What breaks the enchantment?

[davem]

I think what you're talking about here is 'unconscious' baggage. What I'm talking about is conscious baggage, where we are deliberately looking for these connections & consciously interpreting what we read or view as we watch or read . The more we bring in these things the more we will detatch ourselves from what we are experiencing.

Every time such a connection occurs there is a 'split', a wrenching out of the secondary world into either the primary or another secondary world - 'Never our minds on where we are' seems to be a major problem. It is a lack of attention to what's actually going on in front of us.

The impact of the scene you refer to, of Luke's return to find his aunt & uncle dead, may be enhanced for some viewers by similar scenes in other movies, but it is more likely to prove a distraction from the actual events on screen, & produce a 'general' feeling of sadness & loss, rather than a specific feeling related to Luke's loss - we won't be empathising & connecting with Luke here, but with all the characters we've ever seen in similar situatons. Now, as I said, this will probably happen unconsciously with all viewers, but the more we focus on those other episodes, the less we will be focussing on the very specific case of Luke. Why tell this specific story rather than just show a series of old movie clips - that would produce general feelings of loss & bereavement more effectively. It is the specific story of Luke that moves us.

Actually, after seeing the the young Owen & Beru in the earlier movies, I find that scene takes on greater meaning & sadness for me, because I'm not stepping outside the secondary world. I feel sad that Owen & Beru are dead, not because similar characters in similar movies died in similar ways.

Edited to make sense.

Subsequently edited: I'm not sure what to make of the negative rep handed down to Bethberry in my 'defence'. I am flattered that anyone would wish to come to my defence at all, but I don't really approve of negative rep in principle & have never, & would never, hand any out. If anything anyone posts bothers me I will either shrug it off or come out 'fighting' .

In short, it makes me more than a bit uncomfortable to think anyone, & particularly someone I have (believe it or not!) the utmost respect for as a fellow Downer & sparring partner should receive bad rep & that I may have played some part (however tenuous) in them getting it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think I'm going to check out Owen Barfield, as littlemanpoet suggested, to see about this "felt change of consciousness" he mentioned.

The best start with Barfield is Poetic Diction, which I own and have read through twice. I can honestly say I actually comprehend perhaps 70% of the work, and understand 40% of it. Very deep! All about language, its history, and its use, and he introduces, describes, and explains "felt change of consciousness" far better than I ever could. It was a seminal work, one that Tokien and Lewis were both very familiar with. It lies behind much of my theory in my "mythic unities" thread.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think it is very funny that I have just received a negative rep for my previous post here.

Funny, I was going to positive rep you on that post, because I thought you stated the case not only clearly but effectively, but I gotta spread it around first.

Whether or not LotR is best understood with a knowledge of the Legendarium or not, Gandalf's little Orthanc speech in The Council of Elrond seemed more like the narrator's voice than the wizard's - - - to me. If others find the same thing, maybe that says something more about the author (not deity's) regarding the wizard. After all, Gandalf is used as the "final authority" on anything within the story.

[Celebuial]

I know you're all getting very intelectual at the moment on this particular thread, but I'd just like to add that a break in the enchantment isn't always a bad thing. For example if you are reminded of something from your childhood that makes you smile, or of a loved one, or a friend not seen in a long time, surely the enchantment has been broken if you are reminded that the 'real world' exisits; but surely this is not a bad thing?

It's nice to be enthralled by a tale and lost in the story/world, but isn'it better still if you are reminded of things forgotten or some 'real' thing? I think that this is a great thing and even though the enchantment must be broken for these things to happen. I like the idea that a novel can be personal, and that it can effect everyone in a different way. It seems to me that you seem to be arguing about why the enchantment is broken, you make it sound like a bad thing; but isn't this how/why a book can be so different to everyone? I think that if the enchanment is broken, sometimes this can add to the overall enchantment of the novel in the end. It allows you to personally identify with the work in a unique way.

Ok I'm done. Sorry if I babbled and if it's not all that intelligable (is that even a word?), but I tried.

[littlemanpoet]

Celebuial, if I ever look down my nose at people because I'm their supposed intellectual superior, then I deserve to be disowned as a fellow Downs member.

Thanks for the point you made. I think you're right. It reminds me of something Tolkien said in his "On Fairy Stories" essay about recovery. He meant that a good fairy tale helps you better appreciate something from your own life. If that happens in the middle of reading, and if that's a breaking of the enchantment, then I agree it's a good one.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Whether or not LotR is best understood with a knowledge of the Legendarium or not, Gandalf's little Orthanc speech in The Council of Elrond seemed more like the narrator's voice than the wizard's - - - to me. If others find the same thing, maybe that says something more about the author (not deity's) regarding the wizard. After all, Gandalf is used as the "final authority" on anything within the story.

