What breaks the enchantment?

[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.

[Troelsfo]

First of all, thank you to Bêthberry for alerting me to this interesting thread!

There are two issues in this thread that I should like to react to and reflect upon.

First, as to the experience of reading. I am, by education, a physicist, and I have worked in the world of the natural sciences all my adult life. This is my starting point for my interest in both the history of science and the philosophy of science. Our sciences, both the natural sciences, but also the humanist and sociological sciences, have evolved by the exchange of the written word, and I dare say that these sciences have evolved quite far based on this, and the written word has thus been able to establish a very large degree of common and shared understanding of not only the natural world (the topic of my own subject), but also of the world of the human mind.

With this in mind, I have to insist that any theory or model for the reading experience must account for the ability of the text to establish such a very high degree of shared understanding – something I often find that the more subjective models, insisting that all meaning is created in the mind of the reader and is completely subjective and non-communicable, fail to explain in a satisfying way.

It is, I trust, obvious that there are differences between different kinds of text. At one end we may have some of the more experimental forms of poetry, and at the other end a scientific article detailing some advance in our mathematical formulation of a problem in physics (and I suspect that such a one-dimensional model is woefully inadequate, but please bear with me for moment).

But even the most experimental form of poetry relies on shared conventions of interpreting the marks on the page (or screen) into sounds, of stringing them into words, for the individual words to obtain meaning, and for word-meanings to string together. Even when the Art deviates from these shared conventions, it still relies on them for its effect.

My point here is that any model for the reading experience must be able to account for the very high degree of communicability of meaning in a written form (I am here completely ignoring the issue of a common language – I assume that we are speaking of competent language-users in all cases).


The other, and related, topic that I would wish to reflect upon, is the enchantment of the sub-creator. This is what I touch upon in the statement that Bêthberry has already quoted.

For me, Tolkien's description of Literary Belief in his essay ‘On Fairy-stories’ has always described very acutely my own experience when reading Tolkien. But it goes further than that. The essay is also a sub-creation, and, like the game of cricket that Tolkien mentions, it can, for the enthusiast, produce the same kind of enchanted state, and it does so for me. So do the texts by Tom Shippey and Verlyn Flieger, and a number of other analytical and / or critical texts.

What is more, I have found that, for me, the reading of these have the effect of enhancing both the effect of Literary Belief and the feeling of joy when I sit down to read Tolkien's works again. Having this deeper understanding of Tolkien's text – and being conscious of it while reading, for me, actually increases its power of enchantment.

I do realise that this is not the case for everyone. For many the conscious realisation that Gandalf's choice at the Council of Elrond is an excellent example of trusting in providence (making the policy of the Council an exemplar of the claim that ‘in God we trust’) will only serve to break the enchantment, and I would never dream of forcing this conscious realisation upon them when they read, but I would, on the other hand, ask them to accept that their experience is not universal either, and that it has, for me (and doubtlessly for many others – I am not conceited enough to believe I am unique), the opposite effect: that of enhancing the enchantment and the joy in the story – in effect increasing the beauty I find in the story.


Looking this through, it seems to me that I am suggesting that we look at this at least as a two-dimensional thing (and probably there is still more to it than this).

One dimension is the extraction of meaning from a text. Here our subjective experiences seem to play a smaller part than it is often claimed, though this obviously varies depending on how abstruse the meaning is – if the text is composed with some care and the intention of communicating meaning, the transmission can be near-perfect, but if the text is composed in order to create sensations (or is composed carelessly), the transmission of meaning can be very poor.

The other dimension, then, is the engaging with the text. This seems to be far more subjective, though the author can certainly do something to control this as well (using mathematical symbolism is a good example). It does seem to me that subjectiveness here plays a larger part for texts written as art – whether fiction or poetry or something else I cannot name, so that our manner of engaging with a poem can vary far more than our manner of engaging with a mathematical proof.

Or perhaps not ... at least I know that I can find much beauty in an elegant mathematical proof and in such a case, I can be enthusiastically anticipating the next line with much the same kind of enchantment as the music-lover anticipating the next bar in a nocturne by Chopin.


And this brings me back to what Bêthberry has already quoted:
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 is, however, my way, and the best one for me. Therefore, as long as it increases my joy in Tolkien's writings, I shall continue doing this way

[Belegorn]

I don't think I've come across that fissure yet.