering towards biographical interpretation. I'm not hung up on it though, and I would suppose that this is what I am saying, that to choose one theory, one way of reading is perhaps what can spoil our reading (or more especially our potential to read in many ways and so possibly come to wonderfully surprising realisations) not the way chosen in itself.



As Gandalf did, I've got to apologise for the long ramble. I meant to be short and I was not... ;)

[littlemanpoet]

Bringing my own personal ‘baggage’ into the conversation ... it's useless to even imagine you're trying to understand what the author is really meaning to say. ... it's both funny and appropriate that Tolkien's books, which deal with nostalgia for things lost, awaken the same feeling in the reader. Our nostalgia is two fold: for the Elves that leave Middle Earth, never to return, and that of yet again reaching the end of the book; and the pang of sadness that comes with realizing you'll never experience that first-time enchantment again. ... My first reaction, when I saw this thread and read LMP's 'warning' was 'back away as quick as possible' but then I kept seeing this thread reaching page 2, 3, 4, and I thought 'well. some people apparently are brave enough to take that chance and dissect things. ... So when I was in an atom prying open mood, I took up reading this thread and I must say it was worth the 3 hours I spent on it. .... A little off topic question: is 'over the hills and (to) faraway a standard storyline phrase like 'once upon a time' and is it usually used to emphasize distance in terms of space? as in: 'very, very |very| far away?' ( in my language there's a phrase with a similar meaning that goes 'over (seven) seas and (seven) horizons'.)

How did I not see this post yesterday? :eek: Thanks for putting in your 2¢. I did wonder how many people I scared away with that, and still think I'm glad I did. I get a kick out of you agreeing with people who see themselves (or at least their opinions) as diametrically opposed. :p

AS to your off topic question, I haven't the foggiest idea of the answer. I don't recall reading or hearing it in fairy tales. Sorry I can't help. :(

[Mister Underhill]

Let's do this true western style and just get a rope. ;)
I grant that the 12 in 1 jury and judge is right in calling this nit-picking, Actually, in all seriousness, I think you're going beyond nitpicking here and into an arbitrary division between what you term "narrator" and "conversational storyteller" styles. There's no formal rule or convention that I am familiar with which Tolkien has violated here. I can't see why Gandalf need reference either himself or his audience to sound authentic. Indeed, Gandalf's voice would soon become wooden and tiresomely pedantic if we corrected all of the exposition that he delivers to conform with this dubious "rule". Stow that baggage, mister! There's no reason why Gandalf can't "narrate" a story that he's recounting, even if he's a character in that story.

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, LotR is rife with stories (and a consciousness of storytelling) within the story -- which as far as I'm concerned makes Middle-earth more believable, not less.

[Formendacil]

I should like to say that the Jury agrees that both the prosecution and the defence present convincing arguments, and in regard to the matter of Gandalf's speech, the jury is at a loss to say who is definitively in the right.

The spokesman agrees with Masters Istarion and Davem, that the style used by Tolkien serves the greater narrative purpose of providing the information needed to inform the members of the council- and the reader- about the dangers and backstory of Saruman, while also recounting his experience.

While the speaker enjoys the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf (taken alone, and not as a narrative within the story), and personally felt no disruption of the enchantment, he must admit, as does all the jury, that Master L.M. Poet has a point.

While explicable by devious means of the translator conceit, or arguments concerning Gandalf's greatly versatile abilities, the jury concedes that this passage is more in accord with the broad narrative, as told by the narrator, than with words of Gandalf as spoken at most times previous.

For the moment, the jury remains undecided. I, personally, would like to say that perhaps Tolkien, like the jury, was in a stalemate position: unable to remain consistent one way, unable to properly further the story the other. Perhaps it was choosing the lesser of the two evils, the one more easily forgiven?

And, as an aside, how does this great exposition of Gandalf's compare with his other great revealing speeches in "A Shadow of the Past"?

[littlemanpoet]

The Prosecution would like to thank Jury Member Formendacil for granting the point. You have aptly summarized much of the argument the Prosecution seeks to make.

The Prosecution is most pleased to have attained to this new height claimed for it by none other than Jury Member Mister U. Hill. I dare say it needs a name! Niggle picking? Nit wicking? Nano-nit-picking?

The Shadows of the Past is one narration that will certainly be set under the microscope, as it were, but not the only one. Prosecution recesses once more.