You know, littlemanpoet, I think perhaps this is the story teller coming out in you, for it strikes me that the dilemma here is that Tolkien has certain information that must come out and that it must be told under certain conditions. he choose finally to have Gandalf report the event, but that form of presenting the event created a tension between the character's knowledge and the narrator's knowledge. so to speak.

Tolkien could have chosen to present the Orthanc episode as it occured, but that might have first of all taken away the shock value of Saruman's defection as presented at the Council.

It might also have created too great an impact for Saruman's own words to be spoken, at a time when he must be seen as a traitor. In terms of the story mode, Tolkien choose as Milton did not not to make his villain attractive. There is no risk of being swayed by Saruman's words when they are simply reported words from the survivor of the episode.

To present the information in a scene between Gandalf and Elrond might run the risk of having them appear too much in control of the proceedings, giving them information which would have allowed them to sway the meeting. Here, at least, Elrond knows the general circumstances but he has not been acquainted with the precise details. Thus, his reaction becomes important at the Council.

There seems to be, too, details which are less relevant to Gandalf's Orthanc experience, such as the Gaffer's opinion of the new owners of Bag End, and the full dialogue between Gandalf and Butterbur at the Pony. I think they belong more to a narrator who loves his story and characters than to the wizard per se who must speak of his experience.

I would guess also that at some level Tolkien was aware that this account created a bit of a problem. After all, why give Gandalf his apologetic excuse for its length unless he (Tolkien) were aware that it did not sound enough like Gandalf?

I'm not sure if this is what you meant by telling us something about the author's attitude toward the character, but it strikes me that you are right that so much here is more suited to the narrator than the wizard. It's a writerly dilemma. Tolkien choose the most dramatic means to highlight the Orthanc episode without giving Saruman too much attention, but actually the story telling urge won out over the character.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

There seems to be, too, details which are less relevant to Gandalf's Orthanc experience, such as the Gaffer's opinion of the new owners of Bag End, and the full dialogue between Gandalf and Butterbur at the Pony. I think they belong more to a narrator who loves his story and characters than to the wizard per se who must speak of his experience.

Shippey comments on this speech of Gandalf, & maybe it would be useful to quote from him:

It is Gandalf's long monolgue, however, which shows most variety in its use of 'imapcted speakers', the direct speech of others quoted by Gandalf. Without that variety the immense amount of necessary plot-detail conveyed by the monologue would run flat. Several of Gandalf's (seven) 'impacted speakers' create, like Boromir, or Sauron's messenger, a sense of the ominous, more or less concealed. Perhaps the least significant, in terms of plot, is Gaffer Gamgee, whose job is only to tell Gandalf that Frodo & the others have left. He makes too much of this, as Gandalf says, 'Many words & few to the point', & Gandalf stresses what it is he actually says:

'I can't abide changes, not at my time of life, & least of all changes for the worst.' Changes for the worst.' he repeated many times...

People draw information not only from what is said, but from how it is said. The continuous variations of language within this complex chapter tell us almost subliminally how reliable characters are, how old they are, how self-assured they are, how mistaken they are, what kind of person they are. All thisx is as vital as the direct information conveyed, not least, as has been said, to prevent the whole chapter from degenerating into the minutes of a committee meeting. (Author of the Century)

If we read Gandalf's description of Orthanc (this one, I think, is the one LMP is referring to :

'However, I wrote a message to Frodo, and trusted to my friend the innkeeper to send it to him. I rode away at dawn; and I came at long last to the dwelling of Saruman. That is far south in Isengard, in the end of the Misty Mountains, not far from the Gap of Rohan. And Boromir will tell you that that is a great open vale that lies between the Misty Mountains and the northmost foothills of Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains of his home. But Isengard is a circle of sheer rocks that enclose a valley as with a wall, and in the midst of that valley is a tower of stone called Orthanc. It was not made by Saruman, but by the Men of Numenor long ago; and it is very tall and has many secrets; yet it looks not to be a work of craft. It cannot be reached save by passing the circle of Isengard; and in that circle there is only one gate.

we see that Gandalf is actually giving important information to the other Council members, most of whom will have little or no knowlege of Saruman. He is telling them why Saruman is a threat - he lives in an impregnable fortress, which he himself did not make. It (& by extension Saruman himself) 'has many secrets'. He is also explaining why he himself found it so difficult to escape from there. Saruman is Orthanc in a very real sense. A detailed description of Orthanc actually tells us a great deal about Saruman himself.

