You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[davem]

Firstly, I want to apologise for including two long quotes - though the second may be of interest to Downers, as it is from an essay by Tolkien on Smith of Wooton Major, which has just been published for the first time in a new edition of Smith edited by Verlyn Flieger.

The first quote is from ‘Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell’ by Susanna Clarke:

The camp was a dreary, silent place. A thick snow was falling and the strange soldiers lay, wrapped in their black cloaks, upon the snowy ground. At first the young women thought the soldiers must be dead - an impression which was strengthened by the great multitude of ravens and other black birds which had settled over the camp, and indeed upon the prostrate forms of the soldiers themselves - yet the soldiers were not dead; from time to time one would stir himself and go attend to his horse, or brush a bird away if it tried to peck at his face.
At the approach of the young women a soldier got to his feet. One of the women shook off her fears and went up to him and kissed him on the mouth.
His skin was very pale (it shone like moonlight) and entirely without blemish. His hair was long and straight like a fall of dark brown water. The bones of his face were unnaturally fine and strong. The expression of the face was solemn. His blue eyes were long and slanting and his brows were as fine and dark as pen strokes with a curious flourish at the end. None of this worried the girl in the least. For all she knew every Dane, Scot and Frenchman ever born is eerily beautiful.
He took well enough to the kiss and allowed her to kiss him again. Then he paid her back in kind. Another soldier rose from the ground and opened his mouth. Out of it came a sad, wailing sort ofrnusic. The first soldier- the one the girl had kissed - began to coax her to dance with him, pushing her this way and that with his long white fingers until she was dancing in a fashion to suit him.
This went on for some time until she became heated with the dance and paused for a moment to take off her cloak. Then her companions saw that drops of blood, like beads of sweat, were forming on her arms, face and legs, and falling on to the snow. This sight terrified them and so they ran away. The strange army never entered Allendale. It rode on in the night towards Carlisle. The next day the townspeople went cautiously up to the fields where the army had camped. There they found the girl, her body entirely white and drained of blood while the snow around her was stained bright red.
By these signs they recognised the Daoine Sidhe - the Fairy Host.
These are the Fairies of ‘British’ Tradition - English, Welsh, Scottish & Irish. These Fairies are dangerous, contemptuous of Man. They are called the ‘Good People’ in Ireland, not because they are good, but in order to placate them.

In ballads like Tam Lin a human is captured by the Fairies & made to serve them. Tam Lin is rescued by his love, the Fair Janet, & when the Fairy Queen discovers this she spits out angrily that if she had known of the lovers’ plan she would have removed Tam Lin’s eyes & heart & replaced them with stones.

In another Ballad, Thomas the Rhymer, Thomas is taken to Elfland by the Queen, where he serves her for seven years & is rewarded with a coat of velvet green & the gift of the ‘Tongue that cannot lie’ (ie prophecy). Interestingly this ballad is based on an actual Scottish prophet, Thomas of Erceldoune, who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce & William Wallace, & to whom are attributed many genuine prophecies. Thomas comes off well in comparison to Tam Lin, retaining access to Faerie - indeed it is said that he didn’t die, but passed into Faerie & dwells there still. Another example of such a real person who passed into Faerie rather than dying & still dwells there is the 17th century Reverend Robert Kirk, author of ‘The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies’, a major work of fairy lore. Celtic myth & English folklore is replete with tales of dangerous Fairies, who threaten humans - even killing them with ‘elf-shot’. A few people are taken in by Fairies, but the majority of ordinary people kept a safe distance - if they could.

Now to Tolkien. As I said, this quote is from the Smith Essay:

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them. avert evil from them and have relations with them, especially through certain men and women whom they find suitable. They, the Elvenfolk, are thus 'beneficent' with regard to Men, and are not wholly alien, though many things and creatures in Faery itself are alien to Men and even actively hostile. Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships betWeen the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies e spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive. The Apprentice relation in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of faery himself COmes and serves as an apprentice in the village...

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.


Of course, Tolkien stated (in ‘On Fairy Stories’) that Faerie is a perilous realm, with ‘dungeons for the overbold’. Yet, even in Smith, which the story of his most concerned with traditional Faerie & its inhabitants, there is none of the Fairy cruelty & malice which we see in the traditional tales (or in Clarke’s story). Tolkien’s Faeries in SoWM are compassionate beings concerned with human welfare, & who are willing to make sacrifices to aid humans. They are motivated by love & desire to liberate Men from ‘the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered ’. In short, Tolkien’s faeries are (just as his Elves) a unique creation. Of course, the Legendarium Elves are dangerous, but not in the traditional way. Tolkien stated in one of the Letters that they area an aspect of the ‘human’. They are dangerous in the way that human beings may be dangerous - proud, violent, conceited - but in a human way, not a traditional fairy way. They are human beings depicted in sharp relief, with human failings writ large. None of the Legendarium Elves would (or could) do what Clarke’s Fairies did.

That is not to say that the Faeries Smith meets are all ‘sweetness & light’ - the Elven mariners are terrifying figures who leave Smith cowering - but they are not malicious - malice is not part of their nature. They are either unconcerned with humanity or they are on the side of Man. In short, traditional Fairies are incapable of human emotions like love while Tolkien’s faeries are motivated by that emotion than any other.

Tolkien’s Faeries desire to awaken Men to the beauty & strangeness of the natural world (without, as Tolkien says, having any ‘religious’ motives - ‘The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton.’ they are not ‘angels or emissaries of God’.

So, while Tolkien’s Faeries wish to re-awaken a love of, & sense of oneness with, the natural world, traditional Fairies are a manifestation of its wildness, terror & fearsomeness - they make the natural world a place of fear & are a constant threat to humans who stray there, & a terror to humans who go in fear of their intrusion. We may dream of meeting one of Tolkien’s Faeries in the woods, but meeting one of Clarke’s traditional Fairies is more the stuff of nightmare.

So, what was behind Tolkien’s changing of these traditional creatures from malicious to beneficent beings? SoWM was the last story Tolkien published, & I can’t help wondering about the evolution of Galadriel here - she became increasingly ‘sanctified’, increasingly ‘purged of the gross’ in the post LotR writings. Why? Why take traditional beings & alter them so radically? In Appendix F to LotR Tolkien states that he chose the traditional word ‘Elves’ to refer to his Eldar, as that was the closest word he could find in modern usage. He could not really claim this about his use of ‘Faeries’ in SoWM. Here he takes figures from legend & changes them totally.

Was he simply playing fast & loose with tradition, or was there more to it?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Excellent topic for discussion, davem! Tolkien did change the Elves from what they were in folk tradition, but I think that is something that frequently happens in literature. Literature is the product of its author, so s/he is entitled to make changes to influences that have been adapted, in order to fulfil the author's purpose in the story.

