What breaks the enchantment?

[davem]

Such fundamentalism I find limiting and even somewhat scary, however eloquently or kindly or sincerely meant. Or however truely or meaningfully experienced by one reader.

This is only a literary discussion. Being scared by anything I've said seems a bit of an over reaction. I'm stating as honestly as I can my own feelings & understanding. If I was advocating firebombing the 'scapegoats', I could understand your reaction, as it is, I can only say I think everyone needs to lighten up. I'm beginning to suspect the halls of accademe are haunted by professors & students in bullet proof gowns & carrying cans of mace, keeping a safe distance from one another in case an idea goes off & everyone gets hit by the shrapnel.

[HerenIstarion]

the halls of accademe are haunted by professors & students in bullet proof gowns...

hmm... that's probably because of quantum...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So, how or what will you take back to your writing? That you can provide the experience for the reader, but not necessarily the belief?

Something more humble. Simply that I must write the story I have to write, and will do the best I can. Whether I evoke the experience enough to cast the enchantment, only the reader can say. Belief is beyond my control.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting that you cast the discussion this way. And interesting that you smile at davem's zealous proselytising. I can't smile at it because it too much insists that there is only one way to read, one way to enjoy, one way to find that Other Land just over the next page whose scent you just might carry back with you to the waking world. Such fundamentalism I find limiting and even somewhat scary, however eloquently or kindly or sincerely meant. Or however truely or meaningfully experienced by one reader.

Originally Posted by davem

This is only a literary discussion. Being scared by anything I've said seems a bit of an over reaction. I'm stating as honestly as I can my own feelings & understanding. If I was advocating firebombing the 'scapegoats', I could understand your reaction, as it is, I can only say I think everyone needs to lighten up. I'm beginning to suspect the halls of accademe are haunted by professors & students in bullet proof gowns & carrying cans of mace, keeping a safe distance from one another in case an idea goes off & everyone gets hit by the shrapnel.

I'm going to respond to what I've bolded above. "Zealous proselytising" is a phrase loaded with pejorative connotations. I too think it overstates the case.

Fundamentalism is not in and of itself evil, or even bad. It becomes so when it is misguided. That's not what's going on here.

This is only a literary discussion Not entirely accurate, I think. If it were, we wouldn't invest ourselves in these conversations the way we do. A simple literary discussion would be an exchange of equally respected opinions. Tolkien's works touch us at our core beliefs, and we write on these boards passionately. That's why we ruffle each other's feathers sometimes.

I'm stating as honestly as I can my own feelings & understanding. Yes, but you're also trying to be as persuasive as you know how to be. I don't consider that to be identical to zealous proselytizing, but you are trying to change others' minds. Why else would you have the sig you do?

Everyone needs to lighten up. This, and the sarcasm that follows was spoken in ire. Understandable, since you no doubt felt on the defensive. Rather than lighten up (except for H-I, of course! ), we need to exercise courtesy and restraint. At least on this thread, if you please.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But even more interesting, littlemanpoet, is your contrast here between "accepted" and "experienced." That's a nice way of handling the differences on this thread, I think.

Yes, I think we often experience things we (at least initially) can't accept for what they are, not recognizing them for what they are. Fairy tale/fantasy/mythic story is thus an important form of literature, conveying to us unities that we normally wouldn't perceive. Perceived in narrative, they can be experienced "secondarily". It's still up to the reader whether these unities are accepted and/or believed, either secondarily or primarily. I hope that made sense.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

This is only a literary discussion Not entirely accurate, I think. If it were, we wouldn't invest ourselves in these conversations the way we do. A simple literary discussion would be an exchange of equally respected opinions. Tolkien's works touch us at our core beliefs, and we write on these boards passionately. That's why we ruffle each other's feathers sometimes.

Well, for me, it is a 'literary discussion' which I often take very seriously, but I know where to draw the line, & I often simply post what occurs to me as I write. For example, my post yesterday on Shelob/Lilith was pretty much a stream of consciousness & I had no idea what I was going to post when I sat down to write.

Yes, but you're also trying to be as persuasive as you know how to be. I don't consider that to be identical to zealous proselytizing, but you are trying to change others' minds. Why else would you have the sig you do?

