What breaks the enchantment?

[HerenIstarion]

Is the text, the beloved, always "she"?

It was a slip of the tongue. I usually write 'he/she' in situations similar, but it was an itch on my fingertips to be delivered to you through my keyboard which made me somewhat less observant in the case.

Thread hovering somewhere in the back of my head with something approaching the 'is LoTR as text He or She' title

(On second thought, though, I would probably be pro-she-er, if ever such a thread comes around . )

Psst, the English is not "suspence of disbelief"--sadly, as your phrase is quite wonderful in itself-- but "suspension of belief")

Since I'm caught red-handed (red-fingertipped?), I would let it stand. Let it be an appeal for me and all of us (we know who we are) whose writing turns out impulsive rather than thoughtful at times, to, once the steam is let off, review the artefact produced with more care

(blimey, I thought it was suspence, I did. Probably mixed up with sixpense, raising the price of my post thrice)

[Bêthberry]

My bad, Heren, the full phrase is "willing suspension of disbelief", not 'belief'.

And now that I find myself replying with my own correction, I might as well consider further your thoughts, as the point is not merely erased by the addition of a second pronoun, "he/she".

Your entire explanation of the reader's attitude towards the beloved is decidedly cast in the posture of the (possessive) romantic male.

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.

These qualities, at least as traditionally understood, might more properly fit the model of a Female reader towards her child-text, with the desire to protect, to do things for. Certainly 'sharing the admiration' in order to attract new admirers might fit the child model more than a, ahem, husband or lover!

And I shall offer tuppence rather than penance for my error! (weak, I know, but we can't all partake of masculine rhymes all the time. )

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

:
Originally Posted by Bb:
Originally Posted by davem

There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way. [end quote from davem]

I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question [end Bb quote]


Let me clarify. It is a fact that there will be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but we should not dwell on that fact because it gets in the way of what we're talking about here. What is inevitable, what we can't change, we may as well put on one side as we can't do anything about it. I should have re read the post & amended that sentence to read 'but that should not be dwelt on.'

Quote:
At best, one can demonstrate and act upon a willingness, a desire to listen, to learn, to understand,


That's all we are capable of doing, & its enough (ie it shows sufficient respect to the artist) if we make the best effort we can to do just that.

Quote:
but the very unique and individual terms and nature of the submission will in fact be part of how the experience is informed.


Has art anything to teach us? Can we learn anything from it that we didn't already know? If we can, then I would say it is that 'unknown thing' (rather than what we already know - our 'baggage') that is important, & the thing we should make an effort to take in.

Time to make several observations.

First of all, it is, I think, an error to claim that we should ignore the unconscious baggage because it gets in the way of the discussion here or because we can't do anything about it. In fact, such a proceeding represents a willful blindness to the main point. There is as much a problem with your model being squewed as the other model suggested here, but you would simply ignore that problem as if it doesn't exist.

Second, to chastise the 'reader' model (for want of a better word) as being disrespectful of the original author's intent is to characterise this position incorrectly. The issue is not a deliberate, self-centred idea that only the reader knows best. The issue is that very often the complete and full intentions of the author cannot be fully revealed in any one reading. This is particularly so in the case of an author such as Tolkien whose credo was to make many things implicit rather than explicit: he wanted actively participating readers, for in action lies moral achievement. Nor does this reader model assume that the reader has nothing to learn or refuses to learn, but merely rehashes his or her own prior knowledge.

The model you propose is based on logical and psychological impossibilties. It is impossible for the reader to completely wipe out his or her identity and be acted upon solely by a text. Saul on the road to Damascus may have been blinded and become Paul, but did not eradicate all of Saul's nature. There is no going back to Eden, where experience is immediately apprehended innocently and purely. We live not only with the Fall, but with Babel.

Thus, any understanding of how a text works with the reader must explain how translation happens rather than ignore the basic need for it, for even speaking the same language requires translation. It requires all the resources which make us human and a willingness to consider the unknown. That does not mean that in reading for pleasure we wipe out all previous experience. There can be no return to an always virginal first reading. All previous reading pleasures come with the reader when he or she embarks upon a new text. Readers might want to put out of mind bad past heartbreaks, and often they do try hard, but short of losing memory that previous experience is always part of the reader. (And even losing memory is no guarantee that the experience will not have some effect.) And they might even be desirous of experiencing past happy love affairs again--that too, with either good or bad possibilties.

