No, you need to read and comprehend. That was a THEORY. - Edit 3
Before modification by RugbyPlayingAshaman at 02/12/2010 07:38:33 PM
Notice how that section starts by stating this is a theory, not a fact.
Anyway, further down:
"Criticism of the theory:
As in the examples of Superman's powers and Gary Larson's cartoon, it is unclear that suspension of disbelief correctly describes an audience's perception of art. If the theory were to be true, the individual events of suspension would appear to be highly selective. (It would appear that one chooses to suspend disbelief for the ability to fly, but not to suspend it for myopic co-workers.)
Aesthetic philosophers generally reject claims that suspension of disbelief accurately characterizes the relationship between people and "fictions." Kendall Walton notes that, if viewers were to truly suspend disbelief at a horror movie and accept its images as true, they would have a true-to-life set of reactions. For instance, audience members would cry out, "Look behind you!" to an endangered on-screen character or call the police when they witnessed an on-screen murder.[10] Tolkien, in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", offers the alternative paradigm of subcreation based on inner consistency of reality and secondary belief. Tolkien says that indeed the reader should in order for the narrative to work, chose to believe in the fiction he is reading - not willingly suspend his disbelief, but believe that the events are possible within the "secondary" world (the fictional world of the story). By focusing on how to create an internally consistent secondary world, the author becomes a sub-creator.
However, many of these criticisms simply fail to notice that Coleridge's original statement came in a restrictive clause. The formulation "...that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment which constitutes poetic faith," of necessity implies that there are different sorts of suspension of disbelief and specifies that poetic faith is one instance of a larger class. One need not choose to believe that a character in a horror film is a real person in order, for example, to choose to believe that the character is looking at the building seen in the following reverse-shot. More often than not, both beliefs would be equally false."
Which brings me back to my initial point; not everyone needs to "suspend their disbelief" and in terms of fantasy stories, its' often not necessary unless you take it seriously.
Personally, I think you are over-thinking this. When I watch a Disney movie, complete with song-and-dance numbers and magic, I'm not suspending anything. My imagination allows me to enjoy the story, characters and images because I approach it as a form of entertainment and artwork. They are obviously in a fantasy world so I don't see the need to reconcile how the real world works and what happens in a Disney movie - it's not that deep.
Anyway, further down:
"Criticism of the theory:
As in the examples of Superman's powers and Gary Larson's cartoon, it is unclear that suspension of disbelief correctly describes an audience's perception of art. If the theory were to be true, the individual events of suspension would appear to be highly selective. (It would appear that one chooses to suspend disbelief for the ability to fly, but not to suspend it for myopic co-workers.)
Aesthetic philosophers generally reject claims that suspension of disbelief accurately characterizes the relationship between people and "fictions." Kendall Walton notes that, if viewers were to truly suspend disbelief at a horror movie and accept its images as true, they would have a true-to-life set of reactions. For instance, audience members would cry out, "Look behind you!" to an endangered on-screen character or call the police when they witnessed an on-screen murder.[10] Tolkien, in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", offers the alternative paradigm of subcreation based on inner consistency of reality and secondary belief. Tolkien says that indeed the reader should in order for the narrative to work, chose to believe in the fiction he is reading - not willingly suspend his disbelief, but believe that the events are possible within the "secondary" world (the fictional world of the story). By focusing on how to create an internally consistent secondary world, the author becomes a sub-creator.
However, many of these criticisms simply fail to notice that Coleridge's original statement came in a restrictive clause. The formulation "...that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment which constitutes poetic faith," of necessity implies that there are different sorts of suspension of disbelief and specifies that poetic faith is one instance of a larger class. One need not choose to believe that a character in a horror film is a real person in order, for example, to choose to believe that the character is looking at the building seen in the following reverse-shot. More often than not, both beliefs would be equally false."
Which brings me back to my initial point; not everyone needs to "suspend their disbelief" and in terms of fantasy stories, its' often not necessary unless you take it seriously.
Personally, I think you are over-thinking this. When I watch a Disney movie, complete with song-and-dance numbers and magic, I'm not suspending anything. My imagination allows me to enjoy the story, characters and images because I approach it as a form of entertainment and artwork. They are obviously in a fantasy world so I don't see the need to reconcile how the real world works and what happens in a Disney movie - it's not that deep.