There are numerous examples of that in connection with fairies: the Grimm brothers did not only collect fairy tales, they changed them in the process, doing more than simply recording their findings. Whether that resulted in enrichment or loss (probably some of both) is a matter of opinion, of course.

Worse in my eyes is the popular transformation of fairies to diminutive flower spirits, with no power and little or no influence on humans. I cringe when I see those little winged sprites in decoration shops - cute, but stripped of all meaning. However, like Nokes' Fairy Queen on the Great Cake, Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all. For some the only glimpse. For some the awaking.

Another literary version occurs to me, written by another Oxford professor many years earlier - Sylvie and Bruno. Tolkien read and admired Lewis Carroll's story of fairy children (though I must admit I much prefer the Alice stories, which Tolkien didn't like much). These fairies are benevolent - Bruno may be mischievous, but never malicious, and it's all in a spirit of childlike innocence. Sylvie is positively angelic, though not in a lofty sense, but also with innocence. If Tolkien used the Elves to illustrate a side of humanity, Carroll showed the childlike side that exists even in grownup humans. (By the way, his comments in the preface to Sylvie and Bruno show how strong the Christian influence was for him as well.)

It's all in the leafmould, as Tolkien himself once suggested. The influences are seen and felt, fertilizing and enriching the author's work. But that does not mean that the ensuing plant must be the same kind of leaf - it will grow to be something completely new.

Whether the changes Tolkien made to the Elves, especially Galadriel, would be considered "sanctified" to a Christian or spoiled to a fan of the folk tales is a matter of interpretation - unless, of course, we want to start arguing about the canonicity of traditional fairy stories! ;)

[HerenIstarion]

The change in perception of 'fairies' must have something to do with the change in general outlook [of Western society] - whatever his tastes, Tolkien was the son of his time, and general 'fear of the unknown' of the previous centuries was largely replaced by 'curiosity of the unknown' in XIX and XX centuries (we are talking Europe and the West in general here, and especially as a hangover of WWI and WWII in the intelligentsia, not politicians). I don't intend to say the phenomenon of 'fear' is eliminated - War of the Worlds type of stories and general mode of depicting 'aliens' since Wells say otherwise, but it is undeniable that 'scientific' interest as a phenomenon of two previous centuries must have played its role too.

What do I ramble about is not yet finally clear to myself, but vaguely, some idea of 'broadened horizons' and 'embracing diversity' (In spite and even 'thanks to' two world wars Tolkien was a witness of) hovers by the back of my head. 'See a stranger - fear a stranger - hate a stranger' sequence is a natural human reaction, but in last two centuries it was paralleled by the uprise of 'see a stranger - are curious about a stranger - start to learn stranger - know stranger - love stranger' sequence.

During much of 20th century, and much of Tolkien's lifetime (especially during the period of his 'late writings') the main characteristic of the whole world's life was opposition of two 'superpowers', divided mainly by ideological, but economically so, considerations. It was perceivable (and was thus perceived) that 'morally' liberalism and marxsism are not far apart (indeed, being products of the same culture).

With the break up of Soviet Union, new division of the world by 'cultural characteristics' is bound to strengthen 'fear the stranger' sequence (Indeed, it has already done so)

What follows is my assumption that likelihood of [Western] writers taking hostile creatures of the folklore and making them friendly is less likely now than it was in the period after WWII, when differences in culture were not counted as much as differences in [largely economic] ideologies were. [but are now to far greater extent]

I know the whole issue is round-about way to come to the haven, but it seems to me every aspect of our life affects us and how we perceive things.

I consciously abstain from mentioning Tolkien's faith here - indeed, people who in previous centuries depicted 'fairies' as malicious beings were, presumably, no less devout Christians than Tolkien was.

[davem]

I think what partiularly interests me is that Tolkien set SoWM in a very 'medieval' world, & in that period of our history Faeries/Fairies were generally feared & seen as malicious & dangerous - they stole humans to serve as slaves - yet they would also bestow 'powers' on chosen humans. There is a whole tradition of human-Fairy marriages & of human magicians taking fairy 'allies' (see Kirk).

The point is that Tolkien's Fairies/Elves are totally unlike traditional Fairies/Elves - there is no traditional 'backing' for his representation. Yet in the Smith essay he writes as though his depiction is correct & traditional. The essay reads oddly - at some points he is clearly speaking only of the 'Faerie' of his invented world, at other points it seems like he is speaking of the Faerie of tradition & legend while at other points still it is as if (as in the last part of the quote I gave) he is using 'Faerie'/Faeries' as a 'philosophical' metaphor.

Sorry -too rushed & I don't have the essay with me. Will come back to this later.

[Lalwendë]

I think where the difference lies as a whole is that Tolkien's Elves are not fairies, faeries, elves or pixies. They are Elves and are drawn from Scandinavian myth. As such, they are similar to humans, but are somehow superhuman, almost a representation of perfection. They are drawn from an idea that Elves are noble beings, beautiful and even take an interest in humans.

Faeries are different. The idea of a Faery/Fairy as a sinister and untrustworthy being comes from a different root; they are linked to the idea of boggarts, leprechauns and sprites and are a staple of British folklore.

At some point, perceptions of the two (drawn from different cultures) became combined, possibly when Shakespeare created his Fairies which seem to have characteristics of both ideas - and this was further embedded with the Victorian interchangeability between Elf and Fairy (and Pixie and Sprite...). When Tolkien (and I have to note he was not alone in doing this) 'reclaimed' Elves and made them noble beings once again he made them different to Fairies once again. And they've remained much that way ever since, with Tolkien style Elves seemingly a 'staple' in fantasy literature. I see that what Susanna Clarke has done is a similar thing for Fairies, 'restoring' them back to their more sinister origins.

Where Tolkien uses Faeries in SOWM he is using figures very like his own Elves, but the tale is written as though it is a remnant from our own world - maybe this is why he uses the word 'Faeries'? To try to link the tale to our own world? Or is he trying to distance the story of SOWM from the stories of Arda?

His Elves are clearly his own interpretation of what beings from the Otherworld might be like, developed from his own ideals of Faerie and his readings of Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon mythology and literature. His creations are so powerful that many readers will now also perceive Faerie to be similar to his vision. Others may not share this however; I know that I perceive Faerie/The Otherworld to be quite distinct from Tolkien’s creations.

What interests me is why Fairies were ever perceived as dangerous. The natural world at one time presented greater dangers than it does today; it still does present great dangers but we have distanced ourselves from it. In order to keep children from the very real dangers of Wolves, Boars and strangers in the woods, it would be wise to prevent them from wanting to go there. With the coming of organised religion it would also be in the interests of those in power to make people even more afraid of The Otherworld. Coupled with a close relationship with the capricious natural world stories of sinister Fairies might be entirely natural to us as humans.

