[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Originally Posted by Bb

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!

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.