[Bêthberry]

I cannot remember exactly which critic developed (or popularised) the theory that the reader constructs meaning, but as it was relatively recent, it must be borne in mind that theories do change and maybe a better one will come along. So what I suppose I am trying to get at is that I would not settle for one theory of how we read. I have to say that I do like this theory, as I like theories which allow for many possible truths, yet the fact that we seem to all have our own ways of reading, and that there are many purposes for reading, suggests that other ideas must be given consideration too.

What we have to accept if we follow such an idea to the exclusion of others is that it does allow for interpretation which we may find at best silly and at worst offensive. If the reader does indeed construct meaning then taking the theory to its most extreme levels then we can say anything we like about a text as long as we can find lines that seem to back up our statements, despite maybe knowing that the author would have been abhorred by our interpretation.

As someone who likes to consider different angles to many things I do like the idea of being freely interpretive, but then I have to step back and consider that if I want to know what the author intended, then I must not rely on this one way of looking at a text, I must look in other ways.

This again leads on to how I read poetry. To enjoy the words without interpreting them, I mean that I listen to/read the way the words are grouped, the sounds and shapes they make, and the immediate meanings they conjour up. The joy in this is that when it comes to looking at that poem in depth, there is much more to be found; a word can be discovered to have another meaning, or the placing of a comma can make a big difference. But like a piece of artwork, poetry is best seen on the surface at first, before we look at what it is made from. If you have an artwork on your wall, you do not often look at it in depth, you simply enjoy it. This does not mean you cannot enjoy peering at where the brushstrokes are, but if you know more about how the brushstrokes have been placed than you do about the way the picture makes you feel when you look at it, then the purpose of the artwork is lost. If that makes sense?

I think much the same approach can be applied with films. I don't often watch "the making of..." documentaries as I can find they spoil the magic of a film. And taking this back to Tolkien, I think the ultimate enjoyment that can be had from the books is from simply enjoying the world he created The next best pleasure is in trying to find out more about it, what he intended by it all, and to find out what he meant, I have to suspend, to a certain extent, my own beliefs and try to understand what his may have been.

But this again, is another theory of reading, possibly veering towards biographical interpretation. I'm not hung up on it though, and I would suppose that this is what I am saying, that to choose one theory, one way of reading is perhaps what can spoil our reading (or more especially our potential to read in many ways and so possibly come to wonderfully surprising realisations) not the way chosen in itself.



As Gandalf did, I've got to apologise for the long ramble. I meant to be short and I was not...

Ah, we seem to have misunderstood each other, Lalwendë. I was referring to the activity of reading, as explained in linguistics, of how we make sense of the marks on the page by distinguishing the marks from the backgrounds, scanning and making predictions, referring them to known patterns in the language, to point out that there is no passive mere experience of language (at least in linguistics). Extrapolating from this is the reader's holding in his or her head the story already read and accruing to that the new information provided by the story.

As for 'reader response' literary theory, there is no one theory, no one model, no one critic, and in fact, no general agreement about what happens. In some form all regard the book as a text, that is, a form of language to which readers supply the codes or strategies as they experience it. There isn't even any general agreement on what the text is. For some, it exists only in the reader's head--they deny the objective existence of the text. The book they admit is objective, but the 'text', the place where the experience occurs, is not. This seems to be the way davem understands my perspective--or at least, how I see him interpreting my perspective. For others in the reader response camp, the psychological effect provides a tool for examining a culture's ideology. (This I think might be a fruitful avenue for more discussions here at the Downs.) For still others (and this is where I come from, to use a cliche) the act of reading is a linguistic event which is a social event, not a personal, solipsistic event, where the interaction between the words on the page and the reader's use of language creates a culture of meaning.

So, while davem and Lalwendë think that reader response means biographical interpretation, that is not the way I have struggled or attempted to explain my position. It's like the old conundrum: if a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? It all depends on how one defines noise/text.

For me, the experience of the art is a linguistic act, and that involves making choices about the codes and strategies which comprise the English language. It is not limited to past experience, to psychological trauma/sublimation/transference/ but is part of how language works to create new experience, new understanding. Thus, it is not merely peering into a mirror to see one's self.