Yet Fairies are also enticing creatures. I think this might be due to the need to believe that as humans we are not alone. We also have Angels who fulfil this need, and in the modern age, Aliens, who are sometimes kindly, sometimes sinister. All these creatures, including Tolkien’s Elves share characteristics. They are all either unnaturally tall or diminutive, they are depicted with large, luminous eyes, either great beauty or ugliness, and they have either qualities of light or darkness.

[davem]

I think where the difference lies as a whole is that Tolkien's Elves are not fairies, faeries, elves or pixies. They are Elves and are drawn from Scandinavian myth. As such, they are similar to humans, but are somehow superhuman, almost a representation of perfection. They are drawn from an idea that Elves are noble beings, beautiful and even take an interest in humans.

I'm not sure that the Norse Alfar were percieved as 'noble' - any more than the Celtic Sidhe. They were (or could appear) beautiful, but they were indifferent, at best, to human moral codes & values - which is not to say they didn't have a moral value system of their own.

Where Tolkien uses Faeries in SOWM he is using figures very like his own Elves, but the tale is written as though it is a remnant from our own world - maybe this is why he uses the word 'Faeries'? To try to link the tale to our own world? Or is he trying to distance the story of SOWM from the stories of Arda?

This is waht puzzled me - if he was trying to tie the world of SoWM into our own world - which I think he was, but in a particular way - then why present us with such non-traditional creatures? Its possible that he was using Faerie/Faeries as metaphors for nature, for Art, for natural religion, or some such- yet that would make them exactly the kind of 'allegory' which Tolkien denies them to be: he will allow an 'allegorical' interpretation of the human world of SoWM, but not of the Faerie world. In this context there is the very interesting statement:

The Apprentice relation in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of faery himself COmes and serves as an apprentice in the village...

In other words, Tolkien seems to be saying that Men should be in the subservient position with regard to Elves/Faeries - they should be the 'apprentices'. This implies a kin of 'hierarchy' where Men come below Elves/Faeries. Not only does this go against the traditional ideas of the Faerie's lack of human emotions like love, compassion & empathy it also sits ill with the Christian belief that (redeemed) Men stand even above the angels.

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct).... Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk.

This relationship of Men & Faeries is odd. In the Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer Thomas is brought by the fFairy Queen to Three Roads - one leads to Heaven, one to Hell & one to 'Fair Elfland'. In other words, Faerie is neither Heaven, hell nor earth, but a fourth place/state. Faeries are not (as Tolkien states in the essay) neither angels nor emissaries of God. They are not demons (their motivation is love - of Men & of the natural, God- created, world. Obviously, they are not humans, either - yet humans should be subject to them, be their 'apprentices'. This may be similar to the situation in the Legendarium, where Men, the 'Followers' are in a similar position as regards the Eldar, who they will eventually replace, but it is odd that Tolkien seeks to bring this idea into the world of SoWM - a world, as Lalwende states, is so very similar to our own world of the medieval period.

Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships betWeen the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies the spirit of possession and domination......Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.

These beings are not part of Christian doctrine, & fit nowhere into the Christian cosmology/cosmography. The role they seem to play is not that attributed to either angels or saints in Christianity. Their role seems to be to teach (or rea-awaken) a love for & sense of kinship with the natural world, but at the same time to liberate us from any feelings of 'familiarity' (breeder of contempt) as regards nature. Their task is to awaken us to the otherness of nature, to its beauty & peril & most importantly to its strangeness. It is a place of mystery, yet it is on the doorstep - Wooton Major stands at the edge of the forest & Tolkien suggests that Smith's wife & daughter were both elf-friends & wanderers in 'outer-Faerie'.

All those things the Fairies of tradition may have done - but along with them they did something else - they made the natural world a place of terror, a place to be avoided. It was their realm & humans entered at their peril. There is an echo of that in Doriath & Lorien, but the 'Elven inhabitants of those realms were effectively beautiful, noble, immortal humans, not beings who were wholly 'other' as were the Fairies of tradition.

Don't know where I'm going with this, but the more I consider it the more interesting Tolkien's 'Faeries' become...

[drigel]

I always am facinated by this topic! IMO it's a study of time and perception, and how it effects both mortals and immortals. It's also a study of Bliss without religion.

They are Elves and are drawn from Scandinavian myth. As such, they are similar to humans, but are somehow superhuman, almost a representation of perfection. They are drawn from an idea that Elves are noble beings, beautiful and even take an interest in humans
The author clearly used a broad palatte to draw from. I usually think of it as an evolutionary process. But, I think in my mind, I try too often to draw up a "unifying priciple" when it comes to this subject. Clearly, as their involvement in the physical world diminished, the desire, or the recognition of love from men towards fairy, became less pronounced. Or more rare, shall we say. And, of course, as history shows, what we dont understand or cant comprehend we often refer to the sword and flame to solve our problem (burned at the stake or drowned - problem solved).
But couldn't the Fairy and the Faerie bet one in the same? For example, as with humans - we are the same men as those who walked ME in the 1st age, but there were clearly differences. They lived for hundreds of years, and had prowess in both mind and body. We may still have those characteristics, but they have been forgotten over time and are unused..?..? Regardless, we were a younger race living in an age barely touched upon by Tolkien, and mostly undreamed of in a practical, scientific sense. But elves were younger then too. I would say Faerie turned to fairy when cities and kindoms diminshed to wood and cave. The Peril remains the same, but the stakes were raised - and the players most definately had changed. Same critter, different stage of evolution.

The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies the spirit of possession and domination......
Understandable concept, from a humans point of view. But what is Love, which (at it's most basic concept) is a Truth, from an Elf/Fairy POV? They are undying, yes. But they are subject (at least in the Tolkienian universe) to fading, or withering, per say. So, does that truth change after 1, 2, 5, or 10 thousand years?

[davem]

Clearly, as their involvement in the physical world diminished, the desire, or the recognition of love from men towards fairy, became less pronounced. Or more rare, shall we say...I would say Faerie turned to fairy when cities and kindoms diminshed to wood and cave. The Peril remains the same, but the stakes were raised - and the players most definately had changed. Same critter, different stage of evolution.

Of course, its maybe dangerous to assume that Tolkien intended the Faeries of SoWM to be the same as the Eldar of the Legendarium (Yet in an earlier draft of SoWM Smith's 'Faerie' name is 'Gilthir' (Quenya? for 'Starbrow')). The problem is that if we take the Fairies of tradition to be the remnants of the Eldar who remained in M-e then we have to account for the changes not just in nature but in 'powers'.

Tolkien seems to have ignored the vengeful, cruel & malicious aspect of Fairies - in a word their 'in(un)humanity'. He seems to have 'Christianised' them - giving them individual souls & making them share our moral values (cf Aragorn's words to Eomer about morality not being one thing among Elves & Dwarves & another among Men). Even as late as the pseudo-'medieval'* period in which SoWM is set Tolkien has his Faeries motivated by love for humanity. It would seem that for Tolkien the inhabitants of Faerie may have been 'dangerous', the place itself full of 'pitfalls for the unwary', but that they always were (& perhaps still are) concerned for us.

