From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Who suspends disbelief? Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:48:41 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 15 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on potato.bti.cornell.edu) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.bti.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1011286121 1125 132.236.86.124 (17 Jan 2002 16:48:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jan 2002 16:48:41 GMT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72922 Now, if I recall aright, Tolkien did not write about "suspension of disbelief" as something *IMPOSED* by a work. Instead, he wrote about "willing suspension of disbelief" done by the perceiver. Can anybody point out to me just how it is that critical work that is not packed right into the work of fiction somehow mars such WILLING suspension of disbelief? Or am I really the only one not so stupid as to be unable to simply set these things aside in order to willingly suspend disbelief and enjoy the work? -- "A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right." ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:33:14 +0200 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-a059.otenet.gr X-Trace: usenet.otenet.gr 1011292423 26416 212.205.240.59 (17 Jan 2002 18:33:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:33:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!skynet.be!skynet.be!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72970 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message news:bjm10-CCF7DE.11484117012002@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu... > > Can anybody > point out to me just how it is that critical work that is not packed > right into the work of fiction somehow mars such WILLING suspension of > disbelief? It may be just that I'm not a native English speaker but I can't understand this sentence. "Critical work not packed right into the work of fiction"? > Or am I really the only one not so stupid as to be unable to simply set > these things aside I find that stupidity or intelligence has little to do with suspension of disbelief, willing or not. Occasionally it's just nastiness of a similar sort to the one that says "Wizards and Elves don't exist, so it's foolish to have stories about them." E.g. when people complain why did Saruman not blast the Eagle with his staff when he can create a storm many miles away it seems to me to be that they are *trying* to find fault with the movie. Aris Katsaris ###### From: jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Message-ID: <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 12 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:52:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.109.100.252 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 1011293465 24.109.100.252 (Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:51:05 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:51:05 MST Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy1!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73012 On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:33:14 +0200, "Aris Katsaris" wrote, in part: >It may be just that I'm not a native English speaker but I can't understand >this sentence. "Critical work not packed right into the work of fiction"? I think he's trying to say that a derisory comment that there are no such things as Elves won't spoil anyone's enjoyment of Tolkien, as long as it's not said by one of the characters in the book. John Savard http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html ###### From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:04:30 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 23 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on potato.bti.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.bti.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1011297871 15001 132.236.86.124 (17 Jan 2002 20:04:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jan 2002 20:04:31 GMT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.syr.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72890 In article <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com>, jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:33:14 +0200, "Aris Katsaris" > wrote, in part: > > >It may be just that I'm not a native English speaker but I can't > >understand > >this sentence. "Critical work not packed right into the work of > >fiction"? > > I think he's trying to say that a derisory comment that there are no > such things as Elves won't spoil anyone's enjoyment of Tolkien, as > long as it's not said by one of the characters in the book. That's an example of it, although I don't mean "critical" just to mean derogatory. I also mean things like the compilations of Tolkien's notes, rough drafts, etc. The public accessability of these (and even my reading of them) does not harm my ability to willingly suspend disbelief when reading the stories in their "final" forms. -- "A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right." ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:42:08 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.7e X-Server-Date: 17 Jan 2002 21:41:23 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73119 Aris Katsaris wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message >news:bjm10-CCF7DE.11484117012002@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu... >> >> Can anybody >> point out to me just how it is that critical work that is not packed >> right into the work of fiction somehow mars such WILLING suspension of >> disbelief? > >It may be just that I'm not a native English speaker but I can't understand >this sentence. "Critical work not packed right into the work of fiction"? It's not you. I _am_ a native English speaker, and I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say. I'm guilty of similar sins: I tend to make my sentences so convoluted that nobody can figure out what I mean. I'm trying to stop doing that. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site) Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: robin@ratnest.demon.co.uk (Bob) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:35:54 GMT Organization: self Message-ID: References: <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ratnest.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: ratnest.demon.co.uk:158.152.144.86 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1011310554 nnrp-12:984 NO-IDENT ratnest.demon.co.uk:158.152.144.