What breaks the enchantment?

[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.