What breaks the enchantment?

[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?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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 the question of why we re-read Tolkien may be at the heart of the loss off enchantment. For me, and no doubt for most other readers, nothing can beat that first read of LotR, the sense of wonder which it fostered. And most of us return again and again, but is each time as good as the first time? It might be pleasurable, but we do not have that sense of wonder in quite the way that we had it the first time. This is akin to the law of diminishing returns - we eat a piece of cake and it was so good we go and get another but though it is just as wonderful we can never get that 'hit' we had the first time.

We reread Tolkien because we are seeking the thrill all over again. For some of us, on a re-read we endeavour to recreate that feeling by immersing oursleves in to the world as deeply as possible, losing ourselves in the words. For some of us, on a re-read we seek to find parallels. Neither is wrong. But what would be wrong would be to read the story in the first place seeking to find answers to those things which are in our own world. Why is that wrong? Because we would simply deny ourselves a lot of pleasure. And I would doubt that we would ever return to the book because we would fail to be enchanted. It wouldn't be morally wrong, or anything like that, but it would be a damn shame, and is the primary reason why I am extremely glad that LotR is not a typical book used for study in schools.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

This to me explains something of the difference between different types of novel (I won't say fantasy novel, as I think it applies to any novel) - we have those which immediately plunge us into another place/time and those in which we must first travel through a reflection of our own world. In the latter I find that it is much more difficult to get that sense of being lost or enchanted as I find that while reading I am waiting for the characters to come back into the grey real world, and for the spell to be broken. This does not happen in Tolkien's work, it is immediately immersive and needs no plot hook to the primary world.

Tolkien's world, as something utterly different to our own, does not need us to have an understanding of the primary world, which is why it is also not necessary to compare aspects of it to the primary world. It is complete in itself. It also appeals to many people of many cultures, suggesting again that due to its contained nature it does not need to explain itself.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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.

It was not surprising to me. Tolkien was responsible for creating an entire genre of modern literature, as well as a major shift in thinking about it. That kind of "revolutionary" thinking requires coinage of new words and meaning. This is the man who coined "eucatastrophe", as well as whole languages. Your final sentence in this quote reveals that Tolkien was a modern, writing in an era in which magic and sorcery have been replaced by Art, at least in terms of credibility.

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.

This is an elegant statement, Fordim. It does Tolkien proud, I dare to say.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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?

By this I think you mean that the reader is deluding herself into a kind of enchantment within a story that the author never intended? I think that this does happen, and that Tolkien bemoaned it in his Letters, especially in regard to the American reaction to LotR in the 60's.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

My my, davem, you must have been in a real hurry when you wrote this.... four, count 'em, four colloquial turns of phrase in one sentence. Yike! Admittedly, quite handy for saying what you mean in short fashion. ... not to mention one mixed metaphor.

Originally Posted by Saucepan Man

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

SPM, I think davem is proposing a conditional statement: If readers are to experience the full echantment of the story, then they must leave as much of their baggage at the door as they can.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But what would be wrong would be to read the story in the first place seeking to find answers to those things which are in our own world.

Although I agree with what you say in general, I think you overstate it by calling it "wrong"; perhaps "ill-advised" would be more appropo.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This to me explains something of the difference between different types of novel (I won't say fantasy novel, as I think it applies to any novel) - we have those which immediately plunge us into another place/time and those in which we must first travel through a reflection of our own world. In the latter I find that it is much more difficult to get that sense of being lost or enchanted as I find that while reading I am waiting for the characters to come back into the grey real world, and for the spell to be broken. This does not happen in Tolkien's work, it is immediately immersive and needs no plot hook to the primary world.

Tolkien's world, as something utterly different to our own, does not need us to have an understanding of the primary world, which is why it is also not necessary to compare aspects of it to the primary world. It is complete in itself. It also appeals to many people of many cultures, suggesting again that due to its contained nature it does not need to explain itself.

Hmmm...... I don't know.... there are a couple things that hold me back from this. First, Tolkien says in his letters over and over again that his Middle-earth is NOT utterly different from our own world, but feigned history of an era in this world. Second, whereas the Shire is obviously part of the feigned history, it serves as a sort of mediation between the primary world and the rest of Middle-earth. Third, even transitional fantasies are really immersive. Granted, what the transitional fantasies attempt is more difficult, because by means of the feigned primary world they allow the reader to bring expectations (baggage, sic) to her reading that she might otherwise leave behind; but as you implied, novels and fantasy novels share the characteristic of "feignedness". Thus, the difference between a transitional and an immersive, is that the former (seems to be attempting to) move(s) the reader from the familiar to the strange.