What breaks the enchantment?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What, in Tolkien's writings, breaks the spell for you?

Nothing

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

Yes

Originally Posted by davem

This was the point I was making earlier, that rather than the author failing to cast the spell effectively it is we who break the spell

Provided that writer is of Tolkien's caliber, yes.

[Bêthberry]

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.)

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.

[The Saucepan Man]

I rather think that the problem here is the liberal use of words such as "fault" and "blame".

If a reader does not "get" what the author is trying to tell him or her, or if the "enchantment" is somehow broken, it is not necessarily the fault of either author or reader. It is simply that their views are, to some degree or other, incompatible, and that may well be for perfectly good reasons. It is not a matter of one or the other being wrong.

Some readers may well find a more fulfilling "enchantment" in stories other than LotR because those stories are expressed in terms with which they are more able to identify. Others may find that they have no need for "enchantment". Neither such approach, in my view, is a crime.

[drigel]

QUOTE]Readers are obviously fallen creatures and the Supreme Author is omnipotent.[/QUOTE]

yikes
So, if I submit to the enchantment I am weak willed? Or perhaps I am just to simple?
wow that sounds exactly like the academics and peers of Tolkien at the time of publication doesnt it? hmmm good thing the students got it..

I sit here in my studio with a pen and a blank piece of paper. You better believe I am the Supreme Author! I didnt make the paper or construct the pen, but the potential universe is all mine to create or destroy.

Nobody is perfect, author or reader. One can read the work one way or another. I daresay most on this site can maintain multiple frames of minds simultaniously when reading LOTR, as the threads show. I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by drigel

yikes
So, if I submit to the enchantment I am weak willed? Or perhaps I am just to simple?
wow that sounds exactly like the academics and peers of Tolkien at the time of publication doesnt it? hmmm good thing the students got it..

I sit here in my studio with a pen and a blank piece of paper. You better believe I am the Supreme Author! I didnt make the paper or construct the pen, but the potential universe is all mine to create or destroy.

Nobody is perfect, author or reader. One can read the work one way or another. I daresay most on this site can maintain multiple frames of minds simultaniously when reading LOTR, as the threads show. I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...

drigel, I had hoped that my use of smilies--the wink and the big grin--would have made clear the comedy of my ironic intent. Perhaps humour is being edged out by seriousness here.

[Lalwendë]

Here is what I think it boils down to. There are two distinct ways of reading. The first is to read for pleasure, the second is to read for purpose. Many of us read for purpose. This would include anyone who regularly reads through lengthy business documents to look for key points, journalists who carry out research in order to file a report, A Level students who have copies of Jane Eyre liberally inscribed with notes, teachers who scour essays and texts looking for relevant and coherently argued opinions. If we read for purpose often enough then it can easily become habit, because we may have been trained to do this, and we may also do this often enough that it becomes normal to us. Even when we sit down to read for pleasure then we can find ourselves mentally reaching for a pencil to make a note in the margin.

How many A Level students bemoan the fact that they are having to study 'boring' books? Rather than the books themselves being boring, the problem lies in that they are required to anayse the books without first having had the simple pleasure of reading them. A case in point is an A Level class I once taught part way through their course. They had been studying Chaucer and all pronounced it to be boring, which surprised me as when I had studied it for A Level everyone had enjoyed it. When I studied Chaucer our teacher had first made us listen to the text being read aloud, and then we had read it right the way through, making few if any notes. However this class had not had that pleasure; instead they had opened the book and had straight away begun making in depth notes with every few lines they read. This is the difference between reading for pleasure and reading for purpose.

If we go to a book with purpose in the forefront of our minds then we will approach it in that businesslike manner, as something to be dealt with, not merely to be enjoyed. If we go to a book purely with pleasure in mind then we are more likely to accept what is contained therein, as heightened critical faculties are not required for having fun. Obviously, many of us will read a book with pleasure in mind despite us being, in our professional capacities, purpose seekers. But how easy is it to shake off that way of reading which requires us to seek out key points and phrases which will make our arguments more coherent?