Another interesting passage in the essay:

While Nell (Smith's wife) & Nan his daughter were probably themselves Elf-Friends & even walkers in Outer Faery, Ned (his son) was dependent on his father: he could recieve 'Faery' only through the lore & companionship of the older Smith.

This seems to imply that access to Faery was not restricted to the bearer of the Star - indeed, Smith's grandfather, Rider, who brought back Alf (not knowing he was the king of Faery) found his way there without it. Its interesting that it is the two women in Smith's family who have access to Outer Faery in their own right, while his son depends on Smith for knowledge of the place.

*The chronology Tolkien constructed for the story has Smith born in the year 1063, discovering the Star in 1073, marrying Nell in 1091 & making his last journey into Faerie in 1120 - making him about 57. 'His long journeys in Faerie probably were undertaken mostly in the years between 1098 & 1108, & 1115-20.' ie he would have been 35-45 & 52-57 - coincidentally the ages Tolkien was when he did most of his major work on The Sil & LotR....

[drigel]

most excellent points

The problem is that if we take the Fairies of tradition to be the remnants of the Eldar who remained in M-e then we have to account for the changes not just in nature but in 'powers'.

I would conjecture that most (if not all) Eldar, and quite possibly most of the Sindar would have heeded the call, and taken to the seas by the end of the 4th age.. leaving primarily Avari to do as they will in ME. Over aeons, even those held mighty among them would have faded, both in corpeal and non-corpeal aspects. Conjecture of course!

Tolkien seems to have ignored the vengeful, cruel & malicious aspect of Fairies
Quite true. His works involve early ages though, when both races were at a higher state of "natural grace". That's what I tried to speak of when I said the Peril being the same as it was at the beginning, except the stakes were higher. Contact w/fairie was much more dire after so many years of separation or ignorance (even in pre-Roman times). One would have to be truly fated or blessed to survive - most didnt apparantly. Or at least they never "returned". I dont know why I am defending this weak point - hehe fun

He seems to have 'Christianised' them - giving them individual souls & making them share our moral values
What about the opposite? Could Christendom given them the stigma of the vengeful. cruel, and otherwise evil characteristics, as they did with most all the other aspects of "pagan" life? Wasnt all this (fairy, gnomes, trolls et al) lumped under the devil's machinations? It seems they were protrayed generally as perilous, but not wholly good or evil. Perhaps Tolkien was lifting them up out of the mirk that they were put into.

[Bêthberry]

Here am I attempting to play catch up with some thread which have intrigued me.


It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them.

I take this from the second long quotation davem made from Tolkien's essay. Without having read all of it, I am of course hampered in what I can surmise about this very intriguing change, but one point stands out first for me.

I don't see where it necessarily follows that The relationship must therefore be one of love. Unless Tolkien means that only love can provide any kind of kindship between the two realms. This seems to me a definition rather than a proof, rather similar to defining a straight line as "the shortest distance between two points."

Is this related to what more I have to say? I'm not sure. However, it seems that if Tolkien wanted to create a realm of fantasy that would be respected, revered, loved--heart's desire--he could not do so within the ethical world he had created. He could have flawed characters with weaknesses and foibles but he could not have as the primary focus of interest characters who were both malicious and deceitful and deliberately cruel. He did not, for example, show us how Saruman fell to evil. Or Grima. He did give us the fascinating portrait of Gollem, but by and large he observes the doctrine that to study deeply evil ways is to succumb to them. He follows what I might call--and this could well be an unfair overgeneralisation--a Catholic fear of knowledge. Or perhaps I shouldn't even say Catholic. The first prime directive after all was to avoid knowledge of good and evil.

So, if Tolkien wanted creatures who belonged to a perilous realm, who incorporated elements of fairies, sprites, boggarts, dwarves, brownies, spriggans, he would have to work within this tradition which feared full knowledge of evil as something not fit for his human creations. He thus had to domesticate his elves and cleanse them of their capricious ways which were not sympathetic to humans. Otherwise he would have had an evil realm which was beyond the power of the good he wished to portray.

As I said, without having the full essay to read, I am just making some guesses about why he changed his elves. And maybe I'm just saying the same thing that drigel did with different words and ways. Of course he had the right to, as Estelyn suggests, but why he did it is a great topic for a thread.

[davem]

I don't see where it necessarily follows that The relationship must therefore be one of love. Unless Tolkien means that only love can provide any kind of kindship between the two realms.

I wondered about this too. The lines:

The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies a spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive.

made me wonder. Does Tolkien mean 'The human love of (ie for) Faery is the 'love of love' or that the love of Faery & its inhabitants for Man & the human world is the 'love of love'? Or does it refer to the state of 'love', which is the essential nature of Faery in general & of the Elves in particular, is the 'love of love' & when that 'love of love' is directed towards the Human world it manifests as a love of humanity & our world, but is not, in its nature, specifically focussed on us alone?

Or am I just rambling......

[davem]

Addendum

He thus had to domesticate his elves and cleanse them of their capricious ways which were not sympathetic to humans. Otherwise he would have had an evil realm which was beyond the power of the good he wished to portray.

I wonder if this all grew out of his initial decision to write his mythology from an Elvish perspective. I don't know if Tolkien was the first author to do this, but generally speaking writers of fairy stories write about the inhabitants of Faerie - as seen from the 'outside'. Tolkien wrote, effectively, as an Elf, seeking to tell their story from their pov. Yet he was not only not an Elf, he was a Catholic Christian, & so he would have had a very specific worldview/moral value system- as Bb points out. This consequence of this would have been that his Elves & Faeries would be 'Christianised' - they would think & act not simply like humans but like Christian humans (even the 'sinners' among them would have committed 'Christian' sins).

This, I suppose, really means that Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all. But the question I originally asked remains - why change traditional Elves & Faeries so much - to the point where they bear little or no resemblance to the original figures of folklore? Tolkien's influence on people's perceptions of Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, etc has been so pervasive that many readers automatically think of Tolkien's version of Elves when they hear the word - just as people pre-LotR would have automatically thought of 'Flower Fairies'. Yet both of those concepts were false as regards genuine Fairies.

The interesting thing is that Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories) condemned the 'Flower Fairies' imagery for its falseness & 'Pigwiggenry', yet his own 'Elves' are just as 'false' a creation & no closer to genuine Elves & Fairies. Was his intention to use Faerie for his own ends - make it safe & Christian, remove the 'dangerous' pagan elements & make Faerie a means to 'evangelise' his own people - that seems to have been his intention according to what we read in Garth's biography.

