Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
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:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anonymous rep 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.
|