What breaks the enchantment?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

This is all a matter of opinion, of course, & one responds subjectively to events in the book, but what breaks the enchantment for one reader doesn't break it for another, so I can only say again, that I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien 'failed' at any point, & where the enchantment is broken for each individual reader it is that reader's individual 'baggage' that is responsible. So, we learn more about ourselves from this exercise than we do about the story or its writer..

What you say, Davem, and what you say in your next post, got me to thinking...

I agree with your general idea that reading is subjective, and that what breaks one person's spell will not necessarily break someone else's, and that it is thus impossible to determine on that basis that Tolkien failed.

However...

When you say that "I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien failed...", I'm not so sure that I agree. I would say that there is one definitive test that could be taken (in a purely theoretical world) that would determine whether or not he had failed:

His OWN reaction.

Several years later, sometime in the mid-60s, I believe, Tolkien states in one his letters (no idea which) that after re-reading the Lord of the Rings, he thought it a rather good book on whole, and that he had done a rather good job on it.

I wish I had a copy of Letters, or could remember this one better, because I seem to recall Tolkien's sentiment in it being that he had done a good job, and not one that he felt inclined to seriously change, but...

But he didn't think it perfect.

Now, we all ought to know that Tolkien's first and primary audience was himself. Had he been writing for the public, we would have gotten The Hobbit. Had he been writing for his job, it would have been Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight. So, if there were any places that Tolkien found, in his reflections at a more objective date, to have "broken the enchantment", these would seem to be me to be the most conclusive test.

Of course, such a test is purely hypothetical....

[HerenIstarion]

L241

That was 1944. (I did not finish the first rough writing till 1949, when I remember blotting the pages (which now represent the welcome of Frodo and Sam on the Field of Cormallen) with tears as I wrote.

L257

I now find The Lord of the Rings 'good in parts'.

[davem]

Originally Posted by F

ormendacilWhen you say that "I don't think we can ever state that Tolkien failed...", I'm not so sure that I agree. I would say that there is one definitive test that could be taken (in a purely theoretical world) that would determine whether or not he had failed:

His OWN reaction.

But that's his own subjective opinion as a reader. He also stated in the Letters that he was, after a number of years, able to read the book as if it had been written by someone else. So, parts of it may have failed to enchant him, but those parts mey not fail to enchant other readers, so we still can't say there are parts which fail to enchant everyone who reads them. Even Tolkien had some baggage I suppose.

[littlemanpoet]

Are you trying to have it both ways, davem? But then, you don't take yourself seriously, so there's no reason we should either, right? Unless, of course, you are asking for subscription to the church of latter day Tolkienism (not tokenism), founded by the apostle davem for the sake of the gospel according to tolkien. It must be remembered, o chosen faithful, that the angel Olorin has appeared directly to the reader so that said disciple reader must know and believe in his or her heart (we are gender inclusive here) that Gandalf is an angel and speaketh at great length the mysterious descriptions of Orthanc, may Elbereth live forever.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

But then, you don't take yourself seriously, so there's no reason we should either, right

If I thought anyone was taking anything I posted here as seriously as you imply I would stop posting straight away. In the end its the ideas we discuss that are important, & I just wish people could find a way to seperate the ideas from the person posting them. Then maybe we could have some good, in depth, discussions here without people getting all het up & offended by what they read. I don't get hot & bothered by what others post because I just respond to them as ideas. My ideas are up for debate, discussion or trashing, not myself, so I don't worry about the negative response I get from others.

I can only say that if this approach has lead me to hurt or offend other posters I'm sorry, but I can only repeat I've always thought of this as a forum for us to discuss Tolkien's work, not each other.

[littlemanpoet]

Serious? Hardly. Just spoofing. Quite fun. I've heard it said that spoofing only offends those who do take themselves too seriously, but then who knows? You did allow yourself to become part of the topic. But I'll stop.

"Just because I'm in denial doesn't mean I've really lost - er - what did you say I'd lost?"

"Your memory."

"Oh. right."

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

But Gandalf, as an Ainur, would, it seems to me, in this situation,adopt the role of 'impartial' narrator, passing on information to other council members. He can also seem as if he is 'bragging' in the Council, reporting his 'clever' responses to Saruman. I think he is being quite impartial. We have to keep in mind his true nature, & I think if we do his speech is in character. He may be in He may be in Middle earth, but he is not of it. As Tolkien put it he is effectively an 'incarnate angel'.

