What breaks the enchantment?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by drigel

I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judgements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...

Whereas I have at times felt as if this thread has gotten as highjacked as others feel the "Choices of Master Samwise" thread at CbC has, and largely over the same ongoing debate, I still see a connection between interpretation and enchantment.

What I would call willfull interpretation (bringing an idea to bear from outside the text) seems to be mutually exclusive with enchantment, since the latter requires the acquiescence of the reader to the story (or appreciator to the art, if you prefer), whereas the former is the reader acting upon the story (or interpreter acting upon the art). Please understand that I am condemning nothing, just making an observation. Thus, the former will necessarily impede the latter, and the latter will disallow the former. This is not taking into account interpretation as intended by the author, which is an altogether different kettle of fish.

This is not to say that the willful interpreter cannot appreciate the story for itself, but I think a full appreciation is hindered by the willful interpretation.

As for the difference between Elves in TH and LotR, I guess I always understood the Elves in the Hobbit (esp. Rivendell) to be blithe on the surface, playful even, because they had gotten to a place of acceptance with their immortality and sadness. I never doubted that it was there, it just lay below the surface, and actually I felt that the silly songs were in a way a symbol of their sadness and depth.

[Holbytlass]

Here is a major difference between the learned higher mind and the simple mind (at least mine ). Lalwende has so eloquently stated the point I was trying to get across about differences in reading and why and neither being wrong. Thank you, Lal.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I could not help myself. I just had to look up "enchantment" in the OED:

1. The action or process of enchanting, or of employing magic or sorcery.

2. fig. Alluring or overpowering charm; enraptured condition; (delusive) appearance of beauty.

Interesting, no? And from Tolkien's own "On Fairy-Stories":

Enchantment produces a Secondary World into which both designer and spectator can enter, to the satisfaction of their senses while they are inside; but in its purity it is artistic in desire and purpose.

This was rather surprising to me, that Tolkien would use a word -- and not just any word, but one so central to his own art -- in a way that is slightly different from its normal usage. In Tolkien's formulation, "enchantment" loses all sense of being "overpowering" or "enrapturing"; it certainly is not productive of a "delusive appearance of beauty"! What is more, in Tolkien's view of enchantment, he allies that word not with "magic or sorcery" but with Art.

But there are two really remarkable things about Tolkien's description of enchantment that I think bear mentioning:

1) He states that is it enchantment which produces the Secondary World, and not the other way around. This would seem to imply that the effect of the writer's art on the reader is what makes the world; in this case, he sees the reader as being enchanted as much by his own ability or willingness to recieve and reimagine the art, as he is by the art of the author.

2) He believes that this enchantment is fulfilled when the reader and the writer together enter the world in some kind of partnership. "to the satisfaction of both their senses." This is very much in keeping with his view of the relation between reader and writer in the creation of that world in the first place ("enchantment produces the Secondary World").

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

I think this has to be the case, otherwise it would be impossible for anything we do to break the spell - we would be 'ensorcelled' rather than 'enchanted'. I think this is what he meant by 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. We could say that Frodo was 'enchanted' in Lorien because he was able to leave it at any time, but that he was 'ensorcelled' by the Ring, because he was unable to leave it willingly.

He states that is it enchantment which produces the Secondary World, and not the other way around. This would seem to imply that the effect of the writer's art on the reader is what makes the world; in this case, he sees the reader as being enchanted as much by his own ability or willingness to recieve and reimagine the art, as he is by the art of the author.

Perhaps it is the enchantment experienced by the artist which enables him to create the secondary world, & which the reader experiences when he/she willingly enters into it?

Inevitably the reader 'co-creates' the secondary world with the artist - Tolkien speaks of the way references to 'hills, trees & rivers' will conjure in the mind of the reader images of all the trees, rivers & hills he has ever known & particularly of the first tree, river or hill the reader experienced, the one which will always mean tree, river or hill to him - or something along those lines.

