What breaks the enchantment?

[Selmo]

What broke the spell for me was, as I'm sure Tolkien intended, was the last line of Lord of The Rings: "Well, I'm back".

Sam was back in The Shire, in the world of daily work, of growing things and of raising a family; magical enough in their own way but, for Sam, that special enchantment that the Elves had brought to Middle Earth was gone, had sailed into the West.

I, too, was back in the real world. The tale was told and the magic had departed.

Fortunatley for me, the magic returns every time I pick up one of the Professor's books.

.

[Bêthberry]

Interesting how so many discussions touch on similar aspects. This is currently one of the issues in the Chapter by Chapter discussion.

I have been told that my suggestion of some kind applicability of the Lilith myth to Shelob is a no-no: it brings outside "baggage" from the Middle East into Middle earth and destroys the illusion that the subcreated world is the extant one. I am supposed to hold this in abeyance and deny any similarity while I read. Yet for me, this application does not destroy my sense of Middle earth. It simply expands upon a context. Perhaps another way of explaining this for me is to say that the allusions are subtle enough and the character Shelob well formed enough in her own right that I don't drop out of Middle earth.

Yet just a few chapters back I did feel that the spell was gone, in "Journey to the Cross-Roads." At the time we discussed the chapter I said I was unconvinced by the descriptions of incarnate evil. And that, while I liked the graffiti on the fallen statue of the king, much of the symbolism seemed forced. It pointed, for me, too much to the effect Tolkien was striving for "consciously in the revision."

So, I am going to posit something here. It is not so much the semantic meaning of a situation or event that destroys the spell of created world: it is how that particular bit of world is written. Faramir may have jumped forth fully clothed from Tolkien's mind, but his depiction is written with fidelity to some hidden imperative in the story. "Journey to the Cross-Roads" was written after substantial parts of this Book were planned, when Tolkien realised he needed to add some extra time in to balance the two plotlines. Somehow, this kind of planning created 'overwriting' for me. It didn't for others.

How to account for that difference might be interesting. But for now my only way of understanding what breaks the enchantment is the ability of Tolkien's words to hold for me the meaning the story wants. That likely begs the question of what we as readers bring to the text.

Related to this might be the issue of why Tolkien holds no enchantment for some readers, even readers of science fiction and fantasy. They're gone from the start. Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?

[Kath]

The thing that breaks the enchantment for me is having to analyse the books. I don't mean finding the history behind the writing of it as in my mind Tolkien lived within his created world and the revisons and additions that he made were done to better tell the story of an already full formed creation that just needed writing down. These remain, for me, in the context of Middle Earth and so the enchantment remains.

The problem begins when you try to analyse the writing style Tolkien used. We did this in an English lesson one year and it ruined the story for me for months afterwards. I think the enchantment lies in the ability to let go the consciousness of reality and lose yourself in a world where you can believe the happenings are real. When you begin to look behind the words, not for hidden meanings between characters, but for clues as to why Tolkien used these words rather than these words, it is difficult to remain lost in the world and so the enchantment is broken.

I think I would agree with mormegil and Celebuial about the Hobbit had I read it after LotR and the Silmarillion. Then it would have seemed childish and of a lower standard than the other books. I, however, read it first and at a young age, and I think it is because of this that it retains its enchantment on me. It is linked with my childhood and so I don't want to let go of the world I loved at that time.

The end of the book and the line "Well, I'm back." does not bring me out of the world because to me it is not the end of the story. Though the characters being followed finish their adventures, there is always a new character waiting to take it up again.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I have been told that my suggestion of some kind applicability of the Lilith myth to Shelob is a no-no:

I think my exact words in the current chapter thread (post 51) were:

I wouldn't deny your right to find any kind of applicability in the text. My point was that I can see more differences than similarities between Shelob & Lilith.

Isn't the greatest risk of the spell being broken if we don't firmly shut the door between the worlds behind us, so that the noise of the outside, 'primary' world remains to disturb us.

Bb tells us that what broke the enchantment for her in the JTCR chapter was the descriptions of incarnate evil - ie some of those 'primary world' noises had become loud enough to distract her from what was happening in the story. Or perhaps it was that her own 'secondary reality' (her subconscious) was clashing with Tolkien's & that clash broke the spell. I don't know.

Its interesting that some things, some connections we make - whether its a connection with 'children's literature', a particular religious morality, or whatever will break the spell for us, while others won't - connections with other myths or symbols. So, it seems to be an entirely subjective thing - its not the author's fault. He doesn't break the spell - we do, by what we bring to our reading. Its not the author's faillure, but our own - if it was the author's failure it the spell would be broken for every reader at the same point in the story. The fact that what breaks the spell for some doesn't break it for others proves that the author has not failed.