So I agree with littlemanpoet that the act of reading does not have to have psychological stimuli or phenomena at all. And so at this point I think I've reached the stage where I have to say, politely, that I must agree to disagree with certain members of this discussion. :)

As for the Court Proceedings, I think part of difficulty lies with the Defense's insistence that there has to be a rule or convention by which to proceed. My understanding is that the Prosecution is endeavouring to formulate a theory by which he can communicate or explain his experience of Tolkien's story-telling. Why should Tolkien's story-telling be limited by previous teller's? I don't think profiling provides an acceptable means here to determine the case. ;)

[davem]

I have to admit to feeling a little out of my depth in this kind of discussion. If I am misunderstanding your position its probably because I don't have your accademic background. I'm someone who left school at 16 - without having paid too much attention to what I was being taught if I'm honest. Since then I've read a lot of books, but haven't followed any particular course of study, just reading what appealed to me. This is simply to try & explain why I may sometimes misunderstand or misinterpret what other's post - NOT that I'm accusing anyone of being deliberately obtuse, so please don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. My position in this debate has been put together as I've gone along, & I've tried to formunlate an argument in response to the things others haved posted. So, in short, I can't bring in a lot of literary or linguistic theory to support my position. Its based on a 'gut feeling', that it should be possible to experience a work of art as a thing in itself, something objective, unknown. That seems to me what we 'owe' to the art. The art is the 'not me', it is 'other', it exists in its own space, which I may enter to commune with it, but that 'communion' will not be so much an interaction as an opening up on my part to that 'other'.

It seems to me that there is perhaps a difference between the 'literary novel' & the story. At the extreme of the literary novel we have, say, Finnegan's Wake, a novel as much about language itself as it is about anything else. Perhaps we could put the folktale - especially the folktale as heard rather than read - at the other extreme. What I mean is that in the literary novel the focus is on the language - the text - while in the folktale the focus is on images. Folktales are often (like folksongs), a series of images, vignettes, episodes, with interconnecting narrative. I think a work like Tolkien's Legendarium is very close to folktale in this sense. The reason I say this is that, unlike its 'polar opposite', FW, which has very few 'images' - apart from ones conjured by 'connection' or analogy in the mind of the reader - a work like LotR is full of such scenes & images - they are what strike us & stick in our minds. The most powerful of which for me is the sight from the summit of Weathertop across the wide lands of Middle earth.

These images are incredibly powerful, they kind of 'burn' themselves into our psyches, & create the sense of 'enchantment' I'm talking about here, the sudden
intense glimpse of the 'Other', the 'not me'. The reason that sight of wild lands from the summit of Weathertop affected me so profoundly was not because it made me thinkof something else, some other place I had known, nor was it because of the language, the specific words Tolkien had used. Neither was it because of the events that lead to the Hobbits & Strider standing there, or any 'projection' into the future events of the story & what might happen. What it was, I think, was that specific image - not the words themselves but the image they evoked - looking down from a high place onto an unknown land. It was a 'primal', archetypal experience, & its 'power' came from its 'otherness', its absolute unfamiliarity. Something 'other', something I hadn't brought to that particular party, had overwhelmed me.

So, perhaps 'language', literary theory & linguistics have as little place in this discussion as 'psychology'. I think its the 'images' that 'enchant' us - not by their familiarity but by their 'unfamiliarity'. Words, paint, music are the medium.

Whether any of that makes sense I have no idea....

[Mister Underhill]

As for the Court Proceedings, I think part of difficulty lies with the Defense's insistence that there has to be a rule or convention by which to proceed. My understanding is that the Prosecution is endeavouring to formulate a theory by which he can communicate or explain his experience of Tolkien's story-telling. Why should Tolkien's story-telling be limited by previous teller's? I don't think profiling provides an acceptable means here to determine the case.The thing that drew me into this thread finally was this (Your Honor, we'd like this marked "Defense Exhibit 1"): My sense that Gandalf's words sound more like the narrator in describing Orthanc, has to do with having learned much about the writing craft in the last five or so years.It seems to me that lmp is offering more of a professional opinion here, an opinion that Tolkien has violated a rule or convention of craft with his handling of Gandalf.

As a fellow wordsmith, I felt the alleged rule required a challenge.

[littlemanpoet]

So, perhaps 'language', literary theory & linguistics have as little place in this discussion as 'psychology'.

Let's see now, I think we're all on this board talking about a literary work, not a psychological treatise. And this particular literary work is chock-full of fascinating tidbits about language, literary craft, and the results of a philological rootedness (not linguistics). Or am I missing something? This, I confess (and it probably says twice as much about me as anyone else around here) is the second time I've reacted to something asserted on this thread with "You have got to be kidding." Ah well.

The quote below has been altered merely to illustrate something, not to poke fun or anything derogatory at all.