Also, taking the risk of being accused of importing primary world baggage into Middle earth we know that in oral cultures - which Middle earth still is to a great extent - people tended to have a greater capacity to visualise what was described to them if they were given enough information (Peig Sayers, the great Irish storyteller, tells us that the way she managed to remember long stories after only a single hearing was that when she heard the stories she would look at a blank wall & 'see' what was being described. In other words, such descriptions would serve not just as a source of information, but also help too create an image for the listeners).

Gandalf, it seems to me, is giving a lot of important information to an audience who are largely ignorant of what is happening in their world. He does this through the words of a number of different characters, & through descriptions of place. He has a lot to pass on, & he has to make sure his audience take it in. The most effective way to do this (& this applies equally to the reader) is to relate his information in the form of a story. In this sense he does take on the role of 'impartial narrator', but I'd argue that this is entirely right & understandable. Put yourself in the place of one of the Council members & think how much Gandalf is telling you. The kind of mental pictures he is creating would be an invaluable aid in holding all that he's telling you in mind.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I would guess also that at some level Tolkien was aware that this account created a bit of a problem. After all, why give Gandalf his apologetic excuse for its length unless he (Tolkien) were aware that it did not sound enough like Gandalf?

Bêthberry, you may credit me with more than I deserve. My sense that Gandalf's words sound more like the narrator in describing Orthanc, has to do with having learned much about the writing craft in the last five or so years. The above quote represents the kind of thing I've learned: when a writer uses a character to apologize for something that is not necessarily character related, it is often the writer apologizing to the reader because said writer knows s/he has not done as well as s/he could.

In the interest of getting really, really specific and entirely breaking the enchantment for those who care to read.....

'However, I wrote a message to Frodo, and trusted to my friend the innkeeper to send it to him. I rode away at dawn; and I came at long last to the dwelling of Saruman. That is far south in Isengard, in the end of the Misty Mountains, not far from the Gap of Rohan. And Boromir will tell you that that is a great open vale that lies between the Misty Mountains and the northmost foothills of Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains of his home.

The above part works for me, because Gandalf is speaking to the audience sitting in Elrond's circle.

But Isengard is a circle of sheer rocks that enclose a valley as with a wall, and in the midst of that valley is a tower of stone called Orthanc. It was not made by Saruman, but by the Men of Numenor long ago; and it is very tall and has many secrets; yet it looks not to be a work of craft. It cannot be reached save by passing the circle of Isengard; and in that circle there is only one gate.

This second section is what broke the enchantment for me. Whereas in the first, Gandalf is naming others around the council, here in the second he does not .... and that seems to me to be because it is the narrator's voice that has taken over, giving the reader important information that the writer couldn't think of a better (more timely, more suspenseful) way to convey. It may well be that it is important information for the council members to learn from Gandalf, but that does not mitigate the fact that the voice is the narrator's rather than Gandalf's here.

And now to commit heresy:

'However, I wrote a message to Frodo, and trusted to my friend the innkeeper to send it to him. I rode away at dawn; and I came at long last to the dwelling of Saruman. That is far south in Isengard, in the end of the Misty Mountains, not far from the Gap of Rohan. And Boromir will tell you that that is a great open vale that lies between the Misty Mountains and the northmost foothills of Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains of his home. But Isengard is a circle of sheer rocks that enclose a valley as with a wall, and in the midst of that valley is a tower of stone called Orthanc. It was not made by Saruman, but by the Men of Numenor long ago; and it is very tall and has many secrets; yet it looks not to be a work of craft. I came to Orthanc, passing through the lone gate in the circle of Isengard, for it cannot be reached any other way.'

So you see, it's possible to improve upon Tolkien. No, I don't really think I've improved upon him. But my alteration does show one way that Gandalf's voice could have provided the information instead of the intrusive narrator. I'm sure someone must come to Tolkien's defense and show how my alteration actually ruins the effect. I eagerly await it.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I see that Mr. Underhill has riden into town in the classic manner of all good westerns--our Dread Horseman remember--and decided to take upon himself the role of all twelve jurors.

