Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
I am afraid that to a significant extent, this issue is really one of personal taste ...So perhaps this is a subjective thing. .... I can't believe that the enchantment is that brittle.
|
Whereas discussing this under the rubric of personal taste may reveal some interesting facets, I think there's more to this issue than that. I also think that there is a subjective element to it; how could it not be so when we speak of enchantment?
But what do we mean by enchantment? It seems clear enough that what we're talking about here is related to our comparison of
Smith of Wooton Major and
The Silmarillion in the "SWOM in Middle-earth" thread. There,
davem and I, and others, wrote how we found ourselves more moved by SWOM than by the Sil, whereas others had the opposite experience. "Moved" is obviously an extremely subjective term.
The words you use,
Aiwendil, reveal an approach to the work of Tolkien that is not "home" for me, though clearly it is "home" for you. Just two examples: "close scrutiny"; "act of studying". HoME, as presented by Christopher Tolkien, renders such activity a necessity. It seems to me (and correct me if I err) that you approach HoME as a historian, or even perhaps as a lay philosopher. I respect such an approach. However, as I said above, it is not "home" for me. For me, the enchantment is the thing, and it is no simple thing.
I suppose it's time to wander into that second thread I had mentioned earlier. Pardon me for the rehash, but I feel it's necessary. Some of you know this stuff already, so I'm sorry for creating unnecessary boredom. You might want to check my facts to make sure I'm expressing this correctly.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge posited "suspension of disbelief" as an activity a reader brings to a work of fiction. He meant that the reader realizes, of course, that the work of fiction is not true, but suspends that realization for the sake of enjoyment of the story. J.R.R. Tolkien made a further distinction between suspension of disbelief and "secondary belief". JRRT felt that the mere suspension of disbelief was not an adequate description of what occurs in reading fairy story. The author weaves a spell by means of the subcreation of a feigned reality, a secondary reality. If the author does well, the reader is cast (voluntarily) under the author's spell for the duration of the reading (and perhaps longer). This is the enchantment. Its effect is to experience that subcreation as real, even though it is feigned. At no point need the reader be truly deluded that the feigned reality is primarily real, but for the sake of the story, that secondary reality may be entered into as if passing into a room in one's house.
But there are things that break the enchantment. It no doubt varies from reader to reader. I find that the enchantment is more easily broken the more I learn of the craft of writing. Thus, my own extended knowledge threatens the enchantment.
What about Christopher's commentary on his father's multiplicitous (yes, it is a word,
Bethberry 
) versions of all manner of story from the First Age? My recollection is that Christopher refers to "my father's" this, and "my father's" that. Rather than attempt the feigned history, he presents it as his father's creation. He was probably wise not to attempt the feigned history, if he felt that he was not capable of it. Nevertheless, all of Christopher's commentary sets the feignedness aside. There is no possibility of secondary belief. One may suspend one's disbelief, but that is not the same as the enchantment of secondary belief.
Please understand that in all this explication, I'm not really being successful in communicating the reality of the experience of secondary belief enchantment. If one has not experienced it, I most assuredly cannot adequately describe it.
Just a quick question for
davem: could you please start your own darned thread? Just kidding.
The real question is: do you
really think Tolkien had to attempt Myths Transformed, or do you just think it was inevitable that he would try?