I can't bring in a lot of [spirituality or theology] to support my position. Its based on a 'gut feeling', that it should be possible to experience [spiritual reality] as a thing in itself, something objective, unknown. That seems to me what we 'owe' to [god/spirit/the other]. [God] is the 'not me', [god] is 'other',[god] exists in [god's] space, which I may enter to commune with [god], but that 'communion' will not be so much an interaction as an opening up on my part to that 'other'.

davem is revealing a similarity between literary and spiritual experience, which may be part of why reading LotR can be so profound, as dinziliel said on the Visible Souls thread recently, it's about Truth, Reality. That means that those things that prove to undermine our belief or faith in whatever we hold dear, are likely to be similar to that which breaks the enchantment for us in LotR.

It seems to me that lmp is offering more of a professional opinion here, an opinion that Tolkien has violated a rule or convention of craft with his handling of Gandalf.

Call it avocational rather than professional, for I cannot claim to have earned anything from my writing beyond "my very own copy" of the issue of the literary magazine in which my poem was published. Big deal. :p

The convention is the distinction between narrative voice and character voice. If it is unclear, then it becomes possible to say, in the case of Tolkien, that there is at least overlap. If so, then Gandalf as a character has been compromised. How much does this matter in the overall? It depends upon (1) an individual's reading (2) how Tolkien uses Gandalf at all places in the story.

My research continues and the results will be forthcoming soon.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
It seems to me that there is perhaps a difference between the 'literary novel' & the story. At the extreme of the literary novel we have, say, Finnegan's Wake, a novel as much about language itself as it is about anything else. Perhaps we could put the folktale - especially the folktale as heard rather than read - at the other extreme. What I mean is that in the literary novel the focus is on the language - the text - while in the folktale the focus is on images.

Certainly there are vast differences between folktales and works like Finnegan's Wake. But I think there are two mistakes to avoid here. First, I don't think it's quite right to say that there is a literary vs. imagistic opposition between them. I think it is not trivial to note that all literature (even spoken folk-tales) is, fundamentally, made of words. For a narrative art-form that is really based on images, we'd have to turn to film. Comic books, too, I suppose. I also wonder to what extent the "focus on images" that you see in the folk-tale is an objective fact about the genre and to what extent it is simply the thing that you as a reader react to most strongly.

The second potential mistake, I think, is to see a qualitative difference between two genres and to mistake it for a fundamental difference not only in the way the two genres are but in the way they should be approached. It's fair enough to point out ways in which LotR differs from something like Finnegans Wake. But what does that difference mean for us? Does it mean that we must bring a different sensibility, a different analytic vocabulary, to LotR?

I would say, rather, that there are different ways to approach the work, each of which is valid. Or perhaps I should say all of which are valid, for it seems to me that there is no choice to be made; all approaches are valid simultaneously. I would say, in fact, that one indication that a work of art is great is that it can be approached simultaneously from a great many different ways.

[davem]

I don't want to 'downgrade' Tolkien's use of language - indeed, I think that ne reason the radio series 'feels' closer to LotR for me than the movie is that the adaptors used more of Tolkien's original language - as I said the radio series is more like a dramatised reading than an adatation.

My point is that Tolkien's use of language is intended to create images in the mind - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. The images almost exist apart from the language used to exress them. I suppose this is why the work has inspired so many artists (& filmmakers), why there is a desire to present the descriptions in a visual form. I wonder how many of us, on calling to mind events in the story actually call to mind the words ? For most of us, I think, what come to mind are the images formed in our minds by the words. So, it is the images created that affect us. Other words could have been used (maybe with less effect), but the images would still have been formed as we have them. I go back to Peig Sayers account of how she retained the stories she heard. She would 'see' them on the wall in front of her. Her son, Micheal O'Guiheen, talks about one story, The King of Ireland's Son, which would 'take two weeks of nights' to recount. Of course, there would be certain common phrases (as we find in Homer) whih would be used in the telling of such tales, but generally what the storyteller would do was describe the images they had 'seen' when they heard the story the first time. It was the images which were transmitted, not the words used to describe them. The repeated turns of phrase would serve almost as 'mnemonics', or connecting phrases to link the images being described.

For a narrative art-form that is really based on images, we'd have to turn to film. Comic books, too, I suppose. I also wonder to what extent the "focus on images" that you see in the folk-tale is an objective fact about the genre and to what extent it is simply the thing that you as a reader react to most strongly.

