Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
05-16-2005, 07:44 PM | #1 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
What breaks the enchantment?
Warning:this thread may be hazardous to the enchantment Tolkien's stories weave on you. Proceed at your own risk.
Tolkien wanted his readers to experience "secondary belief", which is to experience the story of The Lord of the Rings (as well as his other writings) as "real", at least while we're reading, and maybe afterwards as well. This doesn't mean we're deluded into believing that it's really real, although some of us might wish it were; and perhaps some of us do choose to be so deluded (I did for a while). Here's my question: What, in Tolkien's writings, breaks the spell for you? Why do you think this is so? Was it a failure on his part, or is it something you bring to the reading? I'll give one example from my own experience. In re-reading the Prologue to FotR, recently, I came across the section where it says that Hobbits learned building from Men, specifically the Dúnedain, who learned it from the Elves. In all my previous readings, I had no problem with this. This time, however, the notion seemed ludicrous. Why would Hobbits and Men need Elves to teach them how to build? Are Hobbits and Men so stupid that they couldn't learn how to build on their own? It's comparable to saying that Native Americans could not have invented canoes, but needed Vikings to come to the new world to teach them how to build such boats. So that broke the spell for me. I had to remind myself that Tolkien was using old sources in which the Fairy Folk are said to have taught neolithic humans to build. But for me it didn't work ... this time. So, that's my example. Maybe it's just my problem. But do you have a place in which the spell was broken for you? |
05-16-2005, 08:11 PM | #2 |
Shade of Carn Dűm
|
I would have to say that the spell was broken for me when I read the stories again and realized that it was a little unlikely that Sauron would have been so foolish if he knew that prominent wizards like Saruman would frightened by his power to not keep a careful watch on who wandered where in his kingdom.
But the spell is still grasping on, not wanting to die. bilbo
__________________
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow, and with more knowledge comes more grief." |
05-16-2005, 09:18 PM | #3 |
Maundering Mage
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,647
|
O! Tra-la-la-lally
Perhaps what ruins the enchantment for me is "The Hobbit" in general. I enjoy the story and think it's enjoyable to read but I just can't take it as seriously as I do the others. I view it more as a bed time story I will read to my children than as phenomenal fiction. This is not to discount Tolkien in any way. I believe his intended audience was the younger folk and he met that very well. In fact I would classify it as highly superior to similar books in the genre.
One of the greatest difficulties I have with this book is the elves. They seem more to act like a druken hobbit than a regal elf. Especially the singing part when the company enters Rivendell. Needless to say I don't read TH nearly as much as the others due to this fact. It's too light and whimsical for my taste to make it common reading.
__________________
“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” |
05-16-2005, 09:23 PM | #4 |
Tears of the Phoenix
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Putting dimes in the jukebox baby.
Posts: 1,453
|
The thing that first comes to mind is the "geography" chapter in the Silmarillion, where he goes into great detail about the land, it's names, etc. That to me was a huge turn off, a great thing to break the enchantment of the Silmarillion.
As for LotR - - the ent chapter was very...I don't know why, but it broke the enchantment for me....hmmm. Still trying to figure out why though.
__________________
I'm sorry it wasn't a unicorn. It would have been nice to have unicorns. |
05-17-2005, 04:31 AM | #5 |
Wight
|
For me it was also The Hobbit that broke the spell. This may have been because I read it after reading LotR, but like Mormegil I find the elves to be too...well foolish. They seem much more child-like and joyous than the sad knowledgeful beings that seem to appear in The Sil and LotR. They didn't seem to have a care in the world. I also found that I could not take the whole book seriously as there weere too many comical situations with comical solutions. Because of this I've only read The Hobbit twice, compared to the times I've read LotR this seem's somewhat insignifican't. However, I do think that ity's a great way to get a good idea of Hobbit nature.
Occasionally stupid adaptations made by Fran, P-j, and Phillipa ruin it for me. For example during the death of Saruman in ROTK EE all the fire and special effects made me think that 'magic' as they were presenting it was a completley ludacrous concept. I s'pose I just have the actuall events as they happened in the books in mind when I watch scenes like that from the movie, reminding myself that in the book they seem quite real. The only other things that seem to break the enchantment for me is when I read other books that 'copy' they never quite pull it off which makes some parts seem less believable. This oviously can't be Tolkien's error, as for me it's not his writting but that of others that dirupts the illusion of reality. Maybe it's not even the fault of other writers but my own for seeing hints of Tolkien that they may not even have intended to be in their own work. On the whole though the enchantment remains intact and I not only see this whole universe but am actually there watching it unfold about me.
__________________
Ú cilith ‘war. Ú men ‘war. Boe min mebi. Boe min bango. |
05-17-2005, 06:24 AM | #6 |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Shire (Staffordshire), United Kingdom
Posts: 273
|
What broke the spell for me was, as I'm sure Tolkien intended, was the last line of Lord of The Rings: "Well, I'm back".