[drigel]

Was his intention to use Faerie for his own ends - make it safe & Christian, remove the 'dangerous' pagan elements & make Faerie a means to 'evangelise' his own people - that seems to have been his intention according to what we read in Garth's biography.
It's hard to conjecture, so far after the fact. If the authors underlying intention was to create (among other ideas) a study of death and immortality, then altering the traditional view of faerie would be understood as appropriate. Undoubtedly the change from traditional fairie to a being who was a higher form of man, or man in his unfallen state was the authors choice in fitting elves into that underlying theme. But, was that an original thought, or an old idea brought to light in a later age?

But then that leads me to ask what the traditional view was, and when was the archtypical view accepted as standard. If the premise being that myth derived from myth etc down through the ages, ultimately leading to that ever rare nugget of truth, then I would say it's entirely plausible that all the "folklorish" or traditional views of fairie was nothing more than a glimpse or a guess into something else further back into the past, remembered only via word of mouth.

[Lalwendë]

This consequence of this would have been that his Elves & Faeries would be 'Christianised'

This, I suppose, really means that Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all. But the question I originally asked remains - why change traditional Elves & Faeries so much - to the point where they bear little or no resemblance to the original figures of folklore?

Was his intention to use Faerie for his own ends - make it safe & Christian, remove the 'dangerous' pagan elements & make Faerie a means to 'evangelise' his own people

I do not think that Tolkien intentionally had his Elves follow a more Christian moral pattern, but I do think that there is something in the fact that his Elves are somewhat 'bowdlerised' in comparison to folkloric Faeries. I think that they were not intentionally created in that way as this would be too much of an imposition of the Primary World onto his Secondary World creation; the Elves are somewhat exalted beings in Arda, and to have them symbolic of Christian morality would be dangerously close to allegory. But I do think that Tolkien's own sense of morality, which was itself influenced by his Catholicism (amongst other things), had a strong bearing on how he created the race of the Elves; what he saw as perfection in moral terms would surely have an influence on how this 'high' race lived and behaved.

Faery and Faeries are altogether too tricksy to be subject to any kind of moral code; in Faerie 'right' and 'wrong' as we see them do not exist, and these ideas are even more clear in Arda, so it is at yet another remove from the traditional Faerie.

It brings to mind the discussion on whether there was a Trickster figure in Middle-earth; it is a world with a clear (or more clear than we have at any rate) moral code, and it would be difficult to fit a morally ambiguous, even amoral character into that world. Anyway, back to the thorny question of what Tolkien meant here:

The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies a spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive.

There is one aspect of Faerie and indeed of love that has not been mentioned and that is sensuality. If the traditional Faerie is amoral, then there would be no censures surrounding love in all its forms and expressions, and traditional views of Faerie have shown this. The ballad Tam Lin is very dark in tone, describing amoral behaviour; even in the more modern view of Faerie painted by Shakespeare the pleasant atmosphere is still centred on love with a certain amount of trickery and mischief. While the former is sinister, the latter is more playful.

It seems that Tolkien was aiming for neither of these things in his own version of Faerie. Certainly the more sensual elements of Faerie were altogether too dark and unpredicatable for the Elves, at least for the majority of them. Can we imagine Galadriel cavorting with wild drunken abandon with the other Elves in Lothlorien? No. Could we see Elrond with a string of lovers? No. Not if we are sticking to what Tolkien wrote anyway. ;) I do wonder if something of that wildness still lingers in ideas such as 'dark elves' though? Certainly Eol has little regard for the 'morals' of the Noldor; he only seeks pleasure, and I have to admit I feel quite shaken when he is killed, me being the product of a more morally ambiguous world. It might be fun to try and find these elements in his work.

[davem]

It's hard to conjecture, so far after the fact. If the authors underlying intention was to create (among other ideas) a study of death and immortality, then altering the traditional view of faerie would be understood as appropriate. Undoubtedly the change from traditional fairie to a being who was a higher form of man, or man in his unfallen state was the authors choice in fitting elves into that underlying theme. But, was that an original thought, or an old idea brought to light in a later age?

But what of Fairies/Elves as beings in their own right? Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories & the Smith essay) repeatedly refers to Faerie & its inhabitants as having an 'objective' existence:

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men.

Yet it seems that he was willing to ignore that 'objective' existence when it suited him & make use of them as 'symbols' or 'metaphors' (or even as 'allegories') of something else - Art, Death, etc.

[drigel]

But what of Fairies/Elves as beings in their own right? Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories & the Smith essay) repeatedly refers to Faerie & its inhabitants as having an 'objective' existence:

Yes, he spends some thought as to the physical manifistations of Faerie, and also the time/space affects. But to a point. They are almost symbolic/allergoric in nature.
My symbol is not the underground, whether necrological and Orphic or pseudo-scientific in jargon, but the Forest: the regions still immune from human activities, not yet dominated by them (dominated! not conquered!). If Faery Time is at points contiguous with ours, the contiguity will also occur in related points in space - or that is the theory for the purpose of the story. At certain points at or just within the Forest borders a human person may come across these contiguous points and there enter F. time and space - if fitted to do so or permitted to do so.
Meaning this is a Forest, not a forest. In our world, this could be anywhere on the globe, no? It is intersesting to see how (of course) in his mind it's all worked out. But to translate it into the story is where the rub lies.

Yet it seems that he was willing to ignore that 'objective' existence when it suited him & make use of them as 'symbols' or 'metaphors' (or even as 'allegories') of something else - Art, Death, etc.
Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): esthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.
Death we can define. But Art? To me, its like defining wind. You can point out
results or examples, you can define air, but you cant point to a spot and say "ah, there is wind".

Also: ruth - ruth as in Compassion or pity for another, or, Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws?

[davem]

Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): esthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived -this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.

Its interesting that he distinguishes 'this' 'Faery' in the way he does - because this distinction implies that there is another Faery - perhaps the Faery of tradition. What's also interesting is that he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life' as opposed to the Faerie of tradition - which he perhaps considered to be unnecessary - or perhaps even worse than unnecessary: truly 'dangerous' in a spiritual way? Who knows?

Whatever, in this essay he is clearly saying that his Faery: ie what he defines in this essay, is necessary but he says nothing about traditional Faery being necessary. We have to remember that for many of our ancestors Faery was a real place (& still is for some people even today). Tolkien seems to be saying that his Faery is vital - but this is Faerie as 'metaphor', as symbol - not Faery as a real place & not the Faery of tradition.

I just wonder why, given that Tolkien is usually percieved to be the great champion of Faerie, celebrating it, declaring it to be valuable, even vital, to our spiritual well-being, he would feel the need to define it so narrowly & then proceed to declare that it is his own, narrow definition of 'Faerie' that contains that virtue - almost dismissing everything else. Is the 'darkness' found in traditional Faerie simply to be thrown out? Should we now see the Fairy Stories essay (& this one on Smith) not as essays on Fairie as such, but on his Faery alone - even as his artistic (& moral) 'manifesto'.