But this is different from bringing with us into the secondary world our beliefs, values, facts we've amassed over the years, etc while we are there. Once we have left that world it will itself become part of that 'baggage' to be analysed & deconstructed. But if we are analysing & deconstructing it while we are in it how can it possibly enchant us? It won't be a 'living' co-creation between author & reader, but rather an experiment in literary analysis. It won't be what it was meant to be, & so won't have the effect it was intended to have. Isn't this exactly the approach Tolkien was criticising in the Beowulf lecture? Beowulf, as he pointed out, is not a quarry for 'facts' about the beliefs & cultural history of the Anglo-Saxons but a poem which should entertain & enchant us.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

Originally Posted by davem

I think this has to be the case, otherwise it would be impossible for anything we do to break the spell - we would be 'ensorcelled' rather than 'enchanted'. I think this is what he meant by 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. We could say that Frodo was 'enchanted' in Lorien because he was able to leave it at any time, but that he was 'ensorcelled' by the Ring, because he was unable to leave it willingly.

Perhaps it is the enchantment experienced by the artist which enables him to create the secondary world, & which the reader experiences when he/she willingly enters into it?

Inevitably the reader 'co-creates' the secondary world with the artist - Tolkien speaks of the way references to 'hills, trees & rivers' will conjure in the mind of the reader images of all the trees, rivers & hills he has ever known & particularly of the first tree, river or hill the reader experienced, the one which will always mean tree, river or hill to him - or something along those lines.

But this is different from bringing with us into the secondary world our beliefs, values, facts we've amassed over the years, etc while we are there. Once we have left that world it will itself become part of that 'baggage' to be analysed & deconstructed. But if we are analysing & deconstructing it while we are in it how can it possibly enchant us? It won't be a 'living' co-creation between author & reader, but rather an experiment in literary analysis. It won't be what it was meant to be, & so won't have the effect it was intended to have. Isn't this exactly the approach Tolkien was criticising in the Beowulf lecture? Beowulf, as he pointed out, is not a quarry for 'facts' about the beliefs & cultural history of the Anglo-Saxons but a poem which should entertain & enchant us.

This gets back to something I asked, which Heren answered.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?


Yes

If I remember correctly, davem stated that the author is responsible merely for the intend to enchant; it is the reader who is responsible for responding to allow this to happen. Everything is "conjured in the mind of the reader."

Now, I don't want to make enemies , but how do we know that there isn't baggage, maybe even unconscious baggage, in the mind of the reader?
How do we know if the reader's own psyche has unconciously dictated elements of that enchantment? Or even if the reader has fallen prey to some deep desire to be overwhelmed by this fantasy?

Other than the sense of continuous enchantment and satisfaction--that is, duration of sensation--what other evidence is there that guarantees the enchantment is the one the author intended? That it isn't, in fact, some kind of delusion which the reader's desire to be enchanted has created?

Is there a way to account for the possibility of the reader's 'willful sublimation', to expand upon the term littlemanpoet has coined for willful interpretation?

[HerenIstarion]

Now, I don't want to make enemies , but how do we know that there isn't baggage, maybe even unconscious baggage, in the mind of the reader

There is a baggage. In both minds too. Allusions won't work without one, would they? It is when baggages Author (unconsciously, or 'consciously so in the revision') and Reader (unconsciouly, 'reading for pleasure' (Thanks, Lal!), or consciously, 'reading for purpose' put in the lobby together and find them alike additional ties may arise. 'Look, your suitcase is made of leather, and mine too! Yes, I've bought it at Jimmy's! As well as I did, it seems... I've paid five pounds! See, mine is bigger a bit, it cost me 10...'
Automatically, Author and Reader have something to be friends about.

But friendship may form, and may form not a part of Love. If it does, it adds up to the pleasure, but it is not necessary for Friendship to be there at all.

Love (of Reader towards the Author's work) may occur even if Author's baggage is posh crocodile leather, and Reader brings in woven basket (or vice versa). There is no possibility for one of them of not having a baggage at all, unless the Reader is not born that very day, already literate, but knowing nothing and learning basic concepts of life through the book of the Author, which would have to be Reader's first source of information about the world, general.

And Love, if it is a True Love ('reading on purpose' excluded), may suspend disbelief better than anything else. Hence the enchantement.

