What breaks the enchantment?

[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.

[davem]

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.

Well, it does for some of us. I find it interesting that while the book begins in the quiet of the Shire the movie doesn't. Of course the book has the prologue, whiich gives us some background history & scene setting, but our first entry into Middle earth is via the Shire - in fact, as I pointed out in the cbc discussion first of all we 'hear' the voice of the storyteller, then we hear the voices of some secondary characters, & thirdly we get some descriptions of the actual place - & this 'place' is (for some of us) 'homelike'. Well, to be more precise its like things used to be. But that doesn't apply to every reader. I suppose for many readers the Shire is just as fantastical a place as Rohan or Lorien.

Now, Tolkien may have intended that the Shire serve as 'a sort of mediation between the primary world and the rest of Middle-earth' but it won't serve that purpose for every reader, so it has to convince us of its reality within Middle earth - it can't simply be a 'framing device' like the Wardrobe or a spaceship.

So, it must be possible, initially, to just experience the Shire as a part of the Secondary World or it will not convince us of its secondary reality - it will come across as simply a means to the end of getting us from the primary to the secondary world. We shouldn't need to bring any prior knowledge or experience to the secondary world in order that it be understandable to us - our experiences (our baggage) should not be required. So, we can just listen to the story being told - no listener will be in a superior position, or better able to experience the story, or have a greater or lesser capacity to be enchanted. In short, whatever your accademic backkground, however 'smart' you are,however many books you've read, you won't be in a superior position to any other reader/listener.

Secondly, you can begin to analyse what the author wished to do. Was the approach Tolkien took in presenting the Shire (rather than the Shire itself) intended to serve as a framing device, or to serve a mediatory role by being shown as not all that different from the primary world? Was he making some kind of 'political' statement about how things were better 'once upon a time'? Or is he trying to communicate what he considers to be the 'spirit of the ordinary English person', etc, etc. Is he making use of old beliefs, or trying to account for old traditions - the Shire was established by Marcho & Blanco, England by Hengist & Horsa, etc. Is he making philological 'in jokes' - the name Durin literally meant 'doorward' & the secret door in the mountainside opens magically when the last light of the sun on Durin's day hits the keyhole, etc.

That's all very interesting stuff, but doesn't add to the enchantment. In fact, the more of that stuff you are aware of, particularly if you have it in the forefront of your mind as you read, the less likely you will be to fully enter into the secondary world & be enchanted. The same goes for too much awareness of literary technique - if you're constantly analysing the way the story is written you'll never fully immerse yourself in the world the words are creating.

Finally, you can start analysing your own responses, bringing in your own feelings, memories & education, all the stuff you've learned & has made you the person you are.

Now, I know some will immediatley respond to this by saying that it is the 'person we are' that reads the book, so what I've placed third should (indeed must) come first. I can see this argument, but I think the approach I've described is the one we should strive for - even if we fail to fully achieve it. Also, I have to say that if the art, the secondary world, is sufficiently 'enchanting' we'll find it less of a struggle to do it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Quote:
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.

Yes, littlemanpoet, that is what I meant. davem assumes that his manner of reading/approaching the text will always and automatically achieve the 'right result' of the expected enchantment which the author desired. There is a logical problem with his theory of enchantment which davem sidesteps and refuses to acknowledge by saying, since we can't know how our unconscious operates, we can't know how it affects our response. Or maybe he just thinks that any experience of the story as story is valid, I don't know. My point is that I don't think there is any reading possible which is free of 'baggage' in some way, so that the initial proposition is invalid.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

The issue we've been discussing is how to maintain the enchantment of the fantasy world, either throughout the first reading, or on subsequent readings. But this comment makes me think about something.

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

If so, then it is doomed always to have diminishing enchantment, for once we know the world, it will no longer be strange. Or are we supposed to throw out our previous readings of the book as "baggage" before we reread?

EDIT: (returning to finish after sharing my computer!)

However, if we say that enchantment is not a one time experience of the unfamiliar secondary world, but a process of always on-going comparison between primary and secondary worlds (familiar and strange), then we have a sliding scale of exchanges or thoughts. Thus, we need not be limited to a denial of 'baggage' in any reading, and every subsequent reading will have the potential for further enchantment as we see more meaning to the primary/secondary interchange. This will, I think, accounts for Fordim's explanation of Tolkien's process which littlemanpoet lauded in his previous post.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

There is a logical problem with his theory of enchantment which davem sidesteps and refuses to acknowledge by saying, since we can't know how our unconscious operates, we can't know how it affects our response.

There may a 'logical problem' with my approach, but it seems yours presents us with a logical impossibility - how can we possibly know what is 'unconscious'? If we knew how our unconscious minds operate, what they contain & how they affect our reading, then they we'd be conscious of them, wouldn't we. Anything we discover about our unconscious contents & processes immediately becomes 'conscious'. I'm saying we can only take into account what we are aware of, not what we aren't aware of. That seems to me to be simple logic - but then I never went to college.

davem assumes that his manner of reading/approaching the text will always and automatically achieve the 'right result' of the expected enchantment which the author desired.