I think that with movies & comicbooks we have a similar thing to what happened inside the heads of those hearing the old stories, with the essential difference that the hearer formed their own images out of what they had in their individual psyches. This is not the 'baggage' I've been talking about. In the folktales collected by Campbell & published as Popular Tales of the West Highlands we often find fairy castles described as larger versions of the ordinary houses people lived in, because thats all they had to go on.

When I talk about 'baggage' its not the 'raw material' of trees, hills, rivers, etc, that we must supply to bring the story to life in our imagination, but rather our own memories, literary, psychological, religious theories & beliefs, etc. So, if a writer mentions a hill, we supply the image of a hill, based on the hills we've seen, iin real life or in pictures. But, if on hearing that word 'hill' we start thinking 'Oh, yes, a hill! I remember when Fred & Sue & I went walking in the countryside, & we climbed that big hill at midday & I saw that cafe by the road side & we went down & had that meal, which wasn't too good & was bloody expensive, & actually I couldn't really afford it & it meant I had to put on hold buying that cd I'd intended to get till next payday...etc, then we've broken the enchantment. I think Buddhists refer to that as the 'butterfly mind', flitting from one thing to another & never focussing on the thing on front of us.

I think, in other words, that to truly experience any art form, we have to learn to focus on it, & not let ourselves be distracted by that kind of baggage. Its not so much that we have to become willing victims, surrendering all our autonomy, & letting ourselves be manipulated by the artist, its that we have to 'listen' as carefully as we can & make an effort not to be distracted by other things, or by ourselves - not something we can do completely, I acknowledge, but something we should make a real attempt to do, if we want to be enchanted - of course, we may not want to be enchanted: its optional. But if we don't make the effort we can't complain that it doesn't happen, or that at points it is broken. At times it may be necessary to ignore the workers coming in & moving the scenery about. If they are doing their job well they won't prove too intrusive.

[Mister Underhill]

The convention is the distinction between narrative voice and character voice. I get that, but I think your arguments so far as to exactly what that distinction is are based on an arbitrary rule that you've either formulated for yourself or picked up from somewhere else. It's this "rule" that I disagree with: Whereas in the first, Gandalf is naming others around the council, here in the second he does not .... and that seems to me to be because it is the narrator's voice that has taken over, giving the reader important information that the writer couldn't think of a better (more timely, more suspenseful) way to convey. It may well be that it is important information for the council members to learn from Gandalf, but that does not mitigate the fact that the voice is the narrator's rather than Gandalf's here.

[emphasis on the most pertinent extract mine, of course]Who says a character has to reference his audience in order to make his dialogue "in character voice"?

The real question here, minus the jargon, is simply: Is Gandalf's dialogue believable as something that Gandalf would say, in a way that he would say it?

You already know my answer.

P.S. -- Sorry for this sidebar conversation. Carry on with the baggage and such. :)

[Bêthberry]

I would say, rather, that there are different ways to approach the work, each of which is valid. Or perhaps I should say all of which are valid, for it seems to me that there is no choice to be made; all approaches are valid simultaneously. I would say, in fact, that one indication that a work of art is great is that it can be approached simultaneously from a great many different ways.

Popping in quickly to say that I think Aiwendil has suggested a point which really needs to be considered in more depth. Does a work of art demand or create its own, individual, unique way of reading, or is that rather the realm of lesser works of art, that can be appreciated in a limited way? Does greatness--and we all seem to believe that Tolkien is great--reside in the polysemy of ways of reading?

Many of us come to it first for the adventure and the action, but something draws us backto LotR. Or perhaps it is our delight in hobbits that keeps us glued. Or we are entranced by the ways of the elves. Then, something grows on us, something that perhaps develops at the expense of that initial experience, but which could not be possible without that first experience. This seems to be a history for many of us, that we began reading LotR one way, but were drawn back, and came to read it other ways.

And yet all of these ways of reading are held simultaneously as ways of reaching out to us. Isn't this a sign of greatness? Why should LotR be limited just to one kind of approach or reading? Yes, yes, I think Aiwendil is right about that.

[littlemanpoet]

Who says a character has to reference his audience in order to make his dialogue "in character voice"?

No one. But if this turns out to be Gandalf's habit, then a failure to do it raises questions. I'm researching it. So call that part of it a theory for now.

The real question here, minus the jargon, is simply: Is Gandalf's dialogue believable as something that Gandalf would say, in a way that he would say it?

That's not the only 'real' question. The other question is whether a particular text that is spoken by Gandalf is more like scene narration by the author than it is like Gandalf's speech. I'm researching that too.

