[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 ) 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’.

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'.)