What breaks the enchantment?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

(I think we may need to rename this the Canonicity Thread part 2 -- where's H-I???)

I have to say that I tend to approach this topic in pretty much exactly the manner described by Bethberry. 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.

But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

For example, the fate of Eowyn. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore Faramir and think that he's a wonderful fellow to marry -- but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility... Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility...

Well, without getting into that too deeply, I think that Tolkien, as someone who had seen the reality of warfare, in effect the wrongness, the immorality, of it (while acknowledging its necessity in certain circumstances), would not see 'martial heroism' as something admirable - after all, neither Merry, Pippin nor Sam follow Aragorn in his continued seek & destroy mission after the end of the War of the Ring. Eowyn chooses peace over war, to be a healer rather than a destroyer, & I think Tolkien is presenting this as a more moral, more grown up thing. Would we rather see her hacked to pieces by orcs, or spending the rest of her best years hacking them to pieces?

The world Tolkien created (or communicated, or made available) to us is self contained. We should first try & experience it for itself. Then we can analyse it & our own feelings towards it. We have to try & experience it before we can judge it, listen to the story we're being told. If we don't make that effort, how can we know whether we've got issues with Tolkien or with ourselves?

[drigel]

there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective

Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation.

Whether it's in our genes or some kind of shared family history that gets passed down over the generations, Tolkien was able to harness it, and fashion such a compelling invitation that for some (like me), the pull into fairie was as unstoppable as any force of nature.

The cause of its success was that Tolkien was able to tap into such a huge, diverse population's internal imagination. It's within us, after all. There was no magic wand that caused it. The genious of it was that -as repeated here so many times and in so many ways - in the kernal of the myth lies a Truth that transends cultures. Beth I do agree with you - it begins with awareness, or cognizance. Then if one can steer his/her own ship right, there is also willingness
and of course humility. This goes back to how some people are more "imaginative" than others, and why. This could also be considered a state of perception, or even by some as a psychological condition ('63 acid tests, anyone?). I wonder that sometimes when I find myself in my boxers, hands outstretched at the sunrise, my dog looking on with bewilderment...

I always viewed that Tolkien is best analyzed in a good Humanities class, not an english class. That being said, any I find the spell broken of course when someone interprets the work. Sometimes it works - "oh yea that was right on", sometimes its "eh, - not really", sometimes it doesnt. Either way, it's my love for the work that makes me appreciate other's views.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

. . .
But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

. . . .
the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.
. . . .

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

Ah, welcome, Lurker!

I find much to commend in this idea that the text invites readers to share a world perspective which is presented as universal when it is not. It is invitingly but gently presented, yet remains one which is not tenable for some in this century. The issue of Eowyn is a good one, as it appears axiomatic that she must marry someone. She cannot simply choose to become a healer or, more independently and originally, a loremaster, but must, perhaps because she is an aristocrat or perhaps because she is a woman, marry and create part of the new hierarchy in Ithilien. We know that Merry and Pippin marry, but their marriges are marginal to the story and, indeed, their part of the story ends far away from their families. They are given other activities, events after their wartime effort, as leaders in their community: Eowyn has only the dynastic marriage. The cage may be gilded, but it is still a cage.

The idea that one must put aside one's own world view or perspective--especially when it is referred to as 'baggage'-- in order to be enchanted by the text, well, that sounds too much like old time seduction to me, old world marriage of subordination rather than equality.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

The issue of Eowyn is a good one, as it appears axiomatic that she must marry someone. She cannot simply choose to become a healer or, more independently and originally, a loremaster

At the risk of being accused of being argumentative for the sake of it, or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said , I have to say that if something like that had been the outcome of Eowyn's story it would have broken the spell for me, because it would have made that part of the story nothing but an allegory of feminism - & a bad one at that. Eowyn assumes the right & proper role of someone of her rank & station in a world like Middle earth.

