What breaks the enchantment?

[davem]

I don't want to 'downgrade' Tolkien's use of language - indeed, I think that ne reason the radio series 'feels' closer to LotR for me than the movie is that the adaptors used more of Tolkien's original language - as I said the radio series is more like a dramatised reading than an adatation.

My point is that Tolkien's use of language is intended to create images in the mind - 'living shapes that move from mind to mind'. The images almost exist apart from the language used to exress them. I suppose this is why the work has inspired so many artists (& filmmakers), why there is a desire to present the descriptions in a visual form. I wonder how many of us, on calling to mind events in the story actually call to mind the words ? For most of us, I think, what come to mind are the images formed in our minds by the words. So, it is the images created that affect us. Other words could have been used (maybe with less effect), but the images would still have been formed as we have them. I go back to Peig Sayers account of how she retained the stories she heard. She would 'see' them on the wall in front of her. Her son, Micheal O'Guiheen, talks about one story, The King of Ireland's Son, which would 'take two weeks of nights' to recount. Of course, there would be certain common phrases (as we find in Homer) whih would be used in the telling of such tales, but generally what the storyteller would do was describe the images they had 'seen' when they heard the story the first time. It was the images which were transmitted, not the words used to describe them. The repeated turns of phrase would serve almost as 'mnemonics', or connecting phrases to link the images being described.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

For a narrative art-form that is really based on images, we'd have to turn to film. Comic books, too, I suppose. I also wonder to what extent the "focus on images" that you see in the folk-tale is an objective fact about the genre and to what extent it is simply the thing that you as a reader react to most strongly.

I think that with movies & comicbooks we have a similar thing to what happened inside the heads of those hearing the old stories, with the essential difference that the hearer formed their own images out of what they had in their individual psyches. This is not the 'baggage' I've been talking about. In the folktales collected by Campbell & published as Popular Tales of the West Highlands we often find fairy castles described as larger versions of the ordinary houses people lived in, because thats all they had to go on.

When I talk about 'baggage' its not the 'raw material' of trees, hills, rivers, etc, that we must supply to bring the story to life in our imagination, but rather our own memories, literary, psychological, religious theories & beliefs, etc. So, if a writer mentions a hill, we supply the image of a hill, based on the hills we've seen, iin real life or in pictures. But, if on hearing that word 'hill' we start thinking 'Oh, yes, a hill! I remember when Fred & Sue & I went walking in the countryside, & we climbed that big hill at midday & I saw that cafe by the road side & we went down & had that meal, which wasn't too good & was bloody expensive, & actually I couldn't really afford it & it meant I had to put on hold buying that cd I'd intended to get till next payday...etc, then we've broken the enchantment. I think Buddhists refer to that as the 'butterfly mind', flitting from one thing to another & never focussing on the thing on front of us.

I think, in other words, that to truly experience any art form, we have to learn to focus on it, & not let ourselves be distracted by that kind of baggage. Its not so much that we have to become willing victims, surrendering all our autonomy, & letting ourselves be manipulated by the artist, its that we have to 'listen' as carefully as we can & make an effort not to be distracted by other things, or by ourselves - not something we can do completely, I acknowledge, but something we should make a real attempt to do, if we want to be enchanted - of course, we may not want to be enchanted: its optional. But if we don't make the effort we can't complain that it doesn't happen, or that at points it is broken. At times it may be necessary to ignore the workers coming in & moving the scenery about. If they are doing their job well they won't prove too intrusive.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The convention is the distinction between narrative voice and character voice.

I get that, but I think your arguments so far as to exactly what that distinction is are based on an arbitrary rule that you've either formulated for yourself or picked up from somewhere else. It's this "rule" that I disagree with:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Whereas in the first, Gandalf is naming others around the council, here in the second he does not .... and that seems to me to be because it is the narrator's voice that has taken over, giving the reader important information that the writer couldn't think of a better (more timely, more suspenseful) way to convey. It may well be that it is important information for the council members to learn from Gandalf, but that does not mitigate the fact that the voice is the narrator's rather than Gandalf's here.

[emphasis on the most pertinent extract mine, of course]

Who says a character has to reference his audience in order to make his dialogue "in character voice"?

The real question here, minus the jargon, is simply: Is Gandalf's dialogue believable as something that Gandalf would say, in a way that he would say it?

You already know my answer.

P.S. -- Sorry for this sidebar conversation. Carry on with the baggage and such.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Who says a character has to reference his audience in order to make his dialogue "in character voice"?

No one. But if this turns out to be Gandalf's habit, then a failure to do it raises questions. I'm researching it. So call that part of it a theory for now.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

The real question here, minus the jargon, is simply: Is Gandalf's dialogue believable as something that Gandalf would say, in a way that he would say it?

That's not the only 'real' question. The other question is whether a particular text that is spoken by Gandalf is more like scene narration by the author than it is like Gandalf's speech. I'm researching that too.

P.S. -- I'm not at all sorry for the sidebar conversation, as the baggage part of this seems to have by and large run its course, although Aiwendil's recent pot-stirring has started to make it interesting again.

[Bêthberry]

Lately, I've been thinking more and more about different forms of narrative, particularly the old ancient forms in the traditional epics and the modern forms, either realistic or post modern. And I was reminded of littlemanpoet's thread here.