[drigel]

It is interesting to contemplate. There are more than one dimension to this. Traditional view is touched upon when physicality is considered. But, back then, there were definate Boundries, both real and percieved to the world. The boundries to Fairie wouldnt be any different. There was a very "real" end to the (flat) earth. There was a very real border between the forest and the Forest.

The other side is more spritual, aesthetic and very personal. Intentionally or not, the author touched upon this as much as the maps of ME did - and thankfully. I would say that definately added to the universal appeal to the works.

So, the question is: Is your Faerie the same as mine?

[Lalwendë]

If there is a Faerie of the mind, of the imagination (and I think that there is), then it will be different to everyone, but it will also be the same in that Universal images and concepts will be present. Now my Faerie would be a place of light and shade as the imagination to me takes account of both; the wonders may be thrown into sharp relief by the terrors and dangers. But this again, is similar to how I see the place Faerie. Capricious and unknowable.

Even if Tolkien wished his Faerie not to have darkness then I should still expect to find it in mine. But I still think that even in Tolkien's creation there is plenty of darkness. It is 'tamed' within the pages, but as soon as a reader gets their hands on the book, they can begin to build on those ideas and create all manner of wonders or horrors that Tolkien did not place there, as seen in RPGs and fan-fic.

As to whether people can get by without an imagination, well everyone has got one, but some decide not to exercise it sadly. Maybe this is what Tolkien is getting at in SOWM; he is creating a story out of the contrasts of those who do and those who do not allow the mind to wander...

[drigel]

Even if Tolkien wished his Faerie not to have darkness then I should still expect to find it in mine
Mine too. I think the fact that a good deal of darkness (Doom, Kinslaying, etc) related to in the Silm was Elf upon Elf, and attests to the fact that not everything was skipping joyously through the woods in Faerie land.

[davem]

Mine too. I think the fact that a good deal of darkness (Doom, Kinslaying, etc) related to in the Silm was Elf upon Elf, and attests to the fact that not everything was skipping joyously through the woods in Faerie land.

Certainly there is 'darkeness' in Tolkien's Faerie, but it is a 'logical' darkness. What I mean is that the 'chaotic' nature of traditional Faerie is absent - possibly because as an orthodox Christian Tolkien thought in terms of an opposition of Good & Evil, rather than the 'Pagan' opposition of Chaos & Cosmos. The 'Doom' & the Kinslaying are acts of moral evil. In the traditional Faerie there are constant battles between Fairy tribes, there is malicious destruction & cruelty, but there is also a strong trend of childlike, 'innocent', cruelty - like children pulling the wings off flies, or the legs off spiders - not out of a desire to hurt but simply to see what happens. This 'cruelty' seems to reflect a sense of wonder, an eternal curiosity. There are stories of Fairies discovering that a human had seen them & blinding them, stealing babies out of cradles, or beautiful young humans to come & live with them to join their revels. Its about an absence of human feelings & emotions (&, not being human, why should they be expected to share our values?)

So, we're not talking about darkness in the sense of moral evil at all in many instances. Its not that Tolkien was unaware of this side to Fairies - he translated Sir Orfeo, with its account of the kidnapping of Orfeo's wife, Heurodis, & her imprisonment by the Fairy king, & Aotrou & Itroun has a very malicious Fairy, but he seems to have produced a Faerie which was incredibly idiosyncratic & to have created it for a moral/philosophical purpose - well & good - yet he presents this 'Faerie' as Faerie itself. Or, more precisely, at some points he refers to his Faerie as something he has invented - a 'symbol' My symbol is not the underground, whether necrological and Orphic or pseudo-scientific in jargon, but the Forest: this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: while at other times he seems to refer to it as a realm in its own right - neither symbol nor metaphor. In the Fairy Stories essay he refers to it in both ways - without any reference to his own creation. As he does in this essay.
It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love:

Faery, for Tolkien, seems to be both a 'real' objectively existing place, or state of being, seperate from, but in relationship with, our own world (hence his constant references to not 'inventing' the Legendarium, but rather 'discovering what really happened') & as 'merely' a metaphor a way of speaking about our ideal relationship to creation - & in its essence it can't be both. Yet it seems that at some times it is wholly one & at other times it is wholly the other. But it becomes more complex, because this 'objective realm' of Faery to which he refers is not the Faerie of tradition - that too is his own creation. In other words he is claiming an objective existence for something he himself constructed - because his Faery is to be found nowhere else in folklore, legend or myth.

[drigel]

What I mean is that the 'chaotic' nature of traditional Faerie is absent

I finally am seeing what you are driving at Davem! The absense of this element of fairie is deafening in the Legendarium.

The easy way out would be 'translator's conceit', this being a history written by historians (who were mostly existing at the highest levels of their civilizations). I would tend to adhear to your Christianizing theory though. Although it still could be argued that much of the evil / malicious pranks and practices that were attributed to them (or piled on them) may be more of a reflection of the aftermath of humans becoming Christianized. Also, one should take into account how much of the chaotic element of nature was lumped into evil workings of the devil, post Chrisitianizing. The same element that had a persona of it's own for eons, very quickly became a result of sinfull living - we were flooded because we angered God, etc. Before this time, this similar thought might have been there with pagan gods, but not necessarily. That chaotic nature was more personified in the gods back then. They didnt necessarily have to have a reason to flood your crops, they just did - so deal with it....

This 'cruelty' seems to reflect a sense of wonder, an eternal curiosity. There are stories of Fairies discovering that a human had seen them & blinding them, stealing babies out of cradles, or beautiful young humans to come & live with them to join their revels. Its about an absence of human feelings & emotions (&, not being human, why should they be expected to share our values?)
That sense of "cruelty" in nature is a good point. Of course, from our point of view, we attribute cruelty to acts of nature. It's more pronounced as we become further removed from nature. Looking through the eyes of a pre-Christian society coping with life, this POV will of course be different. Couple that with the general ignorance of biologic systems and a pre-industrial non-scientific kind of learning of nature in general, then we may start to understand that eternal curiosity that you mention. Nature is nature. The truth is that nature has been doing it's own thing long before we came on the scene. But with our ancestors - back then, just about every aspect of life was cruel - from our POV.

So the unhindered, chaotic, wild and untamed aspect to Faerie is ignored in the Legendarium. Does omission mean the author wanted that separate from his Faerie, or does it just not fit with the theme and style he was striving for?

[davem]

A couple of things struck me the more I thought about Tolkien's 'Faery'. One is the way so many of his readers (& so many of the fantasy writers who have followed him - ie ripped him off) have accepted the 'objective' existence of his created Faery - his Elves & Dwarves & Goblins have been accepted by others, not simply Tolkien himself as existing 'out there', but more importantly so has his morality - the moral value system he imposed.