Sam was back in The Shire, in the world of daily work, of growing things and of raising a family; magical enough in their own way but, for Sam, that special enchantment that the Elves had brought to Middle Earth was gone, had sailed into the West. I, too, was back in the real world. The tale was told and the magic had departed. Fortunatley for me, the magic returns every time I pick up one of the Professor's books. . |
05-17-2005, 07:46 PM | #7 |
Riveting Ribbiter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Assigned to Mordor
Posts: 1,767
|
I'm almost afraid to come into this discussion. There's so much to catch up on, and in just a few hours!
For me, the enchantment of Middle Earth has always been that it seemed as if it could have been real. When I read, I try to turn off my "reality checker" with respect to the way things are in everyday life. If foxes comment on seeing hobbits, it's because that is the normal order of things in the book's world. It is Tolkien's story, and he therefore sets the conditions under which things operate while I'm visiting, so I feel that I need to try my best to become immersed in that world to appreciate it. That said, I almost put The Hobbit aside when I read it for the first time. The depiction of the Elves and the general tone of the story jarred too much with the characters from the rest of books to remain believable. But as I've read more, even the "Tra-la-lally" chorus has grown on me, as long as I view it in the context of Bilbo's memoirs. I can easily imagine the different tone of The Hobbit being part of a narration to hobbit children seated around Mad Baggins' fireplace in Bag End. Then, the enchantment returns since I can find a way to fit all of the pieces into the larger picture. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as I can accept Middle Earth on its own terms, there are no limits on the enchantment of the story for me. Maybe my approach to reading is part of the baggage that I bring as well. Although when I feel some commonality with the story I tend to enjoy it more, I've never tried to make what I read fit into my experience. I've instead viewed books as a window into another time and place, or a way to look at the world through someone else's perspective.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff. |
05-17-2005, 07:57 PM | #8 |
Laconic Loreman
|
I think Celuien, brings up a good point. Is that we become so "enchanted" by the books is because it just seems so believable. I mean there's nothing like wizards, and elves, or balrogs, and a dark lord, and we know that it will most likely never happen. However, the story is just so convincing. So, what makes it convincing?
I think that Tolkien does a good job of setting limits to the "magical/fantasy" realm. And that's what makes his stories seem to be so real. There are never these all powerful beings, and everyone has a set limit. Gandalf has a set power, he can't chuck a mountain at someone and kill people. The Eagles have their own characteristics where they can't just take Frodo from the Shire and give him a ride to Mount Doom. (Seems to be the consensus of some people). The Dead Army are shades, but unlike Jackson portrayed them, they can't harm anyone. They cause fear in people, but they are unable to physically harm any person/thing on Middle-earth. So every force that we know to be not true, has it's own set of limits, and that makes LOTR just seem real. Another part is just the description, we get these wonderful narrative paragraphs that puts images into our head as to what things would look like, and just imagine ourselves being there. As far as "Breaking the spell" I'll get to that some other time, I must be heading off. Great thread lmp.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
05-17-2005, 08:19 PM | #9 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
There's fireworks. Then there's fighting wolf-riders with flaming pine-cones: "Fifteen birds in five fir-trees.". Then there's fighting ringwraiths on weathertop with flashes of white lightning. Then there's fighting balrogs. THen there's marshalling a war. And then there's visiting with Old Tom after all is said and done.
Which is the enchantment?
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
05-18-2005, 03:12 AM | #10 | |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 47
|
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. Quote:
__________________
No matter what they think or what they do, No matter what they feel Or what they see in you, You're gonna get there, Whatever they say, And nobody's going to stand, in the way Last edited by eowyntje; 05-18-2005 at 03:19 AM. |
|
05-18-2005, 06:16 AM | #11 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 05-18-2005 at 06:30 AM. |
||
05-23-2005, 05:11 PM | #12 |
Dead Serious
|
You know, there's a reason it has taken me until Page 3 to post in this thread. Like Lalwende in the "Choices of Master Samwise" thread, I dislike tearing apart the text to find the "hidden meaning" in it. And this thread, while intent on searching out the holes that Tolkien left in it, not the holes of our own making, seems a little to close to that for my comfort.