P.S. -- I'm not at all sorry for the sidebar conversation, as the baggage part of this seems to have by and large run its course, although Aiwendil's recent pot-stirring has started to make it interesting again.

[Bêthberry]

Lately, I've been thinking more and more about different forms of narrative, particularly the old ancient forms in the traditional epics and the modern forms, either realistic or post modern. And I was reminded of littlemanpoet's thread here.

In the old epic tales which Tolkien harkened after, the narrator is an authoritative, reliable narrator whose knowledge (omniscience) is taken for granted. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the narrator's views of characters and events and the characters' views of themselves and of events. In modern literature (post 19C), there is often much disparity between how the narrator views the characters and events and how the characters do--and how the readers do as well. There's a distance there. I guess another way of saying this is that modern narratives are more ironic.

Are there any discrepancies between Tolkien's narrator's view and those of his characters? If there are, does this distance destroy the enchantment? Is self-knowledge, self-reflection, any kind of distancing between narrator/character/reader not feasible in fantasy? Does fantasy have to mean a total sublimation or suspension of the reader's disbelief? Or is this just a function of Tolkien's nod to the old narrative forms?

And, if enchantment requires the absence of irony or distance, does that make parody of fantasy far more easy or potent?

[Formendacil]

The "enchantment" that the Lord of the Rings puts on us is much like the golden eggs of nursery rhyme fodder. Both are beneficial to us, and bring a great deal of joy into our lives. However, how is it possible for a goose to lay golden eggs? In the fable, which I no longer fully recall (*ashamed*), the owners of the goose kill her to get at the eggs, and thus obviously ending the enchantment.

And it seems to me that to over-examine the cracks and holes in the book's enchantment is tantamount to killing the goose. In doing so, are we perhaps ending any future benefit, any future enchantment?

In the ongoing series of Formendacil-rereads-old-threads, this one hit me like a tonne of bricks, because although I did not remember its specific content (there is some spicy literary discussion in here, from the days when the Elves still stormed Angband!), I remembered this reaction, viscerally.

It's also interesting, reading some of the posts, that I have come to appreciate other positions. Most notably, Heren Istarion's point about Tolkien having been a major conduit through which he learned English. Although a born-and-bred English speaker (albeit of the prairie Canadian sub-dialect), I read Tolkien at a young enough age and reread him and reread him enough times that I don't I stand in an objective position at all when it comes to being pulled out of the art: the enchantment ISN'T, as a rule, broken for me, because it's become bound up in who I am.

That said, nine years ago when last this thread walked the earth, I had a very queasy reaction to all this "goose-killing." Part of that, perhaps, was the reaction of a precocious 18-year-old to the possibility that people knew a lot more than him (it pains me no end to read old posts I have left, even knowing they were in the main well-received at the time), but it was also, I think, a case of a devotee fearing for the beloved.

That gets us back into all sorts of previously-covered ground on this thread, but the interesting thing is that, by joining the Barrow-downs in the first place--and I joined for the Books discussion first and foremost, though other things came after--I was already subjecting Middle-earth to the scalpel. And in the years since, I have amassed a small collection (woefully incomplete) of academic-ese laden books about Middle-earth and even written in that vein myself.

For a while, I think it DID make reading The Lord of the Rings a more arid experience. In other words, for a few years there (not coincidentally the same years I was previously most active on this forum), knowing too much about the context and the parallels and the movie mish-hashes and the Tumblr memes did, in fact, break the enchantment. But the enchantment has reasserted itself and become the richer.

In other words, it's a disconcerting and jolting experience to realise you might have been growing up. By the same token, it turns out, Eighteen-year-old-Self, that growing up DOESN'T mean breaking the enchantment.

[mark12_30]

L294

Quote:
If it is of interest, the passages that now move me most – written so long ago that I read them now as if they had been written by someone else – are the end of the chapter Lothlórien (I 365-7), and the horns of the Rohirrim at cockcrow.
__________________

Thank you, H-I. Those passages move me too...

[Tar-Verimuchli]

For me it's not just one event or character, to put it simply it's how good the good guys are and how bad the bad guys are. It doesn't necessarily 'break the enchantment' but it is something that affects my appreciation of the 'secondary world'. It's also why I find characters like Feanor, Eol and Gollum more interesting than Finrod, Galadriel and Sam and can't stand the Vanyar.

[mark12_30]

No one. But if this turns out to be Gandalf's habit, then a failure to do it raises questions. I'm researching it. So call that part of it a theory for now..

