What breaks the enchantment?

[eowyntje]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What we are being presented with here, eowyntje, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1. The supreme Author is never wrong in his art.
2. Reading is an act of complete submission to the will of the art.
3. therefore, any breaking of the enchantment is the fault of the reader.

etc etc

When you look at it from that perspective, the author is indeed never wrong. It is me who's fault it is that the spell is broken. But fact is, that those things broke the spell for me, and if the book had been more perfect for me. that would not have happened. The highest art or a writer would therefor be to create a world that no one, no matter what fault they make, would fall out of, a spell that even the most inadequate readers can't break.
It's like blaming the road for the accident's we make. (The book being the road and the reader bying the one driving onthe road) When I get in a car-accident while traveling the Tolkien-road, this is my fault. But any imperfections on the road might have helped cause the accident. On a perfect road, no accidents would ever happen.
If the spell is broken for the reader, this is the fault of the reader, but also proof of the imperfection of the writing, a perfect writing would be like a perfect road where nobody would ever break the spell or leave the road.

I know claiming that LOTR is imperfect is a very bolt statement to make, but it is just the way I see it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by eowyntje

If the spell is broken for the reader, this is the fault of the reader, but also proof of the imperfection of the writing, a perfect writing would be like a perfect road where nobody would ever break the spell or leave the road.

I don't think Tolkien would have claimed his work was 'perfect', but in the context of what you ask, I'd respond by asking which parts of the work are 'imperfect' in an objective sense - other than printing errors or torn pages, etc? The only part of the work which could be said to be 'imperfect' would be one that every single reader agreed upon.

The author can only do his/her best, & they will fail with some readers some of the time, but unless they fail with all readers at the same point then it must be something in the individual reader that causes the spell to be broken for them at that particular point.

Originally Posted by Bb

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?

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.

I suppose what it all comes down to is the question 'What do we mean by 'enchantment'? Is it simply being temproraily convinced by a secondary world so that for a time we forget the primary world? Or does it work a deeper 'magic' on us, opening us up to recieve a 'fleeting glimpse of joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief', to the possibility of the eucatastrophic experience in a particular form? Is it a valid experience? Is it a 'depth' experience - even a spiritual one?

And if we talk about the 'reader's desire to be enchanted' that begs a very big question - whence does this desire to be enchanted arise, & why do we seek the experience? Why is there any art at all?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

whence does this desire to be enchanted arise, & why do we seek the experience? Why is there any art at all?

You're good at tough questions

Finrod asks the question too:

'For if you do not know, how can we? But do you know that the Eldar say of Men that they look at no thing for itself; that if they study it, it is to discover something else; that if they love it, it is only (so it seems) because it reminds them of some other dearer thing? Yet with what is this comparison? Where are these other things?

And eventually answers it (up to a point):

'Is it, then, a vision of what was designed to be when Arda was complete - of living things and even of the very lands and seas of Arda made eternal and indestructible, for ever beautiful and new - with which the fëar of Men compare what they see here? Or is there somewhere else a world of which all things which we see, all things that either Elves or Men know, are only tokens or reminders?'

We seek and compare.

[Bêthberry]

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.

I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question.

If the 'baggage' is unconscious, the reader will not be aware of it and so cannot dwell upon it. The reader will be unaware of how this unconscious reaction informs his or her response. Thus, how will the reader know if this unconscious baggage is shaping the experience of the art or the Art itself?

This is a logical problem with the theory that one can completely strip oneself of one's primary world identity and become solely immersed in the secondary world. At best, one can demonstrate and act upon a willingness, a desire to listen, to learn, to understand, but the very unique and individual terms and nature of the submission will in fact be part of how the experience is informed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Originally Posted by davem

I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question

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.'

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.

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.