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Lines: 17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!ratnest.demon.co.uk!user Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73042 In article <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com>, jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote: > I think he's trying to say that a derisory comment that there are no > such things as Elves won't spoil anyone's enjoyment of Tolkien, as > long as it's not said by one of the characters in the book. > (muse mode) Do you think that if they had it would have had the same effect as in Peter Pan? Sauron would never have needed a ring if all he'd have to do was get his army to shout "I don't believe in Elves!" over and over. Bit of a crappy story though. Bob ###### From: address@bottom.of.message (Jamie Andrews) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: 18 Jan 2002 03:54:25 GMT Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Canada Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mccarthy.csd.uwo.ca X-Trace: panther.uwo.ca 1011326065 26805 129.100.11.249 (18 Jan 2002 03:54:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@julian.uwo.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2002 03:54:25 GMT Originator: andrews@csd.uwo.ca Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!csd.uwo.ca!andrews Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72938 In article , Bryan J. Maloney wrote: >> I think he's trying to say that a derisory comment that there are no >> such things as Elves won't spoil anyone's enjoyment of Tolkien, as >> long as it's not said by one of the characters in the book. >That's an example of it, although I don't mean "critical" just to mean >derogatory. I also mean things like the compilations of Tolkien's >notes, rough drafts, etc. The public accessability of these (and even >my reading of them) does not harm my ability to willingly suspend >disbelief when reading the stories in their "final" forms. OK, I think I understand you better now too. One of my friends said that he could never take _LOTR_ seriously again after having read _Bored of the Rings_. I never understood that; I had read both and still loved _LOTR_. I think it was Chesterton who came up with the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief". What Tolkien says in "On Fairy-Stories" is closer to the mark, IMHO; he says What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator". He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken.... [pg. 36-37 of my edition of _Tree and Leaf_] And later: To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art.... [ibid., pg. 46] So, according to Tolkien, it isn't so much just suspension of disbelief as Secondary Belief set up with the aid of a skilled author. I don't see any reason why the availability of parody and criticism should impair our ability to set up the Secondary Belief that Tolkien encouraged in us in _LOTR_. However, for some people I guess it could be different. I remember reading one book (_Oscar and Lucinda_, by Peter Carey) and for some reason becoming more and more aware of the author as the creator of the world in which the characters lived, and even feeling that the author was malicious or manipulative toward the characters. That turned me off so much and "broke the spell" of the book so much that I couldn't finish it, even though other people I knew had no problem finishing it, and kind of thought my reasons for not finishing it were a bit kooky. I guess some people might have the same reaction after having read _HoME_: that they are too aware of the mechanics of the writing and how it changed in draft to be able anymore to be swept away by the story and to set up a Secondary Belief. I haven't read all of _HoME_, but what I have read hasn't seemed to impair the Secondary Belief for me. --Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita) andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address. @csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.) ###### From: "Lurker@home" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Lines: 43 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 06:34:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.114.165 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: typhoon.socal.rr.com 1011335647 66.75.114.165 (Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:34:07 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:34:07 PST Organization: RoadRunner - California Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!typhoon.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73074 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message news:bjm10-CCF7DE.11484117012002@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu... > > > Now, if I recall aright, Tolkien did not write about "suspension of > disbelief" as something *IMPOSED* by a work. Instead, he wrote about > "willing suspension of disbelief" done by the perceiver. Can anybody > point out to me just how it is that critical work that is not packed > right into the work of fiction somehow mars such WILLING suspension of > disbelief? > > Or am I really the only one not so stupid as to be unable to simply set > these things aside in order to willingly suspend disbelief and enjoy the > work? > Amen. I think the key is to enjoy and critique simultaneously. You take the ride AND you enjoy your observation of how the roller-coaster is designed, AND you accept the inevitable conclusion that the engineers didn't do a perfect job. If you do it right, the observations and conclusions add to the experience. Sure the movie is flawed. Sure it presents about a third of the written story's content and almost none of its joy, while adding maybe ten percent that isn't in the book at all. I went in expecting that, and expecting to enjoy what I did see. I could ( and may ) critique it all day. I'll also line up to grab the video as soon as it's out, because with all its flaws this is one fabulous movie. For me the suspension of disbelief is natural, not imposed by the work and not premeditated on my part. Everybody likes a good yarn. I think it's not up to the work to impose the suspension of disbelief, so much as to avoid disrupting what's already there. That may be the key. Some people are jangled out of the charm more easily than others. I feel sorry for 'em because they miss a lot. I also envy 'em, because their sensibilities may operate on a higher plane than mine. But maybe not. I once played a game of chess with the board balanced on a freeway K-rail, and I have friends who break concentration if somebody walks through the room where they're playing. So -- maybe I only THINK I'm missing something. ###### From: Bryan Maloney Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: 18 Jan 2002 14:07:03 GMT Organization: Flarg Wa Zoo Lines: 32 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on syr-24-58-37-210.twcny.rr.com) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: syr-24-58-37-210.twcny.rr.com X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1011362823 24213 24.58.37.210 (18 Jan 2002 14:07:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2002 14:07:03 GMT User-Agent: Xnews/4.06.