What breaks the enchantment?

[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.