Actually, I'm not - because I have no desire to be a 'guru', & I don't feel I've got anything to 'teach'. I'm not out to change anyone's mind to my point of view, because I rarely know exactly what my point of view is. That's why I tend often to contradict myself. My sig is there for two reasons: one as my 'get out of jail free' card - its my permission to contradict myself; second, it sounds clever.

Everyone needs to lighten up. This, and the sarcasm that follows was spoken in ire. Understandable, since you no doubt felt on the defensive. Rather than lighten up (except for H-I, of course! ), we need to exercise courtesy and restraint. At least on this thread, if you please.

Not 'ire'. Irony, if you like - or sarcasm - which I acknowledge is the lowest form of wit. I wasn't 'on the defensive', though, as (this may come as a disappointment to some) I don't take these discussions nearly that seriously. For me these boards are a means to explore ideas & concepts which I find interesting. If I come across as 'fundamentalist' or 'scary' that's something I can't help - just don't confuse me with mydowns persona.

If I say anything that anyone finds interesting or 'enlightening' that's fine, but its not my motivation for posting. If anyone is upset or offended, I can only repeat 'lighten up', get some perspective.

I don't know enough about anything to be a fundamentalist. Actually, I'm amazed anyone takes anything I post that seriously .

[HerenIstarion]

but you are trying to change others' minds

Welly well, what have I to say about the quote above? 'Observation changes object observed' would be the motto. Learning others' opinion makes us pick something new at times, and it does not follow the person we picked things up from tried to plant them into our own mind in the first place. It does not follow s/he was not trying to, of course, but both courses of action seem natural. If I hold something to be true (or even True), I'll try to communicate it along. There is no need to get angry with me for that

Rather than lighten up (except for H-I, of course!)

Yup, I'm the Mr. Happy here. That's also probably because of quantum.

Back to the titular, though: I still clinch to my original: Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

First reading in its light does not have to be the only time enchantement is present. Knowing what happens next subtracts (probably) from suspense, but that's plot related issue, not the 'World believability/state of being enchanted by it' as a whole.

But I stress on 'willing', for everything around, in the Primary World (the very book I hold in my hand and am supposedly absorbed in) may pull me out by the fact of its mere existence.

Recipe for authors as to how make one's work 'enchanting'? I'm not sure I can come up with one (you would have read my books if I could, I reckon), but let us give it a try:

So, whatever the setting, race of characters or plot, work of fantasy needs:

1. Moral chord 'good' chaps act along of. Closely similar to what is considered 'good' in primary word, to be recognisable without much effort
2. Logical ('natural') interaction of events (plotline, characters' behaviour and scenery/nature likewise). C should be consequence of B and A and so on. More threads to the carpet, more belief. Quantity than has the chance of becoming quality. The thing as complex as ME has signs of 'real world' (moons wane in 28 days, and do it subtly, without 10 foot billboards to advertise the fact, etc) to it, and is therefore believable

That's for believability. For enchantement, some more components are there.

3. General depression, sadness, sense of tragic loss etc etc... (this one belongs to first category likewise)
4. Beauty (whatever that may be, and it too, belongs to first category likewise)
5. Eucatastrophe following 'almost disaster' situation.

I won't expatiate on it, since there were numerous threads concerning the issue before. But the joy is, no doubt, convincing (strangely enough, as not all stories have happy ending in 'real life') and enchanting at the same time. Like if our heart finds it logical for things to end well, and our mind, though knowing it is not always the case, is sufficiently drugged by the event.

All was almost gone to the dogs, but handsome keen-eyed minstrel warrior, young Ultra Super Booper Lord having only seventeen seconds to save the world, saved it on seventeenth, because million to one chances always work.

Was that believable? Maybe not, but is it not enchanting? Neither? Still, if we disassemble LoTR, its backbone is quite similar. But example I've given was extreme. Hence the salt to the soup made of five types of meat - all things moderate, no extremities. If it is a Lord, let him be Ultra Lord, or Super Lord, or Booper Lord, but not all three at once. If you still want him to be all three, make him old and blind of one eye and a bit deaf for the minstrel.

Contrary or thanks to USBL's prowess in world-saving activities, it seems that believability may be there without enchantement, but the latter won't appear unless the world created is believable. I believe Slaughter Number Five and 1984, but I'm not enchanted, I'm rather horrified/repelled.

Believability or enchantement, than? Both.