Originally Posted by davem

We know he is more than he appears. We are on a learning curve at this point in the story.

There's a big, big jump between saying Gandalf is an Ainur and saying 'he is more than he appears.' The latter could be said of all the characters in any story, that at the beginning, especially at such a momentous occasion as the Council of Elrond, there will be more to these characters than yet meets the eye.

To say that only a reading which knows The Silm can create a valid reading of Lot R is to demand a specific knowledge which was unavailable to almost all readers (short of CT and The Inklings) until the posthumous publication of The Silm. You are here now claiming that LotR cannot be understood without reference to other Tolkien texts, yet previously you were saying the LotR should be read without what you called baggage of other texts. To prioritise some texts above others is to engage in specious argument. LotR as its own unique text has to operate independently in order to charm readers.

What would appear to be important is the tantalizing potential of knowing that a "yet more ancient history" preceeded it, as Tolkien writes in the Second Edition. Hoping to catch such "glimpses" is a lot different than knowing Gandalf belongs to the form of creation set up by Eru. Things are held on the tenuous potential in LotR and not stated outright. That potentiality is, I argue, what we as readers are to experience, and not an explicit demand that the Legendarium explains everything.

In that second edition Tolkien stated what his purpose was, and it is an interesting purpose, for he does not claim he expected to hold readers constantly in thrall to some enchantment.

The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times mabye excite them or deeply move them.

It seems to me that to characterise any reading where enchantment breaks as a failure to attend properly to the text is to overstate and even mischaracterise what is happening.

[davem]

The 'baggage' I was referring to (which I should have expressed more clearly) was personal stuff, or ideas, concepts & connections external to Middle earth as a whole. Of course, the whole of Tolkien's extensive Me writings were not available to most readers, but they were available to Tolkien himself & LotR grew out of the earlier writings. For instance, the encounter with Shelob is heightened & deepened immensely by a knowlege of the story of the killing of the Two Trees, the rape of the Silmarils & the story of Earendel & Ungoliant. This 'background' information turns the episode from a fight with a monstrous spider into something far more significant & symbolic, & links back into Sam's statement about stories, & that he & Frodo are in the same story as Beren & Luthien & Earendel. The point is that Tolkien had those stories in mind as he wrote the confrontation with Shelob & if the reader also knows those stories he or she will read the encounter differently than if they don't. That is not bringing primary world baggage with them.

I wouldn't deny that readers who only have LotR can get a great deal from it, but Tolkien's struggles to get the Sil published alongside LotR show (aside fro his own comments in the letters) that he felt the background histories were necessary for a complete understanding of that work. The fact that he didn't struggle to get a volume of Anglo-Saxon, Middle Eastern, Finnish, Celtic, etc, myths & legends, fairy tales, other fantasy stories or historical accounts published as well, shows that he didn't consider a knowledge of those things to be necessary to such an understanding.

LotR was not considered by Tolkien to be a self contained story, but the culmination of the Legendarium.

LotR can be read as a stand alone work, & as you point out it has been, of necessity, read so for most of its history, but it was not intended by its author to be read so. Whether it has to stand or fall by whether it can be so read or not is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it was intended by its writer to be so read is not a matter of opinion. It wasn't. Expecting to fully understand LotR (as opposed to simply loving it & being enchanted by it) without knowing the rest of the Legendarium is rather like expecting to understand RotK without knowing The Fellowship or The Two Towers. One could read RotK & be enchanted & moved by it, but one wouldn't fully understand it - anymore than someone watching episodes 4,5 & 6 of Star Wars without knowing what happened in episodes 1-3 would fully understand them. The first three Star Wars movies (whatever one's opinion of them as movies) are necessary to give background & depth to the second three. What is not necessary, & would, in my opinion, get in the way would be watching the movies with a head full of ideas about comparative mythology, religion & the other movies 'referenced' by Lucas.

