[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

(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!

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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.