What breaks the enchantment?

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps the Prosecutor gets no chance in legal courts to speak once more after the Defense rests, but here on the BDs, I'll take my chance, even if judge and jury have already decided the case.

You examples from the Defendant's texts, respected Defender, do me the favor of rebutting the very thing you claim for them.

In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles.

I have bolded text for the sake of the hasty jury. You see, these four little words render this bit of Gandalf's talk as conversation, not mere narration. Thus, it does not apply as strict narration.

The poem Gandalf recites, to which my respected colleague has referred, is a quotation by Gandalf of someone else's rendered speech; therefore, neither can it apply as narration.

From the Last Debate:

Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

Here again Gandalf is speaking to a group, including himself in it. Note the bolded text. This is in essence a sermonette, not a narration.

At this point I must ask for a brief recess, as my other job calls me away. I shall address the compared original with the alteration as soon as I can. I thank you for your time, my esteemed colleagues.

[Lalwendë]

Gandalf's different ways of speaking can be accounted for if we consider who he is speaking to. At The Council of Elrond, he is not only speaking to a diverse group of people, a meeting of the great and the good, he is also speaking to Frodo. His narration must be inclusive of all his audience, and so he takes care to fully express the sense of the peril he has gone through, knowing that some listening will need to hear more detail.

At The Last Debate he is speaking to a gathering of leaders after a great battle, to discuss tactics and not least of all, to inspire these leaders to take the right decisions which will lead to victory. He uses the 'royal we' to include himself in what must come, to let his listeners subtly know that he will be with them whatever is decided. This is something politicians often use in speeches - they rarely talk of "you", but instead use "we". If the PM said "you must build a fairer society" it has a different meaning to "we must build a fairer society". Note also that he would be unlikely to say "I must build a fairer society". Yes, his words did sound like sermonising, but that is close to his purpose.

Gandalf uses many voices to speak, as he has many reasons for saying what he does, and he speaks to many different audiences. I don't find this inconsistent myself, it seems appropriate to his character.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

This is the state of reading for us all. Once does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.

What is the nature of reading? This is just one theory (and relatively recent as far as I can remember) of how we read yet there are others, so it is not how we all read if experience is different for other people.

Even with the individual there can be differing ways that they read. As I've said before, when I read a report I read and interpret at the same time - possibly because this saves me time, possibly as what I am reading is so dull I have to look for some purpose to it, possibly as I have simply been trained to read such texts in that way.

When I read poetry I read first simply to enjoy the words, any interpretation must come at a much later stage - I view poetry as akin to painting, which should first be experienced for what it is, allowing an emotional reaction to be the first that we experience, before the structure is analysed. With poetry then, I do put the language and words into a holding pattern. As with a painting, those words have been carefully placed to make a picture which should first be viewed as the artefact that it is before we go in to dissect it (which in itself is enjoyable with poetry). I say 'should' as we do not always do that, and I often find that it is this learned practice which puts many young people off poetry, as they simply never get to see the picture as it is and first have an emotional reaction.

I think that when we all first read LotR we had little or no notion of interpretation, certainly those of us who read at a relatively young age; the story is constructed and plotted so that we would have little time or inclination to interpret, as we would just want to know "what happens next?". As are all good stories. Yes, we may have been struck by odd points along the way where things reminded us of this or that, but interpretation would not really be an issue when engrossed in a thrilling plot and a fantastical world. I'd say that it is what happens to each reader afterwards that diverges. Some still read innocently, some read interpretively, some read hoping to see more of Middle Earth than they saw last time around.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What is the nature of reading? This is just one theory (and relatively recent as far as I can remember) of how we read yet there are others, so it is not how we all read if experience is different for other people.

Even with the individual there can be differing ways that they read. As I've said before, when I read a report I read and interpret at the same time - possibly because this saves me time, possibly as what I am reading is so dull I have to look for some purpose to it, possibly as I have simply been trained to read such texts in that way.

First of all, Lal, I will say I am sorry for that broad generalisation of "all". I will happily edit so that my point does not exclude those who have different reading experiences (and I will note the edit). As for the "relatively recent" part of the theory, of what import is that?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

When I read poetry I read first simply to enjoy the words, any interpretation must come at a much later stage - I view poetry as akin to painting, which should first be experienced for what it is, allowing an emotional reaction to be the first that we experience, before the structure is analysed. With poetry then, I do put the language and words into a holding pattern. As with a painting, those words have been carefully placed to make a picture which should first be viewed as the artefact that it is before we go in to dissect it (which in itself is enjoyable with poetry). I say 'should' as we do not always do that, and I often find that it is this learned practice which puts many young people off poetry, as they simply never get to see the picture as it is and first have an emotional reaction.

I think that when we all first read LotR we had little or no notion of interpretation, certainly those of us who read at a relatively young age; the story is constructed and plotted so that we would have little time or inclination to interpret, as we would just want to know "what happens next?". As are all good stories. Yes, we may have been struck by odd points along the way where things reminded us of this or that, but interpretation would not really be an issue when engrossed in a thrilling plot and a fantastical world. I'd say that it is what happens to each reader afterwards that diverges. Some still read innocently, some read interpretively, some read hoping to see more of Middle Earth than they saw last time around.

I think part of the difference here might lie in how we each use this word 'interpretation.' What is involved in "enjoy the words"?

Do you mean you merely listen to the sound without making any determination of what the words mean?

Interpretation is the act of deciding which meaning of a word pertains to the text. It does not necessarily mean all the convoluted analysis your teachers put you through. For example, readers choose which of the thirty or so meanings of "beat" applies to this particular context, or which meaning of "sound".

Even 'what happens next" means interpreting the words, or making guesses about what might happen. For instance, when Gloin interrupts Gandalf at the Council of Elrond, and Gandalf refers to all the differences between elves and dwarves, and then what happens but Elrond sends Gimli out with Legolas! Well! This is exciting stuff and what reader does not wonder what might come of this strange pairing. This is the engagement with words which is part of the interpretive process. Some readers will attend to the thrilling action part, some to the story of the elves, some to the natural description. But even at the most basic level of reading for story, for what happens, 'interpretation' takes place for us to make sense of what the words refer to.

At least, from this idea of reading.