Being too aware of such 'baggage' while we are watching the movies would inevitably break the spell & reduce the whole experience to an intellectual exercise devoid of emotional involvement, but watching episodes 4-6 with the events of episodes 1-3 in mind will add meaning & depth to our experience. Episodes 4-6 had to be viewed as 'stand alone' movies for 20 odd years because episodes 1-3 weren't available to watch but George Lucas knew what they contained, & wrote episodes 4-6 as the culmination (unless you believe the 9 episode story arc tale) of his 'Legendarium', & events in the later trilogy only really make sense in the light of the earlier one. In the same way LotR was written by Tolkien as the culmination of The Sil.

So, while a full & complete understanding of both LotR & SW 4-6 requires a knowlege of the The Sil & SW 1-3 respectively, neither requires (or benefits from) any 'baggage' external to the secondary worlds they present to us.

[HerenIstarion]

Someone must defend, you say?
I'll try my hand, than.

Your Honour, respected Jury!

The paragraph presented by sir Prosecutor is, on its large, presenting respected sir's impression. Defense must rely on age old practice of fighting fire with fire, your Honour, and present the Jury with just another impression, with your kind permission.

If we rely on wider range of sources than LoTR, we'll see Gandalf, or, as he is known to some, Olórin is professional conjurer of mental images... oft he walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom... what baggage? No, your Honour, I do not think you should accept respected Prosecutor's protest, as the sources I refer to are all placed within the bounds of Middle Earth's secondary world... All right, your Honour, let me shift an angle than...

Gandalf, even if we look through evidence presented by LoTR, and LoTR only, is a professional narrator, and his goal, frequently, is production of certain reaction in his audience. More often than not he provides all kinds of information and does so without relating data provided to his own direct action or participation in the events recounted, seeking positive emotional reaction of his listener. Good example is the story of the Ring he provides Frodo with at latter's premises in Bag End:

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles

Not does he rely on prose narration only, but often draws in his wide education in contemporary poetry in conjuring up desired reaction in his audience:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie

He does similar thing on Last Debate:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule

Yes, your Honour, I'll proceed in essence in a minute, and I'm sure I can show how does all I've been telling you up to now relate to Gandalf's case at the Council of Elrond

What Gandalf does at the Council, is an effort to convey the danger Saruman (who is an entity yet unknown to the most part of the audience) presents.

He starts off recounting who Saruman was, and who is now become. Though information may have been conveyed in direct dialogue, direct dialogue would have been devoid of feeling Gandalf is trying to stir, but present bare data.

It cannot be reached save by passing the circle of Isengard; and in that circle there is only one gate.

Produces ominous premonition, feeling of something magical, dangerous and impassable. It does imply Gandalf has passed it, but it also implies passage was a deed not many would dare, somehow adding up to his repute as dangerous and cunning wizard himself.

I came to Orthanc, passing through the lone gate in the circle of Isengard, for it cannot be reached any other way.'

Ruins the carefully built image of secret and ancient wizardry, wondrous might of Númenor, kingdom mentioned during the council for the first time in the narration, I believe (apart from prologue, were it may have slipped reader's attention), If 'I' passed the gate that easily, why should others meet any obstacle? Such an emotion is undesirable to Gandalf than and there.

Finally, Defense has no other way but to conclude the way Gandalf assumes 'narrator's role' is just natural style for him on important occassions. Whilst he may be dark and secretive when directly questioned, he comes out ominous and even 'legendary' and 'mythical' on committee meetings and military briefings.

Respected Jury, presenting Defense's impression to match that of sir Prosecutor's, we plead the case of the Defendant, and are sure you will make the right decision, ladies and gentlemen!

[Mister Underhill]

On the charge of Breaking the Enchantment in the Second Degree (pursuant to Literary Code 128.341a), we the jury find the Author--

Not guilty!

Excellent defense, HI. Gandalf is, by calling and by personal inclination, a storyteller himself. In describing Saruman's dwelling, Gandalf also hints at the nature of Saruman himself -- tall, full of secrets, perilous, not to be judged by his appearance.

You'll be lucky, lmp, if the Defendant doesn't counter-sue for Emotional Distress Caused by Nitpicking.

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps the Prosecutor gets no chance in legal courts to speak once more after the Defense rests, but here on the BDs, I'll take my chance, even if judge and jury have already decided the case.

You examples from the Defendant's texts, respected Defender, do me the favor of rebutting the very thing you claim for them.