I don't say that this is any fault of the reader who generally reads with a professional purpose, nor are they reading it incorrectly. This is just how many people do read. It is a different way of reading, but a way which necessarily means we are not able to immerse ourselves fully in the alternate reality of what we are reading (and alternate reality would include a novel about urban London as much as one about Middle Earth).

Absolutely no author of novels or poetry writes with the professional reader in mind, beyond possibly making sure it will appeal to the publisher. The writer is wholly concerned with the creative endeavour at hand, and is indeed omnipotent in the world they have created. Tolkien is the creator of Eru, and what Tolkien says must happen in Arda, happens. It is his world, and we are invited to visit, but not to alter it. There are things I do not like in Middle Earth, but that is me projecting my own feelings, my personal critical eye, onto those occurrences. I cannot do anything about them. I can talk about them, and how I think they are wrong, but it does not bring me any closer to what the author thought, in fact it takes me further away, so I must put aside my purposeful mind and read with pleasure, or else change the channel and go elsewhere.

[davem]

Bb

1. The supreme Author is never wrong in his art.

The ART is never 'wrong'. To the extent that the author produces true art he/she cannot be wrong. To the extent that he/she fails to produce true ART they are wrong.

2. Reading is an act of complete submission to the will of the art.

In the first instance it is submission to the art itself, not to the 'will' of the Art (I'm not sure 'art can be said to have a 'will' of its own, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.)

3. therefore, any breaking of the enchantment is the fault of the reader

Any breaking of true enchantment - ie where the author has successfully achieved the goal of true sub creation - would be the result of the reader breaking the spell. Well, assuming the author himself doesn't deliberately break it.

H

ow do we know who a Supreme Author is? Any author who manages to attract one reader for whom the enchantment is not broken.

'Supreme author' is not a phrase I've used - because I'm not sure what it means.

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.

See answer to point 1

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.

But I don't find parts of it 'stilted', & nor do many other readers, therefore Fordim is stating a personal opinion, not an objective 'fact'. Fordim is bringing personal 'baggage' to his reading of the text & so to his experience of the 'art'.

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.

Well, if one is not prepared to take risks in order to experience enchantment one cannot really complain if one remains unenchanted, can one? Though I realise that shutting up for 5 minutes & submitting oneself to a work of art in order for it to work its effect on one is a truly terrifying prospect & this is why I support the proposal that all art galleries display health warnings & that parental guidance stickers be applied to Bach cd's.

[Holbytlass]

I feel the same as Mormegil about the elves in TH being different from LOTR. I always had 'glossed over' that part. I now thank Celuien for her/his idea about 'madbaggins' telling the story. I like it and works for me so I'm keeping it.
My head is reeling from the debate and I feel it is too far above me. LittleManPoet did give warning.
I appreciate all points being said but then I don't care. Allow me to explain...
Nothing being said as to where the responsibility lies is going to effect me. I am at a level where I can easily shrug off the real world and immerse into a 'secondary belief'. Of course, it helps when the artist is good at what they do. I will wholeheartedly agree that my simple and very gullible mind allows me to do this. Others have a way of thinking that is analitical and deep that may not allow them to completely immerse. There is nothing wrong with either.
I suppose that is what makes Tolkien such a genius to me because his writings have enraptured a broad-spectrum of thinkers. Of course, not everyone is one way of thinking. I'm simple-minded but not stupid. There may be those out there who feel sorry for me, don't. Because there are plenty of deep thinkers who I feel sorry for because they can't let something (i.e. a story) just be.
Examples that people have given to their disenchantment I find very interesting.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by drigel

I was under the impression this thread was about enchantment, not interpretation, values or judgements. Methinks the whole point of the author avoiding allegory is being lost here...

Whereas I have at times felt as if this thread has gotten as highjacked as others feel the "Choices of Master Samwise" thread at CbC has, and largely over the same ongoing debate, I still see a connection between interpretation and enchantment.