However, a thought occurred to me that I thought bore mentioning, here if not elsewhere. Here it is: The "enchantment" that the Lord of the Rings puts on us is much like the golden eggs of nursery rhyme fodder. Both are beneficial to us, and bring a great deal of joy into our lives. However, how is it possible for a goose to lay golden eggs? In the fable, which I no longer fully recall (*ashamed*), the owners of the goose kill her to get at the eggs, and thus obviously ending the enchantment. And it seems to me that to over-examine the cracks and holes in the book's enchantment is tantamount to killing the goose. In doing so, are we perhaps ending any future benefit, any future enchantment? I'm not convinced, but the parallels seems clear... Avoiding such discussions in general, Formendacil
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
05-23-2005, 07:34 PM | #13 | |||||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
EDIT: But mostly, if a story doesn't have any of that indescribable atmosphere, that air, that breath of wonder and grasp of life right on the cusp of faery that I discovered in Tolkien, I put it down after just a couple of pages. There are some writers who can still do this for me. O.S. Card, LeGuin, our own mark12_30 (Helen), and a few others. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your mention, Bęthberry, of George MacDonald, is appropo to the idea of reader as co-creator with the author. But what this necessarily means is that Middle-earth as it exists in your imagination, and Middle-earth as it exists in mine, are at variance with each other, to what degree no one can say. Is yours better than mine, or mine better than yours? Of course not! As we converse about them, your M-e informs mine and mine informs yours, and understanding and appreciation grows. This happened for me most recently in regard to an insight Lalwendę had, regarding the apparent ability of Sauron and his Nazgul to unbody a spirit then torment that spirit, not allowing it to escape into death. When I first read her insight I thought "Nonsense!" But as I saw more and more references to it in my own readings of LotR, I realized that Lal was right, and that my own understanding of this point had been enhanced, against my initial inclination! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by littlemanpoet; 05-23-2005 at 07:40 PM. |
|||||||
05-24-2005, 01:15 AM | #14 | ||
Deadnight Chanter
|
Enchantement in a box may be alive or dead...
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
||
05-24-2005, 07:43 AM | #15 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
There is a difference between bringing our 'experience' of 'trees, hills & rivers, of bread & stone, wind & sunshine to the secondary world, because these things help to personalise the secondary world & make it as much ours as the author's, & bringing our knowledge of mythology, history, psychology, etc, to the secondary world. This is, I think, what Tolkien was referring to by the demolishing of the tower to see where the stones from which it was built originally came from, or asking the origins of the bones from which the 'soup' was boiled. It depends what you want - enchantment, or a knowledge of the writer, or even a greater knowledge of yourself. Of course, its possible that stages 2 & 3, may feed back into your experience of stage 1 'unconsciously' (but we can't know about that or the way it affects us , but we should try & avoid the stages blurring into one. whenever we read the book we should always try & read it fresh, as if we're travellers in that world, not see it as a 'quarry' for other things. As to the 'fractals' thing, that was really just an analogy to make a point, rather than an attempt to imply that fractals have anything to do with it. It would be very easy to get distracted from the direct experience of the story if we have that kind of baggage in mind as we read.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 05-24-2005 at 07:51 AM. |
|
05-24-2005, 12:07 PM | #16 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: And just to add context to the question, when I saw the documentary on Newton it immediately threw into sharp relief what had previously, to me, been a quite difficult to comprehend part of the story. I suddenly 'understood' exactly what Saruman had been doing or attempting to do. Or did I? Did I just apply that knowledge to what I was reading of this secondary world?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Last edited by Lalwendë; 05-24-2005 at 12:15 PM. |
||
09-16-2014, 07:39 PM | #17 | |
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
It's also interesting, reading some of the posts, that I have come to appreciate other positions. Most notably, Heren Istarion's point about Tolkien having been a major conduit through which he learned English. Although a born-and-bred English speaker (albeit of the prairie Canadian sub-dialect), I read Tolkien at a young enough age and reread him and reread him enough times that I don't I stand in an objective position at all when it comes to being pulled out of the art: the enchantment ISN'T, as a rule, broken for me, because it's become bound up in who I am. That said, nine years ago when last this thread walked the earth, I had a very queasy reaction to all this "goose-killing." Part of that, perhaps, was the reaction of a precocious 18-year-old to the possibility that people knew a lot more than him (it pains me no end to read old posts I have left, even knowing they were in the main well-received at the time), but it was also, I think, a case of a devotee fearing for the beloved. That gets us back into all sorts of previously-covered ground on this thread, but the interesting thing is that, by joining the Barrow-downs in the first place--and I joined for the Books discussion first and foremost, though other things came after--I was already subjecting Middle-earth to the scalpel. And in the years since, I have amassed a small collection (woefully incomplete) of academic-ese laden books about Middle-earth and even written in that vein myself. For a while, I think it DID make reading The Lord of the Rings a more arid experience. In other words, for a few years there (not coincidentally the same years I was previously most active on this forum), knowing too much about the context and the parallels and the movie mish-hashes and the Tumblr memes did, in fact, break the enchantment. But the enchantment has reasserted itself and become the richer. In other words, it's a disconcerting and jolting experience to realise you might have been growing up. By the same token, it turns out, Eighteen-year-old-Self, that growing up DOESN'T mean breaking the enchantment.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
|
|