Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gban007" data-source="post: 9071534" data-attributes="member: 56488">I just fundamentally disagree that Tolkien is describing a technique, what he is describing it appears is what all authors describing new worlds are striving for - to make a world as such that a reader is swept into, feels immersed in, rather than feeling that just reading something.&nbsp; It isn't a technique, but a goal, and the goal isn't simulationism but striving for immersion.&quot;“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. &quot;Where is the technique there?&nbsp; As an author he has to create the laws of that world, where is the technique to make people believe in them?&nbsp; The only piece that seems to be a technique at all is 'inside it, what he relates is true' - which reinforces to my mind my prior point, that the author of the lightning destroying the house related it, so it must be true.&nbsp; His statement doesn't address your point there where you say there is that moment of discovery - as an author he would have met that moment of discovery many times, and had to &quot;discover&quot; the world-laws as he went, and he doesn't describe the technique for how he addressed that.&nbsp; &nbsp; As a reader we don't see that process, we get the outcome, and accept it unless we see something that triggers disbelief, and I think he does well with his writing to make a great story that doesn't trigger disbelief / maintains suspension of disbelief and immersion, but some authors who strive for the same thing fail, and not through not meeting his statement, they likely strived for the same thing, but failed, as there was no technique outlined for them to successfully follow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gban007, post: 9071534, member: 56488"] I just fundamentally disagree that Tolkien is describing a technique, what he is describing it appears is what all authors describing new worlds are striving for - to make a world as such that a reader is swept into, feels immersed in, rather than feeling that just reading something. It isn't a technique, but a goal, and the goal isn't simulationism but striving for immersion. "“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. " Where is the technique there? As an author he has to create the laws of that world, where is the technique to make people believe in them? The only piece that seems to be a technique at all is 'inside it, what he relates is true' - which reinforces to my mind my prior point, that the author of the lightning destroying the house related it, so it must be true. His statement doesn't address your point there where you say there is that moment of discovery - as an author he would have met that moment of discovery many times, and had to "discover" the world-laws as he went, and he doesn't describe the technique for how he addressed that. As a reader we don't see that process, we get the outcome, and accept it unless we see something that triggers disbelief, and I think he does well with his writing to make a great story that doesn't trigger disbelief / maintains suspension of disbelief and immersion, but some authors who strive for the same thing fail, and not through not meeting his statement, they likely strived for the same thing, but failed, as there was no technique outlined for them to successfully follow. [/QUOTE]

Verification