I am woefully late--call me Poster of the Woeful Timeframe--but there are some points I wish to reply to some posts back. So, let me sidestep this legal drama, despite my temptation to use a judicial procedure I heard about on Law and Order whereby judges can dismiss a jury's verdict (only in America, you say?), and answer some points davem made. Perhaps my case will be strengthened by this delay and my respected sparring partner will have forgotten the frame of mind in which he composed his extemperaneous post!

Originally Posted by davem

I think what you're talking about here is 'unconscious' baggage. What I'm talking about is conscious baggage, where we are deliberately looking for these connections & consciously interpreting what we read or view as we watch or read . The more we bring in these things the more we will detatch ourselves from what we are experiencing.

No, if I had meant to use the word 'unconscious' I would have done so.

This dichotomy between conscious/unconscious and pure attention/ wrenching split is part of your theory, davem, but it is not part of what I am talking about. In fact, it reflects your procedure here, in that you take our words and ideas and recast them into your frames of reference. To our detriment of course and the merit of your argument. (Who's to say that we don't all do this?) I want to go back and examine this a bit. All the way back to post #9. (And, no, this was not a love potion # 9. *insert grinning smilie here so I don't exceed my limit*).

Originally Posted by davem

I think the point is that if the artist does their job well, & we don't fight too hard, put up too many obstacles between ourselves & them, don't allow (or make) too much 'noise' to disturb us then there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective.

A bit like someone talking in the cinema - it will distract us from the movie, take us out of the secondary reality, & jerk us back into the primary world of sitting in a big darkened room watching flickering images on a screen. Of course, it is entirely possible that the disturbing voice which breaks the spell may be our own!

Another question would be why we're so prone to disenchanting ourselves? Perhaps we've forgotten how to shut up & listen, or maybe we've simply gotten so used to only listening to ourelves that anything which contradicts or challenges our own 'secondary world' of beliefs, values, concepts & connections can't hold our attention - we simply want to be told what we already know. If an author says something that can't be fitted easily into our own secondary reality then we stop listening & walk away.

Here we have the idea that the reader's connections ("Only connect" Auden I think it was, said) in the process of reading reflects bad manners: we "don't shut up" ; we "listen only to ourselves", we don't want to hear anything which challenges us; we only want to hear what we already know; we walk away from difference.

Now, this is hardly an accurate summation of my position. It is a lovely form of rhetorical debate--create a strawman who is thus easier to knock down--but it does not represent what I have maintained happens when reading. My point in post #7 had, in fact, mentioned

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Does it come down to a willingness to be enchanted? Heart's desire as a reading strategy?

So, I had already considered that in some measure the good reader must begin with some kind of desire to attend to the text and even be willing to fall under its sway. Nor, I think, have my posts shown the kind of tendency suggested here, that of small minded refusal to listen to difference and new meaning. This state of respectful attention does not, as I said above, make the reader into a blank slate upon which the text writes. That, I argue, is a psychological and linguistic impossibility. Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Each text is, if you will, an idiolect, with its own frame of reference. Yet that idiolect is part of the dialect which Tolkien referred to as the 'Common Speech' inevitably turned into modern English (Appendix F). No reader can forego his or her knowledge of that language as he or she reads. (Probably the only reader for whom such was/is possible is our redoubtable HerenIstarion, who, he claims, learnt English by readingTolkien. And we all know and love the idiosyncratic style of our Istarion--I say this affectionately, let none take it the wrong way.)

So, my comparison of Shelob, for instance, was not an analytical imposition, but arose from the associations of the description Tolkien gave me. I can later 'step back' and ask if those associations were truly applicable, but I cannot deny their occuring as I read. This is the state of reading for many of us [edit to remove over generalisation of 'all']. One 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.

Now, on to some other points where I wish to question the construct you use to interpret, in this case, Star Wars.

Originally Posted by davem

The impact of the scene you refer to, of Luke's return to find his aunt & uncle dead, may be enhanced for some viewers by similar scenes in other movies, but it is more likely to prove a distraction from the actual events on screen, & produce a 'general' feeling of sadness & loss, rather than a specific feeling related to Luke's loss - we won't be empathising & connecting with Luke here, but with all the characters we've ever seen in similar situatons. Now, as I said, this will probably happen unconsciously with all viewers, but the more we focus on those other episodes, the less we will be focussing on the very specific case of Luke. Why tell this specific story rather than just show a series of old movie clips - that would produce general feelings of loss & bereavement more effectively. It is the specific story of Luke that moves us.

