The willing suspension of disbelief

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> > > Since several posters on the main list are discussing the 
willing suspension of disbelief <snip>, I thought I'd bring up the
original context of the phrase from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's
"Biographia Literaria." <snip>

> bboyminn:
> 
> This read very similar to the attitude I've always had. When ever
someone come across a seeming error or inconsistency in the books,
they can take one of two paths. One is to assume it is literally a
mistake and that it is wrong wrong wrong and no explanation can ever
alter that. My position is to assume there is an explanation, but we
simply didn't see it, didn't understand it, or it is off-page but
there and real none the less. <snip>
 
> For example, Ron suddenly knowing that Draco has the Hand of
> Glory. <snip>
> 
> I choose to suspend disbelief in the sense that I choose to believe
that a non-existent world does exist and that there are laws of
science and reason that govern it. In making that choice, by
extention, anything that happens in the world does have an explanation
even if I don't know what it is. <snip>

Carol responds:

Well, yes and no. 

Yes, your choosing "to believe that a non-existent world does exist"
is an example of "the willing suspension of disbelief . . . that
constitutes poetic faith," which is a temporary suspension of our
disbelief in what we know to be unreal (or even impossible in the
world as we know it) so that we can react to these unreal things as we
read about them as if they were really happening.

But, no, your personal belief that "there are laws of science and
reason that govern [the nonexistent world]" has nothing to do with the
willing suspension of disbelief as Coleridge defines it. I was trying
to make clear that the concept has nothing to do with being jarred by
seeming inconsistencies (or Flints) or even lapses in verisimilitude
like the ones that Betsy perceives related to the Gringotts break-in.
It's the rational reader allowing himself or herself to believe for
the moment in the supernatural (if we're reading Coleridge's poems) or
magic (if we're reading the HP books) or in Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves,
Orcs, and Balrogs (as well as wandless magic and the power of the
spoken word and a number of other aspects of a Middle Earth before all
the lands were changed in LOTR) or in wands, Wizards, Witches and a
Wizarding World within our own mundane Muggle world (in the HP books).
We've willingly suspended our disbelief long before Hagrid taps on a
brick with his umbrella and enters Diagon Alley with Harry, and we
continue to suspend it for the entire series (which is a whole lot
longer than anything Coleridge had in mind when he wrote the lyrical
ballads!) 

That is, the willing suspension of disbelief is supposed to last as
long as it takes to read the work in question, or part of it (a
lyrical ballad or a few chapters of HP or LOTR), enabling us to feel
the emotions we would feel (terror or horror in the case of
"Christabel"--that is, terror *for* Christabel and horror and
revulsion *at* Geraldine) if the situation were real and we were
forced to watch it helplessly. Or consider Frodo facing Shelob or
Harry with Bathilda!Nagini for a similar situation. (What *is* this
fixation with female monsters or monstrous female characters?) It's
what enables us to experience an unreal situation (being chased by
Inferi, for example, or even a Quidditch game) as if it were real. 

Anyway, the willing suspension of disbelief (which, for some of us HP
fans, extends far beyond the act of reading to our daily lives because
these characters inhabit our souls) has nothing to do with believing
that HBP!Ron somehow knew about the Hand of Glory, which is
inconsistent with information found elsewhere in the series (CoS).
(You can supply explanations for it that satisfy you; I can't. To me,
it's just a Flint, JKR forgetting to check her "facts.") When I
encounter a detail like that, for which I'm forced to find an
explanation, whether I succeed or not, I'm not suspending my
disbelief. I'm jarred out of a world that I still "believe" in because
of an inconsistency that amounts to a flaw in the books. I still
suspend my disbelief in the WW and Harry and Ron and Draco as I would
with any set of fictional characters in an imaginary world that
interests me even when a particular inconsistency momentarily jars me
into thinking that that particular detail is an error, but I have to
shake off the annoyance of that flaw in the writing (check your facts,
pleas, JKR!) before I return to the books.

So, to summarize: "Believing" in the WW and Hogwarts and HRH and Snape
and Dumbledore and Dementors and Inferi and Vanishing Cabinets, and
experiencing the associated emotions, especially being terrified by
things that we know don't exist (a potion to resurrect Vapormort
involving blood, flesh, and bone, for example) is the willing
suspension of disbelief. A moment of skepticism because of a flaw in
verisimilitude (*That* wouldn't happen! or *that's* not right!) is not
the same thing, whether we suppress our skepticism and continue
reading (my way) or find an explanation) your way. 

Think about your emotions on reading DH. If you were caught up in the
excitement and the despair and the terror and the exhilaration, if you
cheered for Neville when he slew Nagini with a Sword that came to him
out of a Sorting Hat magically summoned by Voldemort and felt terror
and pity for Ron as he confronted Locket!Tom, you were suspending your
disbelief in the manner that Coleridge had in mind.

Carol, hoping that she has clarified the concept