She simply would not have thought of doing what you suggest because of the culture she was brought up in. The fact that she was a 'shieldmaiden, daughter of kings' accounts for her decision to take up arms & fight - alongside her despair in her failed hopes for Aragorn - but to take a step against the whole cultural background of the world she inhabited would have come across to me as ridiculous & unbelievable. Things like that didn't happen in Middle earth. This is why I say we must come to the story as free as possible of our own values & pre-conceptions. I think we gain more from accepting that world as it is, the fates of its inhabitants as what they are, & then analysing our reactions to them. Eowyn is not a 21st century woman, with all the options of a 21st century woman. She is (quite convincingly for me) a woman of her time. To feel 'disenchanted' by the fact that she is not something she could never possibly have been seems (to me) to support my argument that if we carry our own baggage with us into the secondary world we'll never have a full experience of it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

At the risk of being accused of being argumentative for the sake of it, or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said , I have to say that if something like that had been the outcome of Eowyn's story it would have broken the spell for me, because it would have made that part of the story nothing but an allegory of feminism - & a bad one at that. Eowyn assumes the right & proper role of someone of her rank & station in a world like Middle earth.

She simply would not have thought of doing what you suggest because of the culture she was brought up in. The fact that she was a 'shieldmaiden, daughter of kings' accounts for her decision to take up arms & fight - alongside her despair in her failed hopes for Aragorn - but to take a step against the whole cultural background of the world she inhabited would have come across to me as ridiculous & unbelievable. Things like that didn't happen in Middle earth. This is why I say we must come to the story as free as possible of our own values & pre-conceptions. I think we gain more from accepting that world as it is, the fates of its inhabitants as what they are, & then analysing our reactions to them. Eowyn is not a 21st century woman, with all the options of a 21st century woman. She is (quite convincingly for me) a woman of her time. To feel 'disenchanted' by the fact that she is not something she could never possibly have been seems (to me) to support my argument that if we carry our own baggage with us into the secondary world we'll never have a full experience of it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I would not expect Shakespeare or Austen or any other writer to present us with anything other than the world they are presenting us with; they are not presenting us with our world, so I don't expect to see our world.

My disappointment over the lack of choice granted Eowyn has nothing to do with late 20C/early 21C femininism, davem and Lalwendë. (Believe it or not, I'm not one.) It has to do rather with the fact that Tolkien's Middle earth is a construct of late Victorian/early Edwardian culture rather than a universally applicable culture.

In early Medieval Europe, women were as educated as men in monasteries and nunneries. And sometimes noble women inherited vast estates and managed them in their own name and right. Julian of Norwich, Hildegard von Bingen, St. Bridget (Sweden) were all learned and highly respected women. The French poet Christine de Pizan earned her living as a writing. St. John's College, Oxford, owes its (initial) wealth to its founding patroness. There is much evidence for the equality of women in Viking cultures. I could go on.

Austen did not presume to present a culture of universal significance. Her novels are thoroughly and completely grounded in her early 19C culture.

In short, my disenchantment has to do not with my purported baggage from my own time, but with the "baggage" (I use this word simply because you have chosen to continue to use it) of his own time which Tolkien brought to Middle earth. There were other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture but Tolkien choose the one most predictable according to his own cultural viewpoint. Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

Do I still enjoy reading him? Yes, of course. Do I think he was one of the best? Yes, of course.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

There were other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture but Tolkien choose the one most predictable according to his own cultural viewpoint. Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

But the issue is not whether or not there were 'other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture' but whether there were other choices in the culture in which she existed - which was not the medieval period of our world, but the end of the Third Age of Middle earth. This is what I'm talking about - whether its bringing a Middle eastern demon into our reading of LotR or our knowledge of Medieval history - they don't apply. Eowyn is a product of her culture not of ours - either now or 800 years ago. This approach will inevitably lead to disenchantment because if we expect Eowyn, or any other 'Middle earthian' character to behave as if they belonged to another cultural or historical epoch we'll inevitably be unconvinced by what they do.