The other thing is the way in the essay he rejects out of hand any allegorical interpretation of Faery (only allowing it to be a 'symbol' - though where the exact dividing line between symbol & allegory is to be found is another question) as it appears in the story, but himself provides an allegorical interpretation of the 'human' world in the story.

[Formendacil]

In a world that is more and more becoming elastic in its moral standards, blurring the lines of good and evil, authors are following in the tradition of assigning morals like ours to non-humans, contrary to a more moral age, when authors assigned no morals like ours to non-human creatures...

[davem]

In a world that is more and more becoming elastic in its moral standards, blurring the lines of good and evil, authors are following in the tradition of assigning morals like ours to non-humans, contrary to a more moral age, when authors assigned no morals like ours to non-human creatures...

Well, Tolkien certainly does. Clarke doesn't - in a footnote she mentions that faeries are effectively 'insane' - at least in comparison to humans. She is speaking as narrator though. Certainly her Fairies lack anything approaching a human standard of morality. Yet they seem to have a sense of right & wrong - its just not ours. Tolkien attributes the same moral value system to Elves, Dwarves & humans - & even his Orcs seem to have a 'moral' code. Gorbag or Shagrat (don't have the books with me) refers to the leaving of Frodo as a 'regular Elvish trick', & Shagrat declares Gorbag a 'filthy rebel'.

Tolkien's assigning of a common moral value system seems to deny any real moral difference between races. The only real difference between Elves & mortals seems to be that Elves are bound within the circles of the world while mortals are not. Effectively this reduces the difference between them to mortality.

In the Irish myths Fairies have a different origin to men. In the (Christianised) tradition the Fairies were originally the neutral Angels - they took no part in Lucifer's rebellion, but were caught up in the expulsion from Paradise & fell to earth - though not being evil they didn't end up in Hell & were fated to wander the earth. This would make them equivalent to Tolkien's Ainur - except there were no neutral Ainur: they either sided with Melkor or remained loyal to Eru.

It would seem that Tolkien's focus on Death as his chief area of exploration (he declared that LotR is 'about death, the inevitability of death) perhaps overrode other questions. Yet it lead him to ignore other issues. Its outside the tradition, yet we seem to accept it as being traditional - is this purely because so few of his readers have no knowledge of the traditions or is there more to it? Do we feel that Tolkien tapped into something that was originally there but was subsequently lost - as Drigel suggested, or is it that Tolkien's Elves are easier to relate to & identify with?

[Bêthberry]

It would seem that Tolkien's focus on Death as his chief area of exploration (he declared that LotR is 'about death, the inevitability of death) perhaps overrode other questions. Yet it lead him to ignore other issues. Its outside the tradition, yet we seem to accept it as being traditional - is this purely because so few of his readers have no knowledge of the traditions or is there more to it? Do we feel that Tolkien tapped into something that was originally there but was subsequently lost - as Drigel suggested, or is it that Tolkien's Elves are easier to relate to & identify with?

I'm not sure I quite follow this, davem. Are you including Tolkien's conception of death here when you talk about tradition? People's view of death derived from his ethical system is different from that in earlier cultures, no? Perhaps I don't know enough about the pagan myths you are referring to, but is fear of death derived from a fear of hell and damnation or does it extend to other religions and beliefs? Would the Numenorean fate have been possible outside of Tolkien's beliefs?

[davem]

I'm not sure I quite follow this, davem. Are you including Tolkien's conception of death here when you talk about tradition? People's view of death derived from his ethical system is different from that in earlier cultures, no? Perhaps I don't know enough about the pagan myths you are referring to, but is fear of death derived from a fear of hell and damnation or does it extend to other religions and beliefs? Would the Numenorean fate have been possible outside of Tolkien's beliefs?

I was not as clear there as I should have been. I meant that his conception of Faery & the motives he assigns to Fairies (ie 'love') are outside the tradition. I simply meant that its possible that his desire to focus on & explore the nature of death may have lead (even required) his to assign a common moral value system to all his races. This would throw the death question into sharp relief.

Different religions & traditions have differrent beliefs - some of the Pagan traditions had a fairly unpleasant view of the afterlife - cf The Aeneid - others held out a more pleasant prospect. Some taught reincarnation. My point, as I said, was that maybe the exploration of death over rode everything else for Tolkien, to the extent that he was required to re-create the Elves in his own image, put them in the service of his story, effectively make them into 'symbols', even 'emasculate' them. Elves & Fairies were not like that pre-Tolkien. Post Tolkien they are generally thought of in that way. The wild, fear inspiring, awesome, disturbing Fairies & Elves of tradition, the ones who can transform us & our reality, are absent from Tolkien's world & have been replaced by a unique, beautiful, powerful creation of Tolkien's own - the older Fairies occasionally peep out, & at those points we may feel a thrill, but generally his Elves are 'good Christians'.

[drigel]

the older Fairies occasionally peep out, & at those points we may feel a thrill, but generally his Elves are 'good Christians'.
Especially in The Hobbit. Tra la la lally yes, but there were some seriously drunk and leary wood elves in there too.

I still am unsure ommision from the works = ommision from the body of the elvish culture. I think about how much literature that came from multitudes of authors that have described the history of the past 2000 yrs. I then consider the limited snapshot of what Tolkien has described that covered a period of what - 4-6 thousand years? And that period was (debatably) 7, 8 or more thousand years prior to today, all from a few books and writings.

I suppose it's too simplistic (or forced application) to view this as the "traditional" pre-Tolkien elves are actually (in terms of the Legendarium) the post 4th age Morquendi who are no longer exposed or influenced by the Eldar..? Left to themselves, perpetually fading, and "gone native"..?..?

Translators Conceit, applicability, canon all rearing their ugly heads......

[davem]

drigel, good point, but... One aspect of Tolkien's Elves which is world's away from the traditional figures (particularly the Irish Sidhe) is in their sexual mores. The Fairies of tradition are notoriously lascivious & this sexual element was extremely shocking to the early Christian redactors of the Pagan material. Tolkien's Elves are almost innately 'Catholic' in as regards sex - no sex till they are married & then seemingly only for procreation - which is usually limited to a couple of children.

So, as I said they seem from a sexual perspective to be innately good Catholics - they wouldn't even need the Church's prohibitions - every 'demand' the Church makes on member's sexual conduct is just second nature to Tolkien's Elves - no struggles involved. Traditional Fairies, on the other hand, seem to have no self control (sexual or otherwise) to speak of.

[Lalwendë]

Ideas....

Maybe we ought not to look at Tolkien's Elves at all if we want to find any reflection of 'our' Faerie. They are altogether too perfect to be a representation of Faeries, too controlled and moral. Tolkien's Elves are more like Men, or rather, like idealised Men.

In terms of relationships, Tolkien's Elves are sometimes like stiff, buttoned-up Victorians with high romantic ideals - I'm thinking of figures like Ruskin here, with the apocryphal tale of what happened after he saw his wife undressed - for Elves, romantic ideals are easily shattered. For Faeries, quite the opposite would be the case! Seemingly, it is only when Men arrive on the scene that passions start being stirred. It fascinates me why Tolkien should write his Elves in such a way...

