What breaks the enchantment?

[eowyntje]

I think what breaks the spell for me is the word perfection, or anything similair in the books. I don't believe that anything or anyone can be purely good and as soon as something is described as such or comes close to perfection, I lose the magic and think "that can't be".
I've never liked the elves because to me they were always too perfect, more perfect then humans, and I never liked the thought of a better race existing. So for me the elves from Lotr often broke the spell. The less perfect elves in the Hobbit did not have that effect on me, neither did Galadriel, who was described as frightfull at first. But characters like Elrond are too unbelieveable to me.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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.

Though I understand perfectly that others might not agree with me, that broke the spell for me too. I could connect so well with Eowyn when the story started, I recognised myself in her and saw her as a person which could be very real. When she married Faramir and gave all that up I didn't understand her, I though it was the wrong dissision. If they were real, I'm sure Eowyn would eventually get bored and long for some action again.

[davem]

Originally Posted by eowyntje

I've never liked the elves because to me they were always too perfect, more perfect then humans, and I never liked the thought of a better race existing. So for me the elves from Lotr often broke the spell. The less perfect elves in the Hobbit did not have that effect on me, neither did Galadriel, who was described as frightfull at first. But characters like Elrond are too unbelieveable to me.

These reactions are obviously genuine, so I'm not saying you shouldn't feel that way, but it seems to me that it may be because you disapprove of what the characters do that breaks the spell, rather than what the characters do being unbelievable as such. 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.

Let's take the example of reading a novel set in WW2. What would your response be to someone who said the 'spell' was broken for them when it came to the Auschwitz episode, because 'the Nazis were just too nasty there' ?

Putting on one side the fact that the Elves of Middle earth are far from perfect beings, let's for the sake of argument imagine that they were absolutely perfect. All Tolkien would have to do is present them as perfect in a convincing way, a way that was believable within the world they inhabit. Once he has done that he has done what he set out to do. If the spell is broken for you wen you read about them because you have a problem with the idea of perfect beings per se, then that is not Tolkien's fault - your inability to to put up with perfect beings is part of the baggage you bring to your reading of the story. Tolkien would only be responsible if he failed to convince you that they were perfect.

In fact, from what you say, Tolkien made the Elves perfectly convincing but you just didn't like them.

When she married Faramir and gave all that up I didn't understand her, I though it was the wrong dissision.

Neither of those reactions means Eowyn is not a convincingly drawn character, just that you didn't understand & or approve of what she did.

[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.

[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.