Split Personality?

[alatar]

Just thought, while it was fresh in the mind to note that in the Christian Bible (Judges 15: 15-16) Samson kills a thousand men with a donkey mandible.

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.

Then Samson said,
"With a donkey's jawbone
I have made donkeys of them.
With a donkey's jawbone
I have killed a thousand men."

How is this perceived? As an exact counting, or as a way of saying, 'more than would be considered normal'?

Note that we're not discussing religion, but I think the author's intent and precise history.

[littlemanpoet]

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them. That is not, however, what the LotR book lovers are saying about the Lotr movies. The secondary world doesn't come off because there are too many inconsistencies such that it doesn't work: some scenes and events in the movies don't accord with the laws in the world of the movies.

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is an arena, alatar, in which, first if possible, the nature of the work must be considered. What did the author intend? Is it meant as history, or is it meant as folklore? This is unanswerable without getting into a theological debate, so I won't go into it. Thus Primary Belief is no longer part of the equation.

Next question then, is, how does it read? Does this work in terms of Secondary Belief? Tolkien's criterion (he did coin the term and therefore is its definer) is: the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator" by making a Secondary World which one's mind can enter such that inside it, what the story-maker relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world.

As I said before, this is an objective standard. Samson's deed fits within the milieu of the literature in which it is found. Whether the reader chooses to accept the milieu is another question entirely.

Not exactly sure what you're saying, but my point is that the Samson story doesn't stick out in my head, and isn't featured large in skeptics criticisms with all things religious as it seemingly 'fits.' Whether it were 100 or a thousand, the point is made that Samson put a big hurt on the enemy and did so by himself. And his weapon of choice I assume was also chosen to humiliate his enemies and to show how weak they were. Hope that that's more clear.

[Sauron the White]

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

Apply that to LotR - the book - it also succeeds, if the reader chooses to accept the milieu. Those readers who refuse to, have much negatively to say about the books because they refuse to understand them.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it. Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

So I acknowledge the distinction that davem implied a while back: on one hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the books; on the other hand we have scenes and events at which the movies run contrary to the movies themselves. This second (e.g. internal logic problems) is a failure of secondary belief while the former (e.g. characterization) is a failure of Jackson to pull off what he thought he could in terms of the books.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

littlemanpoet .... since this has come up before and now you are utilizing the concept again here, I wonder if you could explain (perhaps again) what the serious differences are between 'willing suspension of disbelief' and 'secondary belief'. I read your information when you directed it to my posts a week or two ago and did not see much difference.

I will try with an example.

I just finished reading the final Harry Potter novel (I'll give nothing away here). While reading it, I never came across anything that didn't fit the logic of the story and world. That is to say, I was in the milieu and the story never set anything up that contradicted the milieu. Rowling was quite consistent from beginning to end of the entire project, as far as I can tell. Her ability to do this was an achievement that Tolkien, in On Faerie Stories (a very important essay about writing myth and fantasy that ought to be read by anyone who wants to discuss such things), denoted as successfully subcreating a secondary world; the proof of her success is that it engenders Secondary Belief in her readers. If, at any point, Rowling had written anything in her story such that, say, Newtonian Physics overruled wandlore, it would have contradicted the entire milieu and the "spell" of Secondary Belief would have been broken. At this point I would have had to choose to adopt Suspension of Disbelief in order to overlook the contradiction and try to re-enter the milieu.

In the first case, there is an organic belief occurring such that the reader and writer are more or less communicating mind-to-mind, as it were. In the second, the organic connection has been broken, and the reader must make a conscious effort of the will to make work of interacting with the "breached edifice", trying to ignore the breach.

Are you saying that anyone with negative feelings about LOTR after reading it has these feelings purely because they refuse to understand? That seems like a real Catch-22 situation which attempts to paint with a very wide (an unsympathetic brush) anyone who has read LOTR but does not care for it.

Sorry, I was referring without naming to a specific school of thought, often called on these "the literati", who confronted Tolkien upon the original publication of the works. They did and still do look down their noses at fantasy and myth as not worthy of their consideration as serious literature, because it does not fit the rules they believe every work of literature ought to follow, by which they mean the modern novel with its flawed characters, relative morality, in-the-head characterization, etc. Be sure that I'm not condemning the modern novel; what I don't appreciate is the out of hand rejection of myth and fantasy because the literati refuse to countenance it, demanding it to fit their own terms.

I can see from what I've just written that you would criticize me of doing the same thing to Jackson's movies as opposed to Tolkien's books. But there is a seminal difference: Tolkien didn't buy the rights to Hemingway, for example, in order to write LotR.

Is it not possible that a reader can swallow the entire concept and suspend their disbelief but still walk away with these negative feelings?

One would be foolish to deny such a possibility.

Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Morwen]

Quote:
Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?
Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Perhaps I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

[Sauron the White]

This has been brought up before, and I must say the answer has always struck me as --- to be frank --- just full of it. Self serving and mealy mouthed drivel trying to justify an obvious defect. So, again, the one huge flaw that is at the heart of the book LOTR (and thus the film also).

We are told that the One Ring must be destroyed because if Sauron obtains it, the world will be at his mercy and quite possible he will enslave it. The world, as we know it, will come to terrible things with a Dark Lord ruling over nearly everyone.