Acceptance belongs to analysis, concepts present etc, it does not have to play part in belief (or state being enchanted). Suppose someone writes a story where all us turned upside down, Sauron is the hero, Gandalf the villain and so forth. Concepts as presented may not be accepted by the reader, but the book still has the chance of being believable (hopefully not enchanting though). But even without extremeties, does the concept of Eru the Creator bar the enchanted door to readers who do not accept the concept of Creator in the Primary World?

Or, to ask Finrod to my help, when 'heart leaps up in joy', there is belief (and enchantement may follow). Even if the mind does not accept the concept. Or even if it does - it is irrelevant.

Experience - um, is not it present in all works, good and bad? Meaning, unless reader stops reading, he experiences events in the story, creating mental images all along. Experience will be there even if the book does not pull any strings and is put aside after couple of pages. That of the few pages read will remain with the reader after the book is forgotten at all.

Random thoughts, all of them, what with me writing things off without much consideration now. Still, acknowledging the probability of the recipe being spoiled, or working only in my personal case.

cheers

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Is this thread still going?? Wow...seems to me that there's an awful lot of energy being spent on what is, in the end, an entirely subjective matter of readerly preference or response to the text.

I think the one thing we can deduce from this is that some people feel as though their responses to the text are "right" and therefore any resposne which is different from theirs is "wrong" and thus a threat.

Others think that their responses to the text are theirs alone and don't need to be related to anyone else's.

Still others think that there is no such thing as a response to the text, but the imposition upon it of the reader's own views.

And finally, still others seem to think that there is no reader, only the text.

I would suggest that the act of reading is itself the dynamic composite of all these positions at one and the same time. That's why it's so much fun, because there is so much happening in the tense and endless relation of author/text and reader/community.

My three Canadian cents (to make two American cents).

[HerenIstarion]

Brilliant summary, Fordim, I daresay

Especially the last one:

there is no reader, only the text

That's definitely because of quantum!

But if this is possible, than it's mirror reflection must be also possible, so there must be instances where there is a reader, but no text.

(Um, the last thesis is empirically proven too, by yours truly, when he craved after text, but had no means to afford one. Textless reader, as good as one can get in lab conditions)

[Aiwendil]

Fordim wrote:

Is this thread still going?? Wow...seems to me that there's an awful lot of energy being spent on what is, in the end, an entirely subjective matter of readerly preference or response to the text.

I think the one thing we can deduce from this is that some people feel as though their responses to the text are "right" and therefore any resposne which is different from theirs is "wrong" and thus a threat.

Indeed! I quite agree, which is why I haven't weighed in on this matter yet. It's one thing to say "this breaks the enchantment for me; what about you?" It's quite another to look for underlying truths about the text based on one's subjective experience. For my part, I don't find that the enchantment is broken at all - except, perhaps, by hyper-serious debates about what breaks it.

I do, however, think that there's an interesting phenomenon here - it's interesting that for some people the enchantment is a fragile thing and for others it is not. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that fact.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

And finally, still others seem to think that there is no reader, only the text.

But the text must exist apart from the reader, as a thing in itself. If the text changes us in any way at all it must be because it introduces us to new ideas & feelings, to something previously unknown. If we learn anything from it it must have supplied us with new information which we didn't previously have. My point is simply that it is that 'new information' which is of primary importance, & which must be given weight over what we already knew. The text changes us, & we become a different person (to a greater or lesser degree) to what we had been. The more open we are to the text the more we will be affected (changed) by it. As Bob Stewart says of 'Innerworld beings' 'they are 'real' within their own dimension. If we treat them as figments of our own imagination they will behave as such & our experience of the inner world will become a meaningless dream.

Now, admittedly, he is speaking of other, psychic, 'realities', but I think this idea gels with Tolkien's theory of Faerie, or 'secondary worlds'. The more we approach the secondary world as 'nothing but' a self creation on the reader's part, a construction by the reader based mainly on the reader's own 'baggage', the more it will become simply a 'mirror' which reveals only the reader's own psyche. The more we approach it as 'unknown', as 'new',as something we don't know, the more powerfully will it affect us, because we will be open to being changed by it. Gandalf, Frodo, Shelob, et al, are 'real' within their own world, they are not our invention, nor are they our mirrors of our unconscious contents. If they were they couldn't change us & we couldn't learn from them.