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles.

I have bolded text for the sake of the hasty jury. You see, these four little words render this bit of Gandalf's talk as conversation, not mere narration. Thus, it does not apply as strict narration.

The poem Gandalf recites, to which my respected colleague has referred, is a quotation by Gandalf of someone else's rendered speech; therefore, neither can it apply as narration.

From the Last Debate:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

Here again Gandalf is speaking to a group, including himself in it. Note the bolded text. This is in essence a sermonette, not a narration.

At this point I must ask for a brief recess, as my other job calls me away. I shall address the compared original with the alteration as soon as I can. I thank you for your time, my esteemed colleagues.

[Lalwendë]

Gandalf's different ways of speaking can be accounted for if we consider who he is speaking to. At The Council of Elrond, he is not only speaking to a diverse group of people, a meeting of the great and the good, he is also speaking to Frodo. His narration must be inclusive of all his audience, and so he takes care to fully express the sense of the peril he has gone through, knowing that some listening will need to hear more detail.

At The Last Debate he is speaking to a gathering of leaders after a great battle, to discuss tactics and not least of all, to inspire these leaders to take the right decisions which will lead to victory. He uses the 'royal we' to include himself in what must come, to let his listeners subtly know that he will be with them whatever is decided. This is something politicians often use in speeches - they rarely talk of "you", but instead use "we". If the PM said "you must build a fairer society" it has a different meaning to "we must build a fairer society". Note also that he would be unlikely to say "I must build a fairer society". Yes, his words did sound like sermonising, but that is close to his purpose.

Gandalf uses many voices to speak, as he has many reasons for saying what he does, and he speaks to many different audiences. I don't find this inconsistent myself, it seems appropriate to his character.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

This is the state of reading for us all. Once does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.

What is the nature of reading? This is just one theory (and relatively recent as far as I can remember) of how we read yet there are others, so it is not how we all read if experience is different for other people.

Even with the individual there can be differing ways that they read. As I've said before, when I read a report I read and interpret at the same time - possibly because this saves me time, possibly as what I am reading is so dull I have to look for some purpose to it, possibly as I have simply been trained to read such texts in that way.

When I read poetry I read first simply to enjoy the words, any interpretation must come at a much later stage - I view poetry as akin to painting, which should first be experienced for what it is, allowing an emotional reaction to be the first that we experience, before the structure is analysed. With poetry then, I do put the language and words into a holding pattern. As with a painting, those words have been carefully placed to make a picture which should first be viewed as the artefact that it is before we go in to dissect it (which in itself is enjoyable with poetry). I say 'should' as we do not always do that, and I often find that it is this learned practice which puts many young people off poetry, as they simply never get to see the picture as it is and first have an emotional reaction.

I think that when we all first read LotR we had little or no notion of interpretation, certainly those of us who read at a relatively young age; the story is constructed and plotted so that we would have little time or inclination to interpret, as we would just want to know "what happens next?". As are all good stories. Yes, we may have been struck by odd points along the way where things reminded us of this or that, but interpretation would not really be an issue when engrossed in a thrilling plot and a fantastical world. I'd say that it is what happens to each reader afterwards that diverges. Some still read innocently, some read interpretively, some read hoping to see more of Middle Earth than they saw last time around.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What is the nature of reading? This is just one theory (and relatively recent as far as I can remember) of how we read yet there are others, so it is not how we all read if experience is different for other people.

Even with the individual there can be differing ways that they read. As I've said before, when I read a report I read and interpret at the same time - possibly because this saves me time, possibly as what I am reading is so dull I have to look for some purpose to it, possibly as I have simply been trained to read such texts in that way.

First of all, Lal, I will say I am sorry for that broad generalisation of "all". I will happily edit so that my point does not exclude those who have different reading experiences (and I will note the edit). As for the "relatively recent" part of the theory, of what import is that?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

When I read poetry I read first simply to enjoy the words, any interpretation must come at a much later stage - I view poetry as akin to painting, which should first be experienced for what it is, allowing an emotional reaction to be the first that we experience, before the structure is analysed. With poetry then, I do put the language and words into a holding pattern. As with a painting, those words have been carefully placed to make a picture which should first be viewed as the artefact that it is before we go in to dissect it (which in itself is enjoyable with poetry). I say 'should' as we do not always do that, and I often find that it is this learned practice which puts many young people off poetry, as they simply never get to see the picture as it is and first have an emotional reaction.