What I would call willfull interpretation (bringing an idea to bear from outside the text) seems to be mutually exclusive with enchantment, since the latter requires the acquiescence of the reader to the story (or appreciator to the art, if you prefer), whereas the former is the reader acting upon the story (or interpreter acting upon the art). Please understand that I am condemning nothing, just making an observation. Thus, the former will necessarily impede the latter, and the latter will disallow the former. This is not taking into account interpretation as intended by the author, which is an altogether different kettle of fish.

This is not to say that the willful interpreter cannot appreciate the story for itself, but I think a full appreciation is hindered by the willful interpretation.

As for the difference between Elves in TH and LotR, I guess I always understood the Elves in the Hobbit (esp. Rivendell) to be blithe on the surface, playful even, because they had gotten to a place of acceptance with their immortality and sadness. I never doubted that it was there, it just lay below the surface, and actually I felt that the silly songs were in a way a symbol of their sadness and depth.

[Holbytlass]

Here is a major difference between the learned higher mind and the simple mind (at least mine ). Lalwende has so eloquently stated the point I was trying to get across about differences in reading and why and neither being wrong. Thank you, Lal.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I could not help myself. I just had to look up "enchantment" in the OED:

1. The action or process of enchanting, or of employing magic or sorcery.

2. fig. Alluring or overpowering charm; enraptured condition; (delusive) appearance of beauty.

Interesting, no? And from Tolkien's own "On Fairy-Stories":

Enchantment produces a Secondary World into which both designer and spectator can enter, to the satisfaction of their senses while they are inside; but in its purity it is artistic in desire and purpose.

This was rather surprising to me, that Tolkien would use a word -- and not just any word, but one so central to his own art -- in a way that is slightly different from its normal usage. In Tolkien's formulation, "enchantment" loses all sense of being "overpowering" or "enrapturing"; it certainly is not productive of a "delusive appearance of beauty"! What is more, in Tolkien's view of enchantment, he allies that word not with "magic or sorcery" but with Art.

But there are two really remarkable things about Tolkien's description of enchantment that I think bear mentioning:

1) He states that is it enchantment which produces the Secondary World, and not the other way around. This would seem to imply that the effect of the writer's art on the reader is what makes the world; in this case, he sees the reader as being enchanted as much by his own ability or willingness to recieve and reimagine the art, as he is by the art of the author.

2) He believes that this enchantment is fulfilled when the reader and the writer together enter the world in some kind of partnership. "to the satisfaction of both their senses." This is very much in keeping with his view of the relation between reader and writer in the creation of that world in the first place ("enchantment produces the Secondary World").

So it seems to me that with his stories, Tolkien was attempting to invite me to be enchanted by his art, and that without my active participation in the creation of that world by agreeing with his art, then it cannot exist. In the end, he gives the reader a measure of freedom; we are not being taken over by his world, but co-creators of it.

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As for the difference between Elves in TH and LotR, I guess I always understood the Elves in the Hobbit (esp. Rivendell) to be blithe on the surface, playful even, because they had gotten to a place of acceptance with their immortality and sadness. I never doubted that it was there, it just lay below the surface, and actually I felt that the silly songs were in a way a symbol of their sadness and depth.

That's a very interesting approach. I'd never thought of it before, but I suppose that the more comfortable one is with oneself, the easier it is to express all of the aspects of your personality, including the silliness that you might otherwise be hesitant to release. It also fits with Tom Bombadil's singing in a way. As master of his part of the Old Forest, he would completely accept all of the facets of his personality. Maybe part of the source of his abilities is that he is in unity with himself and can therefore recite silly poetry without feeling...silly (if I'm not too far off on a tangent here). Yet another source of potential disenchantment solved - if he were to behave in a more "dignified" fashion, he couldn't be as powerful a figure, and so Tom Bombadil just has to be the way he is. I'll have to remember that the next time I do something incredibly silly in public.

I'm glad the fireside tale view of The Hobbit works for you too, Holbytlass.

Thanks, Boromir88. Another aspect of the story that makes it so believable for me is the level of detail and sense of history that fills the books. The idea that we're only seeing a portion of the tapestry of Middle Earth makes it all the more real - it's much like the real world where everything is interwoven and has a story behind it, even though we can't always see the connections.