Middle earth may (or may not) reflect Tolkien's own value system - this is why I said that after experiencing the art for what it is in & of itself we should (if we wish) try & find out what the author was telling us. It may be that we then find out that the art he produced wasn't always entirely in accord with what he himself believed. After that we can ask 'What do I think about the art, the author him/herself & what does it mean to me?'. If we take the latter approach in with us from the start we'll never have any chance of being affected by the art itself, only by our own responses to it.

That's why I don't accept that:

Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

Because Eowyn is hardly a typical Victorian/Edwardian lady. The question is not whether the end of Eowyn's story - marriage, children, becoming a healer to & guide for her people - is what was expected of a character in a Victorian/Edwardian novel(not to say a real Victorian/Edwardian woman) but whether, within the culture in which she exists it is a convincing ending. I think it is. It is right for her - in my reading. In fact, I can't think of a more satisfying ending for her. She can heal & study lore & be a wife & mother as well as being the second most powerful woman in Middle earth after Arwen. Your alternative, which only allows her the first two (or rather only one of the first two) options, seems insufficient reward for everything she has done & been through. And to condemn it as representing

a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

is asking a bit much of the poor professor - isn't it inevitable that his perspective was limited by his own time? After all, he didn't possess the psychic ability of Shakespeare (as revealed to us by Mr Steiner) to know the future

[littlemanpoet]

All right, that's twenty-two posts in one day, some of you doing as many as a half dozen. I'd like to know how to get on the Barrowdowns payroll so I can quit may day job too, and have the time of day and security to keep up with the discussion.

Now back to catching up on the all the jousting....

[the phantom]

Davem is right about many readers who break the enchantment themselves when it isn't necessary.

A lot of people, not just when they read but in the real world as well, walk around with a lot of chips on their shoulder, and they seem to want people to knock them off. They are always ready to be shocked or insulted by something that doesn't chime with them. They love to be offended, and will go over a book, a movie, or a conversation with a fine toothed comb and try to find things that make them mad.

These people obviously are going to have an impossible time being entirely enchanted with Tolkien's books like Davem. The Eowyn thing that people have mentioned, the issue of some people or species (elves) being better than others- there are some people that are just never going to get past things like that if they don't entirely agree with them. These people either don't want to (or are incapable of) doing what I call "glossing over".

When I am watching a movie, I always try as hard as I can to be sucked in and be enchanted. Whenever a character expresses some opinion that I think is stupid, I don't think about it. I bat it aside. I sort of ignore it. As long as the enchantment-breaker is something minor (in other words, as long as it is not the primary focus or theme of the movie/book), I do not allow it to break my enchantment.

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world.....

Me too.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

The idea that one must put aside one's own world view or perspective--especially when it is referred to as 'baggage'-- in order to be enchanted by the text, well, that sounds too much like old time seduction to me, old world marriage of subordination rather than equality.

Originally Posted by Fordim

Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption

But what are we to do in order to become enchanted and immerse into the world which is being presented to us? As Fordim says, he has to skim the part about Eowyn accepting marriage as a happy outcome. I too have had to skim parts of the text which make comments about Hobbits being 'unlettered' as though it makes some kind of statement about their status in The Shire, but as I prefer not to rankle at what is being said about this world (which is most definitely not our world), I have to suspend my beliefs. Nowhere does Tolkien make statements which could be said to be outrageously racist, sexist or anything else, he merely presents us with how the world is in this other place. I would not expect Shakespeare or Austen or any other writer to present us with anything other than the world they are presenting us with; they are not presenting us with our world, so I don't expect to see our world.

To do otherwise is like reading a Bible with a magic marker. Fine if you want to look for examples of things which do not concur with our experiences, beliefs or politics, but not so fine if we want to simply experience the world as seen through the eyes of the characters.