I think that when we all first read LotR we had little or no notion of interpretation, certainly those of us who read at a relatively young age; the story is constructed and plotted so that we would have little time or inclination to interpret, as we would just want to know "what happens next?". As are all good stories. Yes, we may have been struck by odd points along the way where things reminded us of this or that, but interpretation would not really be an issue when engrossed in a thrilling plot and a fantastical world. I'd say that it is what happens to each reader afterwards that diverges. Some still read innocently, some read interpretively, some read hoping to see more of Middle Earth than they saw last time around.

I think part of the difference here might lie in how we each use this word 'interpretation.' What is involved in "enjoy the words"?

Do you mean you merely listen to the sound without making any determination of what the words mean?

Interpretation is the act of deciding which meaning of a word pertains to the text. It does not necessarily mean all the convoluted analysis your teachers put you through. For example, readers choose which of the thirty or so meanings of "beat" applies to this particular context, or which meaning of "sound".

Even 'what happens next" means interpreting the words, or making guesses about what might happen. For instance, when Gloin interrupts Gandalf at the Council of Elrond, and Gandalf refers to all the differences between elves and dwarves, and then what happens but Elrond sends Gimli out with Legolas! Well! This is exciting stuff and what reader does not wonder what might come of this strange pairing. This is the engagement with words which is part of the interpretive process. Some readers will attend to the thrilling action part, some to the story of the elves, some to the natural description. But even at the most basic level of reading for story, for what happens, 'interpretation' takes place for us to make sense of what the words refer to.

At least, from this idea of reading.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Davem

But that's his own subjective opinion as a reader. He also stated in the Letters that he was, after a number of years, able to read the book as if it had been written by someone else. So, parts of it may have failed to enchant him, but those parts mey not fail to enchant other readers, so we still can't say there are parts which fail to enchant everyone who reads them. Even Tolkien had some baggage I suppose.

Of course he is a subjective reader. Of course he has his own baggage. My point was that Tolkien had written with himself, baggage subjectivity and all, in mind. Therefore, if this same "be-baggled" and sujectified reader read it a few years later and pronounced parts of it good or great, then those are the parts where Tolkien succeeded in exactly what he set out to do: to please his own subjective and be-baggled self.

[HerenIstarion]

Right you are, sir!

L294

If it is of interest, the passages that now move me most – written so long ago that I read them now as if they had been written by someone else – are the end of the chapter Lothlórien (I 365-7), and the horns of the Rohirrim at cockcrow.

[Celuien]

I don't necessarily think that personal experience is an enchantment-breaking intrusion, unless it suddenly introduces something incompatible with the story (as a very silly example, sending a snowmobile to Caradhras). Given that we all have our own backgrounds and experience, there probably is no such thing as a completely objective reader. There will be a conscious or unconscious emotional element to how an individual responds based on past experiences. Part of the enchantment for me is that I find a resonance with the story from my personal viewpoint. But, because I come from a different background than Tolkien, the probability is that I will have responded to the story, at least in some points, in a different way than he might have expected. And there are some elements (e.g. Galadriel and Mary) that honestly would never have occurred to me. Does it lessen my enchantment with the tale? No. Does it affect the way I understand the book? Yes, but I tend to reserve that more for an analytic approach.

Now, I'm not saying that analysis and enchantment are mutually exclusive events. It's just that I see enchantment more as the quality of being absorbed with or delighted by the story. With enchantment, I think there's less emphasis on the author's intent than on the reader response and vice versa with analytic approaches. Nor do I see one type of reading as less valid than another; it just depends on what you're looking for at the time.

Hope that makes some sense and isn't too repetitive.

[Evisse the Blue]

Bringing my own personal ‘baggage’ into the conversation, here’s the way I see it:

Some people say ‘Only connect’ : bringing other stuff into reading is perfectly fine because it enhances the experience, and it reveals new aspects. Analizing and interpreting the text are most welcome. The ‘enchantment’ is broken, when there are inaccuracies in the storyline, unbelievable (for the reader!) developments, changes of writing style that are unaccounted for.