I do research on humans for a living. The human race is not that consistent. You know I love you, lmp, but a man will do the same thing a different way, some days, for many possible reasons, including because sometimes humans are just like that. It's one of the things that makes us interesting. Gandalf may have habits, but I imagine he is flexible enough to adjust his styles to the moment.

On with the court proceedings...

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Formendacil, for tempting me to reread this thread. I see that I have failed to fulfill my promise. I confess that I lost the passion for the research, and it was never completed. I don't think it's going to happen. I confess also that my prosecutorial certitude of 2005 has diminished markedly in the last 9 years. So I must retire my prosecution permanently, as I've no stomach for it these days.

That said, it has been a happy stroll down memory lane.

Is self-knowledge, self-reflection, any kind of distancing between narrator/character/reader not feasible in fantasy? Does fantasy have to mean a total sublimation or suspension of the reader's disbelief? Or is this just a function of Tolkien's nod to the old narrative forms?

And, if enchantment requires the absence of irony or distance, does that make parody of fantasy far more easy or potent?

I have deleted the questions from the above quote that I consider myself unequipped to answer. I think that modern fantasy has seen distancing and/or the lack thereof across the spectrum.

I think a suspension of disbelief is a minimum requirement for fantasy. Secondary belief is the goal. The difference between the two is essential. For those who may be unfamiliar with the distinction, suspension of disbelief is the act of setting aside one's own lack of belief in what one is reading. Secondary belief is, first, never having had disbelief, and second, imaginatively entering into a secondary world, experiencing it as primary while reading.

Frankly, secondary belief is necessary for any fiction, not just fantasy.

[Bêthberry]

Wow, what a blast from the past! Nearly ten years ago. I can barely recognise myself in my posts, although what I think I was trying to suggest is that there is not really only one way to read either Tolkien, fantasy generally, or perhaps even any fiction.

I have recently come across a similar discussion and think this comment pertains very well to my thoughts these days. I am copying it with permission. It comes from one of our own members, although not written for the Downs.


For some of us, the fascination and enjoyment of reading Tolkien's work – of being under the enchantment of our Secondary Belief in his sub-creation – awakens a desire to know more, to uncover a layer behind, beneath or above the one that is obvious ... and another layer, and another layer.

Doing this enhances our appreciation, and having done it, at least for me, enhances the sense of joy I find in myself whenever I come under Tolkien's enchantment once more.

I will not say that my way of appreciating Tolkien is better than anyone else's, but neither will I accept any claim that it is in some way lesser. It merely is mine, and as long as it increases my joy in Tolkien's writings, I shall continue doing it.

I suppose one could argue that Troelsfo's statement represents a desire to seek out the fuller details of the consistency which Tolkien was suggesting.

I'm no longer sure that either secondary belief or willing suspension of disbelief adequately explain the aesthetic situation of reading fiction/fantasy. Perhaps it is simply the ability to enter imaginatively into things that would normally be implausible, something akin to listening to arguments that violate our sense of reality/truth or considering perspectives from cultures different from our own.

[Inziladun]

I'm no longer sure that either secondary belief or willing suspension of disbelief adequately explain the aesthetic situation of reading fiction/fantasy. Perhaps it is simply the ability to enter imaginatively into things that would normally be implausible, something akin to listening to arguments that violate our sense of reality/truth or considering perspectives from cultures different from our own.

To read Fiction basically inserts me into a waking dream. Reality fades to a background hum, and the book becomes reality. There is no difficulty with well-written fiction in accepting totally the world it contains.

I think one thing about Tolkien which aids me in acceptance of Middle-earth as 'real' is that in most substantial points, it is congruous with actual reality. The land has familiar patterns and forms: mountains, plains, forests, and deserts are described so that they fundamentally conform to what I have seen with my eyes. Plants, animals, and weather patterns are not those of some alien place.

The 'fantastic' alterations are still near enough to the familiar that I do not balk at the idea of talking trees, eagles, and angelic spirits embodied that act for both good and evil.
Elves and Dwarves, though having definite unique characteristics, to me manifest parts of the nature of Men in this world, so that the fantasy representations in Arda are once again not incomprehensible.

I think Tolkien understood well where the line stood with respect to 'believable' fantasy and the children's fairy-tale that adults simply smiled at. He stocked his works with alluring places, persons, and things that were recognizable enough to hold the interest of the realist, yet fantastic to the point that the dreamer was also enthralled.