You make the assumption here that SW is only Luke's story, only personal, and that only the personal story can move us. This is like saying LotR is only Frodo's story. It is that, but much more. And with Luke. The personal is intimately connected with the cosmological, so there is no reason why viewers should, from this moment, not begin to piece together Lucas' frame of reference. They don't have to start here--like any good story, there are other points in SW where the reader can begin to understand how the historical events impact upon the personal--but it is available. To deny that is, once again, to posit the creation of meaning only after the fact rather than in process. It is also to make a claim about Luke's story as the only story.

We can love and be moved by Luke and Frodo even while attending to the 'larger' meaning of the Force or the Dark Side or the tantalising references to the history 'behind' Frodo's story, which ironically for some readers of LotR comes at the same time rather than before or, even, after the book closes.

As I said, this is backtracking a fair ways, but it seemed to me time to point out that the almost Manichean dichotomy which davem supplies in his view of reading is not the same framework I suggest.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Here we have the idea that the reader's connections ("Only connect" Auden I think it was, said) in the process of reading reflects bad manners: we "don't shut up" ; we "listen only to ourselves", we don't want to hear anything which challenges us; we only want to hear what we already know; we walk away from difference.

Well, I'll see your Auden quote & raise you a Dante one: 'Look, & pass.' Does the artist have anything new to teach us? If so, we should try & experience the art in as 'unbiassed' a way as possible. I'd say that interpretation is what we do with that 'unknown quantity' not the unknown quantity itself. There is something 'objective & unknown' in the art, & that is the really valuable thing about it. My argument is not that spontaneous associations are 'wrong' in some way - they're inevitable - I'm saying that if you stop focussing on the art deliberately & follow your associations in spite of the art, you have broken the spell. Accept the fact of the association, but then put it aside for later - if you wish.

So, I had already considered that in some measure the good reader must begin with some kind of desire to attend to the text and even be willing to fall under its sway. Nor, I think, have my posts shown the kind of tendency suggested here, that of small minded refusal to listen to difference and new meaning. This state of respectful attention does not, as I said above, make the reader into a blank slate upon which the text writes. That, I argue, is a psychological and linguistic impossibility. Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Maybe we're back to the Freudian vs Jungian thing. Frued's approach in interpreting dreams or fantasies was what he called 'free association'. Basically, he believed the only way we could get to the truth about our own unconscious processes was to try & 'trick' it into revealing itself, by freely associating ideas to the events & symbols in our dreams & fantasies, because effectively they are 'allegories' which have to be interpreted. Jung, on the other hand, believed that far from trying to hide & conceal things from us, the unconscious is trying to reveal itself to us in the clearest & most simple way possible. So, Jung's approach was to always focus on the actual dream & avoid as far as possible running away from it.[/QUOTE]

So, my comparison of Shelob, for instance, was not an analytical imposition, but arose from the associations of the description Tolkien gave me. I can later 'step back' and ask if those associations were truly applicable, but I cannot deny their occuring as I read. 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.

This is what I'm arguing against: I'm not saying you should deny the association with Lilith that arose while you were reading - a Freudian would say you had discovered the 'real' meaning & value of the story for you in that association: You have 'discovered' your 'Lilith complex' or something. What I am saying is that Lilith does not belong in Middle earth, so you have introduced, by association, a distraction. A Jungian would probably ask you why you were 'running away' from Shelob - what is it about Shelob that you are trying to 'avoid'?

I'd say that, far from reading (or listening to a piece of music or looking at a painting) always being an ongoing 'process of interpretation' the 'process of interpretation' is an optional extra - not the Art itself - our response to which is 'experiential' (struggling to express what I mean here ). Interpretation is what we do with that experience (or perhaps what we do to it). The art exists 'objectively', our interpretation of it is subjective - or rather our interpretation of our experience of it is. Our experience is our primary response, not our interpretation. I'd say, therefore, that reading (etc) is an 'ongoing process of experiencing' & that the process of interpreting may or may not take place, & may, or may not, be 'ongoing'.

You make the assumption here that SW is only Luke's story, only personal, and that only the personal story can move us. This is like saying LotR is only Frodo's story. It is that, but much more. And with Luke. The personal is intimately connected with the cosmological, so there is no reason why viewers should, from this moment, not begin to piece together Lucas' frame of reference. They don't have to start here--like any good story, there are other points in SW where the reader can begin to understand how the historical events impact upon the personal--but it is available. To deny that is, once again, to posit the creation of meaning only after the fact rather than in process. It is also to make a claim about Luke's story as the only story.