Other people (actually, only Davem, as far as I gathered ) argue for ‘Separating’: when you experience a work of art, be it a book, a painting, a piece of music, you experience it only in itself, and leave your opinions, memories, interpretations, analogies, aside. All this in order to experience more accurately what the author is trying to convey through that work of Art. Breaking of the enchantment occurs when the reader is incapable of exercising the mental discipline required to focus only on the said work of Art.

Have I got this right?

Well then. I must say that the aforementioned discipline of mind is what I most strive for. Not because of some theoretical inclination of it being the right thing to do, but because this is the way one can enjoy things the most. And – surprise, I find that I can achieve said discipline (not by an effort of will); but that it comes naturally only with works of Art that are very dear to me. So, when I read Lord of the Rings, my mind makes no leaps.
Examples:
Language: (changes of style, speaking in verse, etc): no problems. Obviously I am not that familiar with different styles of speech in English, so it presents a problem for me.
Eowyn - no problem there. In fact, the scenes between her and Faramir are one of my most favourite in the book. *shrug*
The Hobbit: I read it on its own. It's not that I don't connect it at all with the rest of the history of Middle Earth, but I prefer to enjoy it as a stand alone. Also, in the context of the work, what davem said makes sense: It was written by Bilbo and it was bound to sound 'easy going and fancy free'. Maybe things were not that funny or caricatured (including the Elves), but Bilbo saw them as such and presented them like that when he recounted his adventures.

But:

“All I’ve ever said was that the experience of the art (in as pure a degree as we are capable of) must come first, then we must (again as far as we are capable of doing it) attempt to understand what the artist intended to communicate, what he/she wanted to say to us, then, finally, can come – if we so desire it – our own interpretation of the text/painting/symphony.” (Davem)

That can't be known. In my opinion. It can never be known, so it's useless to even imagine you're trying: understand what the author is really meaning to say, that is. Let's say you read a certain passage and suddenly have a revelation: 'Wow, this rings so true. I feel I know exactly how the author felt when he wrote this, I feel I know exactly what he tried to convey to the readers." The more sure you feel of it, the higher the probability that you’re wrong. Because even if you do manage to control the ‘connecting’ at a conscious level, there’s still the unconscious ways your mind works to be taken care of. So the feeling of understanding what the author is trying to convey to you, the individual reader is actually the thrill of discovering yourself, a part of you that has been stirred by that passage, a corner of your mind and spirit that had been lying dormant until now. But that is it. We are all islands, and no man's holy grail is exactly the same as another's.

"Well, if one is not prepared to take risks in order to experience enchantment one cannot really complain if one remains unenchanted, can one? Though I realise that shutting up for 5 minutes & submitting oneself to a work of art in order for it to work its effect on one is a truly terrifying prospect & this is why I support the proposal that all art galleries display health warnings & that parental guidance stickers be applied to Bach cd's" (Davem)

Oh, I like that. This reminds me of that fragment in Fahrenheit 451 when the women were mortally afraid by the book smuggled home by Montag, and the reading of one poem caused something like a nervous breakdown in a seemingly normal and cheerful housewife. Talk about ‘baggages’.

One difference between God's work and man's is, that, while God's work cannot mean more than he meant, man's must mean more than he meant. For in everything that God has made, there is layer upon layer of ascending significance; also he expresses the same thought in higher and higher kinds of that thought; it is God's things, his embodied thoughts, which alone a man has to use, modified and adapted to his own purposes, for the expression of his thoughts; therefore he cannot help his words and figures falling into such combinations in the mind of another as he himself had not foreseen, so many are the thoughts allied to every other thought, so many are the relations involved in every figure, so many the facts hinted in every symbol. A man may well himself discover truth in what he wrote; for he was dealing all the time with things that came from thoughts beyond his own. (Bethberry, quoting George McDonald)

That is one of the best ideas ever. I’ve come across variations of it, but imo, this expresses it most clearly. Thanks for sharing it, Bethberry. It ties in, - at least the way I see it – with Davem’s affirmation that works of art are things that go beyond our own fleeting opinions. And the ones that truly last are those that deal with truths that are universal. Of course, one cannot argue that every little phrase in Lord of the Rings is filled with such meanings. But the fact that there are certain scenes that when we read them, almost everyone of us (including Tolkien as a reader, as I see from the quote provided by HI) - feels prickles down their spine; certainly speaks for a higher something. It may be eucatastrophe, or it may be simple domestic joy; whatever it is, the enchantment is there, for all of us.

