What we are being presented with here,
eowyntje, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
1. The supreme Author is never wrong in his art.
2. Reading is an act of complete submission to the will of the art.
3. therefore, any breaking of the enchantment is the fault of the reader.
How do we know who a Supreme Author is? Any author who manages to attract one reader for whom the enchantment is not broken.
Even if readers begin with the complete, utter, honest and sincere attempt to submit to be raptured, if anything happens to break that rapture, by definition it is always the fault of the reader. Readers are obviously fallen creatures and the Supreme Author is omnipotent.
Perhaps there is some kind of predestination involved?
Even
Fordim's explanation that when the text begins to announce itself as text rather than as "subcreated reality", so that readers pay more attention to the writing than to the spell/enchantment, will be said to represent the failure of the reader to remain enchanted. (This is in fact a good explanation of what happens when I read the Cross-Roads chapter and probably also what happens with the Eowyn character.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.
|
The Reader in this case obviously lacks the desire to submit to everything as story by bringing in baggage such as aesthetic style.
And for those readers who choose to bring precaution with them on this night of seduction, well, we all know that certain forms of control have been declared WRONG as interfering with the Supreme Author's Will to choose who and when ideas are propagated.