Ok, But the story is focussed on Luke - Luke is like Frodo in that what happens to him is the core of the story. I was referring to the specific incident of Luke's return home to find his aunt & uncle dead. Plus, the film is called A New Hope, so I think the focus of that movie is meant to be Luke - but this is a small point.

[littlemanpoet]

Nothing personal, but I think introducing Freud and Jung into this discussion is bound to unnecessarily complicate things with a whole new battery of conundrums. I just don't think that's what this is about. Whether a reader is "avoiding" or "revealing" something from deep inside, seems by and large beside the point. If something occurs to someone, who says it has to be a psychological phenomenon at all? I grant, of course, that we all have our psyches, and that they're active in the reading process, but I'm telling you, this is a much bigger can of worms than Lal suggested I opened a page or so back.

Okay, now, back to the jurist's chair.

My esteemed colleague from the Defense is, I confess, quite right that the Prosecution's mock-up, while succeeding in striking a personal tone, loses much if not all in dire atmosphere. I did recognize that right off, but decided to let it go as lights-out was quickly approaching. It seems I therefore have two choices. One is to niggle my way to a version that succeeds where Tolkien does in dire atmosphere, as well as where the Prosecution asserts that he fails, in Gandalf speaking as Gandalf would. This in itself faces the twin obstacles of likely failure in terms of the textual goal, and, not proving my point.

As an aside, yes, I am still asserting that Tolkien failed in this particular case, to write as well as the story required. I grant that what the story required may have been impossible, given the constraints into which he had written himself. Which are: (1) presenting a flashback in which the general outcome is already revealed, thus negating the plot suspense; (2) presenting setting information in such a way that both characters and reader learn what must be known in order to fully appreciate the situation both of Gandalf and the Free Peoples in general. Tolkien found his suspense Saruman's betrayal and Gandalf's means of escape. We readers are fascinated with this depiction of evil rationalizing itself as good, along with wondering how Gandalf got out of the fix Saruman had him in. The upshot was that Gandalf had to convey narrator type information while remaining believably Gandalf. I do think that Tolkien almost pulled it off.

The aside aside, the evidence that will prove my point must be produced, which is to present examples of narrator voice and of Gandalfs voice in conversational story-teller mode, and exhibit the differences for all to see.

I grant that the 12 in 1 jury and judge is right in calling this nit-picking, but these nits are those that must be picked in order to counter the arguments of my esteemed opposition. And now for the research. This could take time, so the Prosecution will recess, regardless of whether the defense does or not. So there. Nyah nyah nyah.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

As for the "relatively recent" part of the theory, of what import is that?

I cannot remember exactly which critic developed (or popularised) the theory that the reader constructs meaning, but as it was relatively recent, it must be borne in mind that theories do change and maybe a better one will come along. So what I suppose I am trying to get at is that I would not settle for one theory of how we read. I have to say that I do like this theory, as I like theories which allow for many possible truths, yet the fact that we seem to all have our own ways of reading, and that there are many purposes for reading, suggests that other ideas must be given consideration too.

What we have to accept if we follow such an idea to the exclusion of others is that it does allow for interpretation which we may find at best silly and at worst offensive. If the reader does indeed construct meaning then taking the theory to its most extreme levels then we can say anything we like about a text as long as we can find lines that seem to back up our statements, despite maybe knowing that the author would have been abhorred by our interpretation.

As someone who likes to consider different angles to many things I do like the idea of being freely interpretive, but then I have to step back and consider that if I want to know what the author intended, then I must not rely on this one way of looking at a text, I must look in other ways.

This again leads on to how I read poetry. To enjoy the words without interpreting them, I mean that I listen to/read the way the words are grouped, the sounds and shapes they make, and the immediate meanings they conjour up. The joy in this is that when it comes to looking at that poem in depth, there is much more to be found; a word can be discovered to have another meaning, or the placing of a comma can make a big difference. But like a piece of artwork, poetry is best seen on the surface at first, before we look at what it is made from. If you have an artwork on your wall, you do not often look at it in depth, you simply enjoy it. This does not mean you cannot enjoy peering at where the brushstrokes are, but if you know more about how the brushstrokes have been placed than you do about the way the picture makes you feel when you look at it, then the purpose of the artwork is lost. If that makes sense?

I think much the same approach can be applied with films. I don't often watch "the making of..." documentaries as I can find they spoil the magic of a film. And taking this back to Tolkien, I think the ultimate enjoyment that can be had from the books is from simply enjoying the world he created The next best pleasure is in trying to find out more about it, what he intended by it all, and to find out what he meant, I have to suspend, to a certain extent, my own beliefs and try to understand what his may have been.