The problem here is that good old Sauron once had the ring firmly upon his finger. Yes boys and girls - Sauron had that ring right there on his finger and had all the power of it as his disposal. He had ensnared the others to whom he gave other rings and had firmly established himself unchallenged in his own kingdom will protected by legions of slavish devotees. And what good did it do him? Not very much. The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to his door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

So Sauron had the Ring. And it did him no good. No dominion over the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. No lording over everyone. No all powerful kneel down and bow before me. It simply did not work when he had it firmly upon his finger.

But the entire book is predicated upon the belief that the Ring must be destroyed or all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Now, as usual, some will start to post about the legions of powerful Elves who once roamed Middle-earth in massive numbers and were the main obstacle to Sauron at the time he had the ring in the Second Age. So what? That does not cut it for me. If Sauron and that darn ring were so incredibly powerful, he should have been able to deal with them and come out on top. And okay, the Elves are waning in the Third Age, but Men are on the rise. Perhaps not legions of Numenorians, but armed and trained men.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place. Which is just how the weak explaination hits me.

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

The book is flawed in its very premise. The film has the same flawed premise. And I love them both.

[littlemanpoet]

STW: Is it your opinion that there are no such internal logic problems of any kind in the books?

Elempi: Yes. Being an opinion, it could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Morwen: I'm not following, but whether or not an problem of logic exists can't simply be a matter of opinion, can it? The author presents rules governing his/her fictional universe. Determining whether there is an internal problem should then be a question of deciding whether those rules are adhered to it. It's not for the reader to simply decide well that doesn't make sense to me but to ask does it make sense given the rules/laws defined by the author.

You are right, Morwen. However there is a distinction between what is actually there and that which I am able to perceive. Since I have not made a thorough study of the point, I can only offer opinion.

Originally Posted by STW

The Last Alliance of Elves and Men marched right up to [Sauron's] door, rang the bell, and kicked his butt when he came out to play. They even cut that tremendously powerful ring right off of his finger and he vanished like a puff of smoke on a windy day.

Your colorful choice of words is amusing. In any case, you are incorrect. The Alliance of the Free Peoples, though still relatively strong at the end of the Second Age, were on the verge of defeat, but Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's finger.

Why would Sauron let them get so close as to cut off the Ring? He was arrogant and perceived himself to be invulnerable though he was not. This relates to one of the central themes Tolkien was working with: the will to unjustly lord it over others results necessarily in self-destruction because evil is by its nature self-consumed and cannot understand selfless motivation and action.

The usual justification for this reminds me of what comedians say about a bad or too complicated joke, if you have to go into a detailed explaination, it probably does not work in the first place.

This is a mere truism and assertion absent of any supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by STW

So this idea of Secondary Belief, and all the layers JRRT constructed to make it work, just has a serious flaw right up front in the very bedrock of the story.

But using my Willing Suspension of Disbelief, I can go with it and accept the premise because I love the book - and the movie. And to be quite frank, this entire idea that JRRT's invented Secondary Belief and it simply dwarfs suspension of disbelief sounds to be like more rationalization and self serving mumbo-jumbo.

There is no condescension intended; rather a distinction. There is no hidden agenda here. The distinction is clear. I wonder why you can't comprehend it.

Acceptance of fantasy comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. You can put some lipstick on it and dress it up in a fancy party dress and call it Secondary Belief if it makes you feel better, but in the end, its pretty much the same thing.

I'm trying to picture a concept in a party dress and lipstick and it just isn't happening; no secondary belief, I guess. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It is a clear distinction. Again, why can't you see it, STW?

Originally Posted by STW

He had the ring. It failed to deliver.

Precisely. But it does not mean what you seem to think it means. He made the Ring. It could not deliver that which he was incapable of achieving precisely because he had become evil and therefore, by definition, blind to his own weaknesses. "Wise fool." So the flaw you see is not extraneous of the work, but built into the entire milieu. I suppose it's only really a problem if one wants Sauron to win.

Originally Posted by alatar

Sauron learned from the mistakes that he brashly made the first time, and so this time he had a better chance of getting it right - less elves, less Men of the West (and he hunted them), poorer weaponry, better soldiers (Olog-hai), the fall of Minas Anor and Osgiliath, the recession of Gondor's control of the south, etc. What he didn't add in were the hobbits.

Gobtwiddle. He would have walked right over the hobbits too, except for events that occurred beyond anyone's (including Gandalf's) expectation. Just like during World War 2, there were a series of "hair's breadth" incidents that, had they gone the other way, the Free Peoples would not have had a chance: Bilbo finding the Ring; Gildor's party happening across the three hobbits just as a Ringwraith is about to discover the Ring; Glorfindel showing up just before Rivendell; Sam taking the Ring from Frodo at Cirith Ungol; Frodo having pity upon Gollum; etc.

Originally Posted by Morwen

...as far as I recall, the Three are not used until after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age.

Actually, Galadriel's ring is used to enhance everything having to do with Lorien, which is part of why she has so much to lose by the Ring's destruction. And Gandalf has Narya, which he uses a lot (fire). But yes, everything done by the three Elven rings would be laid bare if Sauron had recovered the One.

So in order for this to make sense, the reader has to know and understand not only all of this history of the Ring, Sauron, the relative balance of power in the Second Age as compared to the Third Age, the changing ethno-demographics of Middle-earth over time, and vital information contained in Tolkiens essay which appeared at the end of THE SILMARILLION.

This is an absurd suggestion, not only because of its hyperbole. If one reads fiction with this kind of analytical process going on all the time, enjoyment of the work would be deeply compromised.