[Troelsfo]

First of all, thank you to Bêthberry for alerting me to this interesting thread!

There are two issues in this thread that I should like to react to and reflect upon.

First, as to the experience of reading. I am, by education, a physicist, and I have worked in the world of the natural sciences all my adult life. This is my starting point for my interest in both the history of science and the philosophy of science. Our sciences, both the natural sciences, but also the humanist and sociological sciences, have evolved by the exchange of the written word, and I dare say that these sciences have evolved quite far based on this, and the written word has thus been able to establish a very large degree of common and shared understanding of not only the natural world (the topic of my own subject), but also of the world of the human mind.

With this in mind, I have to insist that any theory or model for the reading experience must account for the ability of the text to establish such a very high degree of shared understanding – something I often find that the more subjective models, insisting that all meaning is created in the mind of the reader and is completely subjective and non-communicable, fail to explain in a satisfying way.

It is, I trust, obvious that there are differences between different kinds of text. At one end we may have some of the more experimental forms of poetry, and at the other end a scientific article detailing some advance in our mathematical formulation of a problem in physics (and I suspect that such a one-dimensional model is woefully inadequate, but please bear with me for moment).

But even the most experimental form of poetry relies on shared conventions of interpreting the marks on the page (or screen) into sounds, of stringing them into words, for the individual words to obtain meaning, and for word-meanings to string together. Even when the Art deviates from these shared conventions, it still relies on them for its effect.

My point here is that any model for the reading experience must be able to account for the very high degree of communicability of meaning in a written form (I am here completely ignoring the issue of a common language – I assume that we are speaking of competent language-users in all cases).


The other, and related, topic that I would wish to reflect upon, is the enchantment of the sub-creator. This is what I touch upon in the statement that Bêthberry has already quoted.

For me, Tolkien's description of Literary Belief in his essay ‘On Fairy-stories’ has always described very acutely my own experience when reading Tolkien. But it goes further than that. The essay is also a sub-creation, and, like the game of cricket that Tolkien mentions, it can, for the enthusiast, produce the same kind of enchanted state, and it does so for me. So do the texts by Tom Shippey and Verlyn Flieger, and a number of other analytical and / or critical texts.

What is more, I have found that, for me, the reading of these have the effect of enhancing both the effect of Literary Belief and the feeling of joy when I sit down to read Tolkien's works again. Having this deeper understanding of Tolkien's text – and being conscious of it while reading, for me, actually increases its power of enchantment.

I do realise that this is not the case for everyone. For many the conscious realisation that Gandalf's choice at the Council of Elrond is an excellent example of trusting in providence (making the policy of the Council an exemplar of the claim that ‘in God we trust’) will only serve to break the enchantment, and I would never dream of forcing this conscious realisation upon them when they read, but I would, on the other hand, ask them to accept that their experience is not universal either, and that it has, for me (and doubtlessly for many others – I am not conceited enough to believe I am unique), the opposite effect: that of enhancing the enchantment and the joy in the story – in effect increasing the beauty I find in the story.


Looking this through, it seems to me that I am suggesting that we look at this at least as a two-dimensional thing (and probably there is still more to it than this).

One dimension is the extraction of meaning from a text. Here our subjective experiences seem to play a smaller part than it is often claimed, though this obviously varies depending on how abstruse the meaning is – if the text is composed with some care and the intention of communicating meaning, the transmission can be near-perfect, but if the text is composed in order to create sensations (or is composed carelessly), the transmission of meaning can be very poor.

The other dimension, then, is the engaging with the text. This seems to be far more subjective, though the author can certainly do something to control this as well (using mathematical symbolism is a good example). It does seem to me that subjectiveness here plays a larger part for texts written as art – whether fiction or poetry or something else I cannot name, so that our manner of engaging with a poem can vary far more than our manner of engaging with a mathematical proof.

Or perhaps not ... at least I know that I can find much beauty in an elegant mathematical proof ;) and in such a case, I can be enthusiastically anticipating the next line with much the same kind of enchantment as the music-lover anticipating the next bar in a nocturne by Chopin.


And this brings me back to what Bêthberry has already quoted:
I will not say that my way of appreciating Tolkien is better than anyone else's, but neither will I accept any claim that it is in some way lesser. It is, however, my way, and the best one for me. Therefore, as long as it increases my joy in Tolkien's writings, I shall continue doing this way :)

[Belegorn]

I don't think I've come across that fissure yet. :)

[Tar-Jêx]

The enchantment for me has not been broken, and will likely stay that way.