But this again, is another theory of reading, possibly veering towards biographical interpretation. I'm not hung up on it though, and I would suppose that this is what I am saying, that to choose one theory, one way of reading is perhaps what can spoil our reading (or more especially our potential to read in many ways and so possibly come to wonderfully surprising realisations) not the way chosen in itself.



As Gandalf did, I've got to apologise for the long ramble. I meant to be short and I was not...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I cannot remember exactly which critic developed (or popularised) the theory that the reader constructs meaning, but as it was relatively recent, it must be borne in mind that theories do change and maybe a better one will come along. So what I suppose I am trying to get at is that I would not settle for one theory of how we read. I have to say that I do like this theory, as I like theories which allow for many possible truths, yet the fact that we seem to all have our own ways of reading, and that there are many purposes for reading, suggests that other ideas must be given consideration too.

What we have to accept if we follow such an idea to the exclusion of others is that it does allow for interpretation which we may find at best silly and at worst offensive. If the reader does indeed construct meaning then taking the theory to its most extreme levels then we can say anything we like about a text as long as we can find lines that seem to back up our statements, despite maybe knowing that the author would have been abhorred by our interpretation.

As someone who likes to consider different angles to many things I do like the idea of being freely interpretive, but then I have to step back and consider that if I want to know what the author intended, then I must not rely on this one way of looking at a text, I must look in other ways.

This again leads on to how I read poetry. To enjoy the words without interpreting them, I mean that I listen to/read the way the words are grouped, the sounds and shapes they make, and the immediate meanings they conjour up. The joy in this is that when it comes to looking at that poem in depth, there is much more to be found; a word can be discovered to have another meaning, or the placing of a comma can make a big difference. But like a piece of artwork, poetry is best seen on the surface at first, before we look at what it is made from. If you have an artwork on your wall, you do not often look at it in depth, you simply enjoy it. This does not mean you cannot enjoy peering at where the brushstrokes are, but if you know more about how the brushstrokes have been placed than you do about the way the picture makes you feel when you look at it, then the purpose of the artwork is lost. If that makes sense?

I think much the same approach can be applied with films. I don't often watch "the making of..." documentaries as I can find they spoil the magic of a film. And taking this back to Tolkien, I think the ultimate enjoyment that can be had from the books is from simply enjoying the world he created The next best pleasure is in trying to find out more about it, what he intended by it all, and to find out what he meant, I have to suspend, to a certain extent, my own beliefs and try to understand what his may have been.

But this again, is another theory of reading, possibly veering towards biographical interpretation. I'm not hung up on it though, and I would suppose that this is what I am saying, that to choose one theory, one way of reading is perhaps what can spoil our reading (or more especially our potential to read in many ways and so possibly come to wonderfully surprising realisations) not the way chosen in itself.



As Gandalf did, I've got to apologise for the long ramble. I meant to be short and I was not...

Ah, we seem to have misunderstood each other, Lalwendë. I was referring to the activity of reading, as explained in linguistics, of how we make sense of the marks on the page by distinguishing the marks from the backgrounds, scanning and making predictions, referring them to known patterns in the language, to point out that there is no passive mere experience of language (at least in linguistics). Extrapolating from this is the reader's holding in his or her head the story already read and accruing to that the new information provided by the story.

As for 'reader response' literary theory, there is no one theory, no one model, no one critic, and in fact, no general agreement about what happens. In some form all regard the book as a text, that is, a form of language to which readers supply the codes or strategies as they experience it. There isn't even any general agreement on what the text is. For some, it exists only in the reader's head--they deny the objective existence of the text. The book they admit is objective, but the 'text', the place where the experience occurs, is not. This seems to be the way davem understands my perspective--or at least, how I see him interpreting my perspective. For others in the reader response camp, the psychological effect provides a tool for examining a culture's ideology. (This I think might be a fruitful avenue for more discussions here at the Downs.) For still others (and this is where I come from, to use a cliche) the act of reading is a linguistic event which is a social event, not a personal, solipsistic event, where the interaction between the words on the page and the reader's use of language creates a culture of meaning.

So, while davem and Lalwendë think that reader response means biographical interpretation, that is not the way I have struggled or attempted to explain my position. It's like the old conundrum: if a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? It all depends on how one defines noise/text.