[eowyntje]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

etc etc

When you look at it from that perspective, the author is indeed never wrong. It is me who's fault it is that the spell is broken. But fact is, that those things broke the spell for me, and if the book had been more perfect for me. that would not have happened. The highest art or a writer would therefor be to create a world that no one, no matter what fault they make, would fall out of, a spell that even the most inadequate readers can't break.
It's like blaming the road for the accident's we make. (The book being the road and the reader bying the one driving onthe road) When I get in a car-accident while traveling the Tolkien-road, this is my fault. But any imperfections on the road might have helped cause the accident. On a perfect road, no accidents would ever happen.
If the spell is broken for the reader, this is the fault of the reader, but also proof of the imperfection of the writing, a perfect writing would be like a perfect road where nobody would ever break the spell or leave the road.

I know claiming that LOTR is imperfect is a very bolt statement to make, but it is just the way I see it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by eowyntje

If the spell is broken for the reader, this is the fault of the reader, but also proof of the imperfection of the writing, a perfect writing would be like a perfect road where nobody would ever break the spell or leave the road.

I don't think Tolkien would have claimed his work was 'perfect', but in the context of what you ask, I'd respond by asking which parts of the work are 'imperfect' in an objective sense - other than printing errors or torn pages, etc? The only part of the work which could be said to be 'imperfect' would be one that every single reader agreed upon.

The author can only do his/her best, & they will fail with some readers some of the time, but unless they fail with all readers at the same point then it must be something in the individual reader that causes the spell to be broken for them at that particular point.

Originally Posted by Bb

Now, I don't want to make enemies , but how do we know that there isn't baggage, maybe even unconscious baggage, in the mind of the reader?
How do we know if the reader's own psyche has unconciously dictated elements of that enchantment? Or even if the reader has fallen prey to some deep desire to be overwhelmed by this fantasy?

Other than the sense of continuous enchantment and satisfaction--that is, duration of sensation--what other evidence is there that guarantees the enchantment is the one the author intended? That it isn't, in fact, some kind of delusion which the reader's desire to be enchanted has created?

There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way.

I suppose what it all comes down to is the question 'What do we mean by 'enchantment'? Is it simply being temproraily convinced by a secondary world so that for a time we forget the primary world? Or does it work a deeper 'magic' on us, opening us up to recieve a 'fleeting glimpse of joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief', to the possibility of the eucatastrophic experience in a particular form? Is it a valid experience? Is it a 'depth' experience - even a spiritual one?

And if we talk about the 'reader's desire to be enchanted' that begs a very big question - whence does this desire to be enchanted arise, & why do we seek the experience? Why is there any art at all?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

whence does this desire to be enchanted arise, & why do we seek the experience? Why is there any art at all?

You're good at tough questions

Finrod asks the question too:

'For if you do not know, how can we? But do you know that the Eldar say of Men that they look at no thing for itself; that if they study it, it is to discover something else; that if they love it, it is only (so it seems) because it reminds them of some other dearer thing? Yet with what is this comparison? Where are these other things?

And eventually answers it (up to a point):

'Is it, then, a vision of what was designed to be when Arda was complete - of living things and even of the very lands and seas of Arda made eternal and indestructible, for ever beautiful and new - with which the fëar of Men compare what they see here? Or is there somewhere else a world of which all things which we see, all things that either Elves or Men know, are only tokens or reminders?'

We seek and compare.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

There will inevitably be some unconscious baggage which the reader brings to their experience of the art, but it should not be dwelt on, because it gets in the way.

I think there is a logical inconsistency here which sidesteps my question.

If the 'baggage' is unconscious, the reader will not be aware of it and so cannot dwell upon it. The reader will be unaware of how this unconscious reaction informs his or her response. Thus, how will the reader know if this unconscious baggage is shaping the experience of the art or the Art itself?

This is a logical problem with the theory that one can completely strip oneself of one's primary world identity and become solely immersed in the secondary world. At best, one can demonstrate and act upon a willingness, a desire to listen, to learn, to understand, but the very unique and individual terms and nature of the submission will in fact be part of how the experience is informed.