Why do we reread Tolkien so much? To return to that first experience? Or to see things there we didn't 'see' the first time? One of the paradoxes of reading is that both are probably true, and any explanation of what happens when we enter subcreation has to account for all possible experiences, and not presume one only.

I think SaucepanMan hit it right when he said that there is no one right way to legislate reading pleasure. It is not serial monogamy.

A last note: many have contributed here but time and length makes it difficult to address everyone. My thoughts do develop from reading everyone's posts even if I don't mention all and even if I tend to focus on just one or two perspectives.

[the phantom]

On a perfect road, no accidents would ever happen.

Yeah right. It doesn't matter how perfect the road is. There's always going to be someone who can manage to wreck their car in a spectacular display of lack of conscious thought and utter ineptitude for any activity requiring focus and hand eye coordination.

You could put cars on a track so all drivers had to do was work the pedals, and people would still rear end each other.

Likewise, you could write a "perfect" book, and there would still be people saying things like "I didn't get it", "I couldn't get through it", or "I thought it was boring".

On the other hand, there are some people who, despite imperfect roads with potholes, blind driveways, heavy traffic, patches of ice, and the occasional malfunctioning street light, still manage to never crash. Imperfections can be overcome.

But, of course, perfection can be overcome as well, so a perfect work of art does not guarantee enchantment.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why do we reread Tolkien so much? To return to that first experience? Or to see things there we didn't 'see' the first time? One of the paradoxes of reading is that both are probably true, and any explanation of what happens when we enter subcreation has to account for all possible experiences, and not presume one only.

While I was keeping up with it, I really enjoyed the CBC interaction: multiple rereaders and one or two first-timers.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

First of all, it is, I think, an error to claim that we should ignore the unconscious baggage because it gets in the way of the discussion here or because we can't do anything about it. In fact, such a proceeding represents a willful blindness to the main point.

We must put on one side, ignore, discount from our discussion anything that we cannot know, & anything which is unconscious is unknown. To be able to bring anything into our discusion we must be conscious of it. We have conscious 'baggage' & possibly unconscious baggage, but if it is unconscious the most we can say about it is that it may or may not exist. If we start speculating about something as tenuous as that, & what effect it may or may not have on our reading then we will definitely get sidetracked down a blind alley to a dead end that leads us nowhere fast & we'll find ourselves up the creek without a paddle.

The issue is that very often the complete and full intentions of the author cannot be fully revealed in any one reading. This is particularly so in the case of an author such as Tolkien whose credo was to make many things implicit rather than explicit: he wanted actively participating readers, for in action lies moral achievement. Nor does this reader model assume that the reader has nothing to learn or refuses to learn, but merely rehashes his or her own prior knowledge.

I'm sure I said earlier that in the first instance we should try & simply experience the art as a ding an sich. Then we should attempt to discover what the author intended to communicate to us, & finally bring in our own ideas & interpretations.

The model you propose is based on logical and psychological impossibilties. It is impossible for the reader to completely wipe out his or her identity and be acted upon solely by a text.

I think I also stated this earlier - all I've ever said is that as far as we are able we should open ourselves to the direct experience of the art itself - in the first instance, if only so that we have some chance of distinguishing what the artist is bringing to the party & what we are bring to it.

A secondary world must not be dependent on the primary world in order to make sense. If it requires us to analyse & interpret it in order for it to make sense then the sub creator has failed, & produced an allegory to some degree or other. All I'm saying is that we should attempt, in the first instance, to experience & participate in the art as fully as we can, & we do that by leaving as much of our (conscious - ie the stuff were aware of rather than the stuff which may or may not exist) baggage at the door.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

All I'm saying is that we should attempt, in the first instance, to experience & participate in the art as fully as we can, & we do that by leaving as much of our (conscious - ie the stuff were aware of rather than the stuff which may or may not exist) baggage at the door.

We shouldn't have to do anything or any particular thing with art, legally, morally or intellectually.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

We shouldn't have to do anything or any particular thing with art, legally, morally or intellectually.

But how would we know whether it was 'art' or not unless we made an effort to experience & participate in it?

Just take the critics' (or Eru forbid the Lawyers' ) word for it?