In the old epic tales which Tolkien harkened after, the narrator is an authoritative, reliable narrator whose knowledge (omniscience) is taken for granted. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the narrator's views of characters and events and the characters' views of themselves and of events. In modern literature (post 19C), there is often much disparity between how the narrator views the characters and events and how the characters do--and how the readers do as well. There's a distance there. I guess another way of saying this is that modern narratives are more ironic.

Are there any discrepancies between Tolkien's narrator's view and those of his characters? If there are, does this distance destroy the enchantment? Is self-knowledge, self-reflection, any kind of distancing between narrator/character/reader not feasible in fantasy? Does fantasy have to mean a total sublimation or suspension of the reader's disbelief? Or is this just a function of Tolkien's nod to the old narrative forms?

And, if enchantment requires the absence of irony or distance, does that make parody of fantasy far more easy or potent?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

No one. But if this turns out to be Gandalf's habit, then a failure to do it raises questions. I'm researching it. So call that part of it a theory for now..

I do research on humans for a living. The human race is not that consistent. You know I love you, lmp, but a man will do the same thing a different way, some days, for many possible reasons, including because sometimes humans are just like that. It's one of the things that makes us interesting. Gandalf may have habits, but I imagine he is flexible enough to adjust his styles to the moment.

On with the court proceedings...

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Formendacil, for tempting me to reread this thread. I see that I have failed to fulfill my promise. I confess that I lost the passion for the research, and it was never completed. I don't think it's going to happen. I confess also that my prosecutorial certitude of 2005 has diminished markedly in the last 9 years. So I must retire my prosecution permanently, as I've no stomach for it these days.

That said, it has been a happy stroll down memory lane.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Is self-knowledge, self-reflection, any kind of distancing between narrator/character/reader not feasible in fantasy? Does fantasy have to mean a total sublimation or suspension of the reader's disbelief? Or is this just a function of Tolkien's nod to the old narrative forms?

And, if enchantment requires the absence of irony or distance, does that make parody of fantasy far more easy or potent?

I have deleted the questions from the above quote that I consider myself unequipped to answer. I think that modern fantasy has seen distancing and/or the lack thereof across the spectrum.

I think a suspension of disbelief is a minimum requirement for fantasy. Secondary belief is the goal. The difference between the two is essential. For those who may be unfamiliar with the distinction, suspension of disbelief is the act of setting aside one's own lack of belief in what one is reading. Secondary belief is, first, never having had disbelief, and second, imaginatively entering into a secondary world, experiencing it as primary while reading.

Frankly, secondary belief is necessary for any fiction, not just fantasy.

[Bêthberry]

Wow, what a blast from the past! Nearly ten years ago. I can barely recognise myself in my posts, although what I think I was trying to suggest is that there is not really only one way to read either Tolkien, fantasy generally, or perhaps even any fiction.

I have recently come across a similar discussion and think this comment pertains very well to my thoughts these days. I am copying it with permission. It comes from one of our own members, although not written for the Downs.

Originally Posted by Troelsfo

For some of us, the fascination and enjoyment of reading Tolkien's work – of being under the enchantment of our Secondary Belief in his sub-creation – awakens a desire to know more, to uncover a layer behind, beneath or above the one that is obvious ... and another layer, and another layer.

Doing this enhances our appreciation, and having done it, at least for me, enhances the sense of joy I find in myself whenever I come under Tolkien's enchantment once more.

I will not say that my way of appreciating Tolkien is better than anyone else's, but neither will I accept any claim that it is in some way lesser. It merely is mine, and as long as it increases my joy in Tolkien's writings, I shall continue doing it.

I suppose one could argue that Troelsfo's statement represents a desire to seek out the fuller details of the consistency which Tolkien was suggesting.

I'm no longer sure that either secondary belief or willing suspension of disbelief adequately explain the aesthetic situation of reading fiction/fantasy. Perhaps it is simply the ability to enter imaginatively into things that would normally be implausible, something akin to listening to arguments that violate our sense of reality/truth or considering perspectives from cultures different from our own.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm no longer sure that either secondary belief or willing suspension of disbelief adequately explain the aesthetic situation of reading fiction/fantasy. Perhaps it is simply the ability to enter imaginatively into things that would normally be implausible, something akin to listening to arguments that violate our sense of reality/truth or considering perspectives from cultures different from our own.

To read Fiction basically inserts me into a waking dream. Reality fades to a background hum, and the book becomes reality. There is no difficulty with well-written fiction in accepting totally the world it contains.

I think one thing about Tolkien which aids me in acceptance of Middle-earth as 'real' is that in most substantial points, it is congruous with actual reality. The land has familiar patterns and forms: mountains, plains, forests, and deserts are described so that they fundamentally conform to what I have seen with my eyes. Plants, animals, and weather patterns are not those of some alien place.

The 'fantastic' alterations are still near enough to the familiar that I do not balk at the idea of talking trees, eagles, and angelic spirits embodied that act for both good and evil.
Elves and Dwarves, though having definite unique characteristics, to me manifest parts of the nature of Men in this world, so that the fantasy representations in Arda are once again not incomprehensible.

I think Tolkien understood well where the line stood with respect to 'believable' fantasy and the children's fairy-tale that adults simply smiled at. He stocked his works with alluring places, persons, and things that were recognizable enough to hold the interest of the realist, yet fantastic to the point that the dreamer was also enthralled.