Side effects (Besides the suspense of disbelief) - Love urges us to Protect the beloved (how dare them dumb critics say Tolkien ain't great writer!), urges us to Need the beloved (and constantly be lured to read and reread the books), urges us to Admire the beloved and do things for her (per instance, write fan-fiction, play RPG, read out long homilies about love...) and form new friendships sharing our admiration on this here forum, among other places.

But we all are mortal Fallen men. We may get angry with the beloved at times, there may be misunderstandings, misinterpretations and irritation. Alas for both Author and Reader.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

There is a baggage. In both minds too. Allusions won't work without one, would they? It is when baggages Author (unconsciously, or 'consciously so in the revision') and Reader (unconsciouly, 'reading for pleasure' (Thanks, Lal!), or consciously, 'reading for purpose' put in the lobby together and find them alike additional ties may arise. 'Look, your suitcase is made of leather, and mine too! Yes, I've bought it at Jimmy's! As well as I did, it seems... I've paid five pounds! See, mine is bigger a bit, it cost me 10...'
Automatically, Author and Reader have something to be friends about.

But friendship may form, and may form not a part of Love. If it does, it adds up to the pleasure, but it is not necessary for Friendship to be there at all.

Love (of Reader towards the Author's work) may occur even if Author's baggage is posh crocodile leather, and Reader brings in woven basket (or vice versa). There is no possibility for one of them of not having a baggage at all, unless the Reader is not born that very day, already literate, but knowing nothing and learning basic concepts of life through the book of the Author, which would have to be Reader's first source of information about the world, general.

And Love, if it is a True Love ('reading on purpose' excluded), may suspend disbelief better than anything else. Hence the enchantement.

Side effects (Besides the suspense of disbelief) - Love urges us to Protect the beloved (how dare them dumb critics say Tolkien ain't great writer!), urges us to Need the beloved (and constantly be lured to read and reread the books), urges us to Admire the beloved and do things for her (per instance, write fan-fiction, play RPG, read out long homilies about love...) and form new friendships sharing our admiration on this here forum, among other places.

But we all are mortal Fallen men. We may get angry with the beloved at times, there may be misunderstandings, misinterpretations and irritation. Alas for both Author and Reader.

My dear HerenIstarion, your eloquence on the part of the ineffable enchantment of love in reading is delightful, but perhaps you have inadvertently provided some explanation of where the fit might not be 'one size fits all'. (Psst, the English is not "suspence of disbelief"--sadly, as your phrase is quite wonderful in itself-- but "suspension of belief")

Is the text, the beloved, always "she"? Must the reader always assume a (typically) Male posture towards "her"? Is cross-dressing to be allowed?

EDIT: the correct phrase is 'willing suspension of disbelief'

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As for the difference between Elves in TH and LotR, I guess I always understood the Elves in the Hobbit (esp. Rivendell) to be blithe on the surface, playful even, because they had gotten to a place of acceptance with their immortality and sadness. I never doubted that it was there, it just lay below the surface, and actually I felt that the silly songs were in a way a symbol of their sadness and depth.

That's a very interesting approach. I'd never thought of it before, but I suppose that the more comfortable one is with oneself, the easier it is to express all of the aspects of your personality, including the silliness that you might otherwise be hesitant to release. It also fits with Tom Bombadil's singing in a way. As master of his part of the Old Forest, he would completely accept all of the facets of his personality. Maybe part of the source of his abilities is that he is in unity with himself and can therefore recite silly poetry without feeling...silly (if I'm not too far off on a tangent here). Yet another source of potential disenchantment solved - if he were to behave in a more "dignified" fashion, he couldn't be as powerful a figure, and so Tom Bombadil just has to be the way he is. I'll have to remember that the next time I do something incredibly silly in public.

I'm glad the fireside tale view of The Hobbit works for you too, Holbytlass.

Thanks, Boromir88. Another aspect of the story that makes it so believable for me is the level of detail and sense of history that fills the books. The idea that we're only seeing a portion of the tapestry of Middle Earth makes it all the more real - it's much like the real world where everything is interwoven and has a story behind it, even though we can't always see the connections.