‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Mister Underhill]

You know the funny thing about “enchantment”? The more you bandy the word about, the more you try to study it and categorize it and analyze it and break it down, the more it fades into mist and, like the Faërie folk themselves, disappears. The more I read about “enchantment” in this thread, the less I feel it. I don’t mean this as a slight towards anyone by any means, and I’m not sure how it relates to the current discussion; just throwing it out there as what’s present for me.

Fordim, that’s an impressive stab at logically snaring this mysterious “enchantment” creature so that we can get a decent look at it. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that the three types of ensorcellment (just mixing it up a little) are mutually exclusive.

To illustrate, consider the stories of Empire written by Rudyard Kipling. Now I know that old Rud is unfashionable these days and dreadfully politically incorrect, but I am not alone in finding a sense of enchantment in many of his tales.

Kipling’s stories do have access to an “other realm” which is at once external (it did exist) and internal (I, in some sense, collaborate in the creation of this lost world internally when I read, since I have not, and indeed cannot, visit it). His craft contributes to the enchantment and serves as a medium by which the enchantment is transmitted, but I would not say that the enchantment springs from his craft. There are more forces, and more mysterious forces, at work in the process than logic can ensnare.

I’m reading a book right now which has an interesting definition of story. Words, the author contends, are not the stuff of a story. They are merely a means, a medium for transmitting – well, for transmitting something much less tangible. Energy, emotion, ideas. I’m having a hard time articulating this concisely, and I don’t have the time to bore you with a more detailed attempt. But I think the idea has the ring of truth. Tolkien’s stories – and Middle-earth – are more than just the words they are made of. It may be debatable as to whether the “Perilous Realm” is real or imagined, but the effects that the stories of the Perilous Realm produce are demonstrably real. Though as you point out, not all fall under the spell, so whatever that means. I think it’s a sure sign that there must be some degree of collaboration on the part of the prospective ensorcellee.

Lastly, and I hesitate to drag back some aspects of the discussion which perhaps are already spent, but I have this nagging sense that there are certain “right” interpretations of any text, and I instinctively rebel against critical theories which suggest that all interpretations of a text have equal merit. As readers delve into detail and subtlety and nuance, wide-ranging differences of interpretation will arise, but this does not contradict the idea that broader, more primary interpretations are indisputably correct.

I don’t have time to try to back this up at length, and truth be told, I haven’t really thought it through much. It’s my gut reaction to some aspects of this discussion, so I thought I’d toss it out there.