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73014 "Lurker@home" wrote in news:zlP18.30567$ql6.7967702@typhoon.socal.rr.com: > Sure the movie is flawed. Sure it presents about a third of the written > story's content and almost none of its joy, while adding maybe ten > percent that isn't in the book at all. I went in expecting that, and > expecting to enjoy what I did see. I could ( and may ) critique it all > day. I'll also line up to grab the video as soon as it's out, because > with all its flaws this is one fabulous movie. Actually, I was talking about the existence of things like "History of Middle Earth" being around with all their nasssssssty, nassssssty background notes, unfinished versions, abandoned avenues, revisions, etc. That there once was supposed to be a proto-English sailor named Aelfwin who got all this material to England and then it later became Bilbo who transcribed the material into the "Red Book", and Aelfwin simply stopped existing and stopped ever having had existed as far as Middle Earth were concerned doesn't disturb my ability to suspend disbelief. That Sindarin used to be Noldorin, and that Noldorin was descended from "Gnomish" likewise doesn't cause me fits, even though "Gnomish" never existed at all in Middle Earth. -- "Why then did the passengers on the plane that went down near Pittsburgh decide to resist the hijackers and prevent them from completing their mission? Because they knew: their relatives had told them by cell phone that the World Trade Center had already been attacked by hijacked planes. They were armed with final awareness of the nature of the evil they faced. So armed, they could act. So armed, they did." --Time Magazine ###### From: Bryan Maloney Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: 18 Jan 2002 14:10:12 GMT Organization: Flarg Wa Zoo Lines: 52 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on syr-24-58-37-210.twcny.rr.com) Message-ID: References: <3c471d4d.944895@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: syr-24-58-37-210.twcny.rr.com X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1011363012 24213 24.58.37.210 (18 Jan 2002 14:10:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2002 14:10:12 GMT User-Agent: Xnews/4.06.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73019 address@bottom.of.message (Jamie Andrews) wrote in news:a2869h$q5l$1@panther.uwo.ca: > OK, I think I understand you better now too. One of my > friends said that he could never take _LOTR_ seriously again > after having read _Bored of the Rings_. I never understood > that; I had read both and still loved _LOTR_. Ah, the fellow must be a bit of a Sorehead about the whole thing, I'd say. Even Tolkien (I should say Especially Tolkien) made it plain that the "secondary creation" can (and should) be considered as a matter separate from those fragments of the "primary creation" that went into its--creation. > To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be > credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require > labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, > a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. > But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished > then we have a rare achievement of Art.... [ibid., pg. 46] > > So, according to Tolkien, it isn't so much just suspension of > disbelief as Secondary Belief set up with the aid of a skilled > author. I don't see any reason why the availability of parody Sort of--and, as you imply, it's not the author who *creates* the suspension disbelief (which far too many people believe), but either *aids* or *hinders* it. > However, for some people I guess it could be different. > I remember reading one book (_Oscar and Lucinda_, by Peter > Carey) and for some reason becoming more and more aware of the > author as the creator of the world in which the characters > lived, and even feeling that the author was malicious or > manipulative toward the characters. That turned me off so much > and "broke the spell" of the book so much that I couldn't finish > it, even though other people I knew had no problem finishing it, > and kind of thought my reasons for not finishing it were a bit kooky. Sign of an incompetent author, I'd say--unless he were intending this in a Brechtian manner. -- "Why then did the passengers on the plane that went down near Pittsburgh decide to resist the hijackers and prevent them from completing their mission? Because they knew: their relatives had told them by cell phone that the World Trade Center had already been attacked by hijacked planes. They were armed with final awareness of the nature of the evil they faced. So armed, they could act. So armed, they did." --Time Magazine ###### From: Umbar@umbar.org (Umbar) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Date: 18 Jan 2002 11:04:17 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 14 Message-ID: <8421d14c.0201181104.30151769@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.64.191.187 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1011380658 25120 127.0.0.1 (18 Jan 2002 19:04:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2002 19:04:18 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73054 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message > Now, if I recall aright, Tolkien did not write about "suspension of > disbelief" as something *IMPOSED* by a work. Instead, he wrote about > "willing suspension of disbelief" done by the perceiver. Can anybody > point out to me just how it is that critical work that is not packed > right into the work of fiction somehow mars such WILLING suspension of > disbelief? Have you got any examples of people who actually think that, or is this just a straw man of your own invention? Regards, Umbar ###### Lines: 6 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: topewok@aol.com (Top Ewok) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 21 Jan 2002 23:04:30 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Who suspends disbelief? Message-ID: <20020121180430.15058.00004011@mb-ba.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nnxp1.twtelecom.net!news-east.rr.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73793 Middle Earth doesn't require suspension of disbelief. Now Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman." that's a SoD situation. :)