I think the point is that if the artist does their job well, & we don't fight too hard, put up too many obstacles between ourselves & them, don't allow (or make) too much 'noise' to disturb us then there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective.

A bit like someone talking in the cinema - it will distract us from the movie, take us out of the secondary reality, & jerk us back into the primary world of sitting in a big darkened room watching flickering images on a screen. Of course, it is entirely possible that the disturbing voice which breaks the spell may be our own!

Another question would be why we're so prone to disenchanting ourselves? Perhaps we've forgotten how to shut up & listen, or maybe we've simply gotten so used to only listening to ourelves that anything which contradicts or challenges our own 'secondary world' of beliefs, values, concepts & connections can't hold our attention - we simply want to be told what we already know. If an author says something that can't be fitted easily into our own secondary reality then we stop listening & walk away.

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world.....

[mark12_30]

There is Aslan; there is deep magic from the Dawn of Time; and then there is Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time.

[mormegil]

davem,

I enjoyed your post and thoughts but I had some questions about it that I hope you could clarify for me.

Isn't the greatest risk of the spell being broken if we don't firmly shut the door between the worlds behind us, so that the noise of the outside, 'primary' world remains to disturb us.

How does one go about dropping all of the "baggage"? I just find it improbable that one would be expected to do that. If you know of a way please tell me. I try and supress all of my primary world views but I just don't see that it's entirely feasible. Which leads me to my next question.

So, it seems to be an entirely subjective thing - its not the author's fault. He doesn't break the spell - we do, by what we bring to our reading. Its not the author's faillure

I realize that we are speaking about well written books, but isn't it a bit specious to assume such infallibility in an author? If the author's intent is to enchant us, then is it not his or her responsibility to do so with our baggage in mind? This would make it so that obviously not everybody would be fully enchanted all of the time. This would make more sense to me and would give an explination why all great litterature isn't univerally loved. (As much as I can't understand it I'm forced to say that not all people are raptured by Tolkien.)

Obviously you used my explination of TH in your remarks and called it my view of "children's literature" as the reason I don't enjoy the hobbit as much as the other books. But I would disagree, I read TH first and enjoyed it but wasn't enchanted whereas children are able to read it and receive the enchantment but they don't receive it while reading LoTR. Why? Because the author intended them to be for different people. I personally feel that he captured his intended audience in both books but they are intended for different age groups.

I do not disagree that if we bring excess primary world baggage into the secondary world then it doesn't matter how well written a story we won't be enchanted. But to assume a universal liking of "good literature" if we drop all baggage is short sighted, because it is impossible to affect everybody universally.

Hope this makes some sense.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mormegil

How does one go about dropping all of the "baggage"? I just find it improbable that one would be expected to do that. If you know of a way please tell me. I try and supress all of my primary world views but I just don't see that it's entirely feasible. Which leads me to my next question.

I accept that we can't do that completely, my point is that we have to try to do it as far as we possibly can. We need to know ourselves well enough to recognise what baggage we are carrying, so that we are less likely to project it into the text, or worse, onto the author.

If the author's intent is to enchant us, then is it not his or her responsibility to do so with our baggage in mind?

But how could an author know what baggage each of us is carrying & so take steps to deal with that? It doesn't matter how good the book or movie is, we can still break, or have broken for us, the artist's spell if we choose, or if circumstances conspire against us.

The point I was making was that if, say, Tom Bombadil breaks the spell for some readers but not for others, if the style of TH breaks the spell for you but not for me, or the approach taken in JTCR breaks the spell for Bb but not for another reader, then we can't blame Tolkien for failing in his intent to enchant, because the spell has worked on some readers & that proves its efficacy. If it fails with other readers it cannot be because of a failure on Tolkien's part. If every reader had the spell broken by TB, or the style of TH, then it would be a failure of the author.

[mormegil]

The point I was making was that if, say, Tom Bombadil breaks the spell for some readers but not for others, if the style of TH breaks the spell for you but not for me, or the approach taken in JTCR breaks the spell for Bb but not for another reader, then we can't blame Tolkien for failing in his intent to enchant, because the spell has worked on some readers & that proves its efficacy. If it fails with other readers it cannot be because of a failure on Tolkien's part. If every reader had the spell broken by TB, or the style of TH, then it would be a failure of the author.

Just to make sure I understand you view correctly, If even one person is not disenchanted at all then the author did not fail? Or would it be more of a majority of people? But if it's a majority which population is it based on? The people who enjoy the book or the entire population that has ever read the book?