once the first reading is done, the enchantment cannot (I think) truly ever be completely recovered for anyone (despite protestations to the contrary), because LotR was designed to be an enchantment that must come to an end (littlemanpoet)

How very true!
There is nothing like the first time. And the first time enchantment can never be found again, despite our many subsequent readings. Even if we have gained a different sort of pleasure, (knowing what to look forward to in the tale), the first enchantment (that is mostly made of wonder, and includes being totally oblivious to the surroundings) is forever lost. Indeed it's both funny and appropriate that Tolkien's books, which deal with nostalgia for things lost, awaken the same feeling in the reader. Our nostalgia is two fold: for the Elves that leave Middle Earth, never to return, and that of yet again reaching the end of the book; and the pang of sadness that comes with realizing you'll never experience that first-time enchantment again.

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.(Aiwendil)

That is interesting indeed.
My first reaction, when I saw this thread and read LMP's 'warning' was 'back away as quick as possible' but then I kept seeing this thread reaching page 2, 3, 4, and I thought 'well. some people apparently are brave enough to take that chance and dissect things. I won't use the golden eggs metaphor, (although that was an astute observation, Formendacil), because I think it's a bit too harsh. “Sometimes I don't want to see the pupeteers, sometimes I just want to see the magic therein; and sometimes I want to pry open the atoms to see why they spin”. So when I was in an atom prying open mood, I took up reading this thread and I must say it was worth the 3 hours I spent on it.

In fact, isn't that phrase. 'Once upon a time' (& 'over the hills & far away' - or as I prefer 'over the hills to faraway') part of the little bit of Eden that we all carry in our hearts?(Davem)

A little off topic question: is 'over the hills and (to) faraway a standard storyline phrase like 'once upon a time' and is it usually used to emphasize distance in terms of space? as in: 'very, very |very| far away?' ( in my language there's a phrase with a similar meaning that goes 'over (seven) seas and (seven) horizons'.)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Evisse the Blue

Bringing my own personal ‘baggage’ into the conversation ... it's useless to even imagine you're trying to understand what the author is really meaning to say. ... it's both funny and appropriate that Tolkien's books, which deal with nostalgia for things lost, awaken the same feeling in the reader. Our nostalgia is two fold: for the Elves that leave Middle Earth, never to return, and that of yet again reaching the end of the book; and the pang of sadness that comes with realizing you'll never experience that first-time enchantment again. ... My first reaction, when I saw this thread and read LMP's 'warning' was 'back away as quick as possible' but then I kept seeing this thread reaching page 2, 3, 4, and I thought 'well. some people apparently are brave enough to take that chance and dissect things. ... So when I was in an atom prying open mood, I took up reading this thread and I must say it was worth the 3 hours I spent on it. .... A little off topic question: is 'over the hills and (to) faraway a standard storyline phrase like 'once upon a time' and is it usually used to emphasize distance in terms of space? as in: 'very, very |very| far away?' ( in my language there's a phrase with a similar meaning that goes 'over (seven) seas and (seven) horizons'.)

How did I not see this post yesterday? Thanks for putting in your 2¢. I did wonder how many people I scared away with that, and still think I'm glad I did. I get a kick out of you agreeing with people who see themselves (or at least their opinions) as diametrically opposed.

AS to your off topic question, I haven't the foggiest idea of the answer. I don't recall reading or hearing it in fairy tales. Sorry I can't help.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

L294

Quote:
If it is of interest, the passages that now move me most – written so long ago that I read them now as if they had been written by someone else – are the end of the chapter Lothlórien (I 365-7), and the horns of the Rohirrim at cockcrow.

__________________

Thank you, H-I. Those passages move me too...

[Tar-Verimuchli]

For me it's not just one event or character, to put it simply it's how good the good guys are and how bad the bad guys are. It doesn't necessarily 'break the enchantment' but it is something that affects my appreciation of the 'secondary world'. It's also why I find characters like Feanor, Eol and Gollum more interesting than Finrod, Galadriel and Sam and can't stand the Vanyar.