For me, the experience of the art is a linguistic act, and that involves making choices about the codes and strategies which comprise the English language. It is not limited to past experience, to psychological trauma/sublimation/transference/ but is part of how language works to create new experience, new understanding. Thus, it is not merely peering into a mirror to see one's self.

So I agree with littlemanpoet that the act of reading does not have to have psychological stimuli or phenomena at all. And so at this point I think I've reached the stage where I have to say, politely, that I must agree to disagree with certain members of this discussion.

As for the Court Proceedings, I think part of difficulty lies with the Defense's insistence that there has to be a rule or convention by which to proceed. My understanding is that the Prosecution is endeavouring to formulate a theory by which he can communicate or explain his experience of Tolkien's story-telling. Why should Tolkien's story-telling be limited by previous teller's? I don't think profiling provides an acceptable means here to determine the case.

[davem]

I have to admit to feeling a little out of my depth in this kind of discussion. If I am misunderstanding your position its probably because I don't have your accademic background. I'm someone who left school at 16 - without having paid too much attention to what I was being taught if I'm honest. Since then I've read a lot of books, but haven't followed any particular course of study, just reading what appealed to me. This is simply to try & explain why I may sometimes misunderstand or misinterpret what other's post - NOT that I'm accusing anyone of being deliberately obtuse, so please don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. My position in this debate has been put together as I've gone along, & I've tried to formunlate an argument in response to the things others haved posted. So, in short, I can't bring in a lot of literary or linguistic theory to support my position. Its based on a 'gut feeling', that it should be possible to experience a work of art as a thing in itself, something objective, unknown. That seems to me what we 'owe' to the art. The art is the 'not me', it is 'other', it exists in its own space, which I may enter to commune with it, but that 'communion' will not be so much an interaction as an opening up on my part to that 'other'.

It seems to me that there is perhaps a difference between the 'literary novel' & the story. At the extreme of the literary novel we have, say, Finnegan's Wake, a novel as much about language itself as it is about anything else. Perhaps we could put the folktale - especially the folktale as heard rather than read - at the other extreme. What I mean is that in the literary novel the focus is on the language - the text - while in the folktale the focus is on images. Folktales are often (like folksongs), a series of images, vignettes, episodes, with interconnecting narrative. I think a work like Tolkien's Legendarium is very close to folktale in this sense. The reason I say this is that, unlike its 'polar opposite', FW, which has very few 'images' - apart from ones conjured by 'connection' or analogy in the mind of the reader - a work like LotR is full of such scenes & images - they are what strike us & stick in our minds. The most powerful of which for me is the sight from the summit of Weathertop across the wide lands of Middle earth.

These images are incredibly powerful, they kind of 'burn' themselves into our psyches, & create the sense of 'enchantment' I'm talking about here, the sudden
intense glimpse of the 'Other', the 'not me'. The reason that sight of wild lands from the summit of Weathertop affected me so profoundly was not because it made me thinkof something else, some other place I had known, nor was it because of the language, the specific words Tolkien had used. Neither was it because of the events that lead to the Hobbits & Strider standing there, or any 'projection' into the future events of the story & what might happen. What it was, I think, was that specific image - not the words themselves but the image they evoked - looking down from a high place onto an unknown land. It was a 'primal', archetypal experience, & its 'power' came from its 'otherness', its absolute unfamiliarity. Something 'other', something I hadn't brought to that particular party, had overwhelmed me.

So, perhaps 'language', literary theory & linguistics have as little place in this discussion as 'psychology'. I think its the 'images' that 'enchant' us - not by their familiarity but by their 'unfamiliarity'. Words, paint, music are the medium.

Whether any of that makes sense I have no idea....

[Mister Underhill]

As for the Court Proceedings, I think part of difficulty lies with the Defense's insistence that there has to be a rule or convention by which to proceed. My understanding is that the Prosecution is endeavouring to formulate a theory by which he can communicate or explain his experience of Tolkien's story-telling. Why should Tolkien's story-telling be limited by previous teller's? I don't think profiling provides an acceptable means here to determine the case.

The thing that drew me into this thread finally was this (Your Honor, we'd like this marked "Defense Exhibit 1"):

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

My sense that Gandalf's words sound more like the narrator in describing Orthanc, has to do with having learned much about the writing craft in the last five or so years.

It seems to me that lmp is offering more of a professional opinion here, an opinion that Tolkien has violated a rule or convention of craft with his handling of Gandalf.

As a fellow wordsmith, I felt the alleged rule required a challenge.