No he doesn't - that would be 'assuming that which is to be proved'. What davem is doing is taking part in a debate, & putting forward his particular theory for discussion.

Or maybe he just thinks that any experience of the story as story is valid, I don't know.

Maybe he thinks that, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he hasn't decided. It certainly sounds from that sentence like Bethberry has decided some experiences of the story as story are invalid

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

Davem would speculate that its about the 'not-yet-known', the 'undiscovered country', but also about the 'blue remembered hills' - which is as much 'hand luggage' as he's prepared to alow on this particular flight...

If so, then it is doomed always to have diminishing enchantment, for once we know the world, it will no longer be strange.

No - because our experience may become deeper & more profound with each reading. The one thing likely to prevent that happening is if we are too weighed down with all the theories, beliefs & conceptions we've built up around the story, so that the experience becomes little more than looking into a mirror.

Or are we supposed to throw out our previous readings of the book as "baggage" before we reread?

We should perhaps try & leave behind our previous interpretations of the book, so that we may be open to new things. Proverbs 26:11 & all that sort of thing....

[HerenIstarion]

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

If it is Tolkien we are talking about, and not, say, Sword of Shannara series, than, no. Assuming you love the work you read, there will always be things to discover.

One may be struck by strangeness at first sight, falling in love. One may than grow to know one's wife/husband, but there always will remain uncertainty and chance of discovering something new. One may grow tired at times, and go play bowling for a change in the evening, but the morning will bring new delight.

The issue we've been discussing is how to maintain the enchantment of the fantasy world, either through the first reading, or on subsequent readings

The answer may sound crude, but is nevertheless that simple: Stop bothering about maintaining the enchantment, her (enchantment is She for me ) being elusive little devil. She will delude the hunter once pursued, but will get offended if not pursued at all and will show up inevitably if not paid heed to or sought after. She is like a teakettle of Jerome's Three Men in a Boat - you should convince it you want tea not at all, otherwise it would not start to boil.

EDIT:

Just cross posted with davem. Let his words give more weight to my 'stop bothering' appeal:

The one thing likely to prevent that happening is if we are too weighed down with all the theories, beliefs & conceptions we've built up around the story, so that the experience becomes little more than looking into a mirror.

Or, the recipe is simple: put the mental pencil aside and read on

END OF EDIT

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Quote:
Or maybe he just thinks that any experience of the story as story is valid, I don't know.


Maybe he thinks that, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he hasn't decided. It certainly sounds from that sentence like Bethberry has decided some experiences of the story as story are invalid

davem, this comment reflects the kind of argument which I think is misguided and even inflammatory. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I don't regard any reading--by which I mean experience of the story-- as invalid. It appears to me to represent a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise my position by taking the sentence completely out of context of all my previous ones. What I was attempting to do is understand how you would accept the kind of misreading which littlemanpoet pointed out. If my phrase mischaracterised your position, I am sorry, but it reflected an honest attempt to understand a point you had not, to the best of my recollection, addressed or discussed: is it possible for your form of enchantment to miss the authorial intention.

Originally Posted by davem

That seems to me to be simple logic - but then I never went to college.

This kind of statement I think equally does not belong in this discussion. No one here in this discussion has ever made any statement which insults readers who are young, who have not had post secondary education, or who simply take delight in story. Nor is this the first time a comment which appears derogatory about other people's reading experience has appeared in your posts. I think it is vering towards personal attack and I would ask that you stop making such comments.

[littlemanpoet]

Let's set aside rancor, friends, okay? Disagree with civility, even if you must admit that you know you won't change the other person's mind despite the fact that you are the one being so reasonable and the other just isn't getting it (I know, a true blow to pride, isn't it?).

The above are Sam's words when he is caught by Gandalf in Shadows of the Past (please forgive me if you've hashed this through in CbC without my knowledge).

What "Lor'" is Sam referring to? Having spent all the hours I have here at Barrowdowns has made me aware that this is a potential sore thumb sticking out. Is this a religious reference? Or is it a Shire reference? It could be argued that it derives from the days when there was a King in the North, but I feel that would be a stretch. I think that what we have here is Sam speaking like an English commoner caught redhanded: it's a reference to Christianity, place and simple. And thus it's an error in the text. It broke the enchantment for me. Now, you may argue that it's my theories and baggage that I failed to leave behind, but it is just as much (if my conclusion as to its reference is correct) Tolkien's error.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Is the nature of fantasy/enchantment completely dependent upon this idea of "the strange"? Can fantasy only be about the 'not-yet known and experienced'?

Perhaps an excursion into historical usages may throw some light on the question. Take the term, "glamour", which is, I believe of Norman derivation, or at least French. It is more or less equivalent to enchantment. The old meaning of enchantment has fallen away and the word is used almost exclusively in terms of female beauty. But that points up an interesting illustration: female beauty was considered a "glamour" in the old sense. "Be careful of her charms." There is (and has never been) nothing strange about female beauty; it is part and parcel of what it is to be human.

More later. I've run out of time.