It is possibly in other areas of Tolkien's work that Faerie emerges. Dare I say that the Dwarves have a lot more in common with Faerie than do the Elves? They traditionally live underground (not all Elves do this, only some), and their realms are like whole other worlds, literally The Underworld. In common with Faerie, Dwarves keep their names secret, they also like to keep to themselves, and to upset a Dwarf is to make an enemy. As to the difference that Dwarves are mortal, they are also long-lived, and we cannot say that faeries are always represented as immortal; there are stories of Faery deaths. The other main difference is that we often equate Faerie with beauty, but who is to say that Faeries are not little fellas with long beards? ;)

Relationships between Elves/Dwarves were once good but now have declined, much as the relationship of Men/Faeries has declined. Any Men who consort with Faerie might be viewed suspiciously; they live on the margins. Eol was one Elf who lived in this way, preferring the mystery of the Forest to the society of Elves, and trading with and taking company from Dwarves; he is like the figure of the Mage who lives on the edges of the community, shunning the rules and forging relationships with Faeries.

Hobbits too can be more Faerie than Elves are; Faeries are often seen as small, and fond of humour and feasting. Gollum is like the tricksy side of Faeries. The Woses may be Faeries too. And I find Tom Bombadil and Goldberry would be more appropriate as the King and Queen of Faerie than any Elf; they remain slightly enigmatic yet familiar, otherworldly and unpredictable.

Just some ideas to stir into the pot... :)

[drigel]

edit - Lalwendwe has already efficiently posted some points I was bringing up... :cool:

Davem,
Your correct. There is too much out there to unify it all. There is also the distortion that history provides that muddles up the picture. You have mentioned the Sidhe, and previously the Tuatha De Dananns. My problem is where to stop in regards to Tolkien. Do we stop at Celtic/Nordic traditions in regards to faerie?

There are other subjects (dragons come to mind) that cross cultures and history. In that regard, fairys (faeries) have as well: Greek, Arabic, Egyptian etc. You have your muses, genies, sirens, nymphs .. the list goes on.

What I do notice in all these variations is that Faeries are not divine in and of themselves (although most are immortal), they do represent (in most cases), the transition, or go-between our world and the "divine" world. Either as messengers, couriers, propheters, or just because they can, and want to.

[davem]

I suppose that, putting it simply, what Tolkien introduces into Faerie is Christian moral values. He has, effectively, 'baptized' the Elves into the Church. Though perhaps its more subtle - he gives us in his Elves perfect Christians. Some of them 'fall' - but again they fall as Christians fall, for the same reasons & with the same result. Having fallen they must 'repent' to be 'saved'.

What I do notice in all these variations is that Faeries are not divine in and of themselves (although most are immortal), they do represent (in most cases), the transition, or go-between our world and the "divine" world. Either as messengers, couriers, propheters, or just because they can, and want to.

In the Legendarium this is certainly true, but in the essay Tolkien states:BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct).

The 'sex' question in relation to Elves is interesting. In the Legendarium sexual desire for anyone but one's spouse, for any reason other than procreation, is seen as a sign of moral corruption: Wormtongue's desire for Eowyn, Celegorm's (& Morgoth's) for Luthien, Morgoth's for Arien, (& possibly Feanor's for Galadriel), Maeglin's for Idril - the list goes on. Sam clearly has a healthy sex life with Rose, but this is within marriage & produces children. Yet, as I said, the Elves & Fairies of tradition are infamous for seducing young men & women to gratify their desires (in the Ballad Tam Lin is placed as guardian of the Fairy site of Carterhaugh, & from any maiden unwise enough to tresspass there he 'takes a fee, either their rings or their mantles, or else their maidenhead'). This is very similar to the behaviour we find among the classical gods. Even Merlin is the child of a 'nun' & an otherworld inhabitant. The children of these unions in the tradition are natives of both worlds - a concept Tolkien adapts to produce the half-Elven. These children of both worlds were often seen as 'mediators', providing a link between the worlds. Some commentators have pointed out the similarity of these beings to Christ. RJ Stewart quotes a Gaelic invocation of Christ:

In the name of the Son of Light,the Son of Maria,
Keystone of the Arch of Heaven,
Who joins as one the forks upholding of the sky.
His the right hand, His the left hand.
His the rainbow letters in the rich fermented milk.
May you go in his ways, in all shapes of shapes,
In all colours of colours.
It is the Son of Light, the Son of Maria, saying:
'Ask in my Name, you shall not be cast out.'
Do you see us here, o Son of Light?
Says the Son of Light, 'I see'.

Jesus is also a 'Child' of two worlds - Paradise through His Father, earth through his Mother, & so provides the link between Earth & Heaven. The closest thing to a 'Christ' figure, or 'saviour' in Middle-earth is Earendel, who is also a child of two worlds.

Yet what is lacking in these Pagan figures is the Christian moral value system which we find in Tolkien. There is a (mistaken imo) belief that Tolkien, because he wasn't writing a Christian allegory, was writing within the 'Fairy tradition' - giving us Elves as they 'really' were. But he clearly wasn't. Yet, in both the Fairy Stories & the Smith essays, he seems to be at pains to tie himself into that authentic tradition & have us believe that he is presenting us with 'Just the facts, ma'am.' Now, did he really believe that he was presenting us with authentic Elves & Faeries, or was he deliberately trying to mislead us? If so, why? Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants? For all our discussions here, I don't think we've yet got the heart of the matter - why did he change the traditional Elves & Fairies to the extent that he did & more importantly perhaps why did he make out that he hadn't changed them at all?

[drigel]

At this point it's almost a philosophical debate. What were they (Faerie) to us really? One needs to answer this question first before attempting to describe the intent of the author.
Were they representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?
Were they representing actual gods and goddesses that have fallen (both physically and in regards cultural spiritualism) from importance?
Were they real agents of transition between the physical and spiritual?
You tell me. Im all ears :)
BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise.
This is where I get confused. All descriptions of Valinor (especially post Numenor) seem paradise-esque. But, as the essay says, Faery is Faery. Period. Hard to wrap the head around. Perhaps Faerie resides somewhere in the suburbs of Paradise?

Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants?
Forget balrogs wings - the heart of the matter of your thread is quite possibly IMO the most important question to ask the Prof if only one question could be asked of him. I wonder if the answer to one question would satisfy us..

If I were to imagine him answering, I would have a few alternatives.

1: Perhaps my grounding in Catholicism inadvertantly changed my motivation in dealing with fairie in the Legendarium.

2: It is a study of death and immortality. In my work, we have the Unfallen living alongside the Fallen. Adam and Eve living with Cain and Able. Or, (plug in any religion here:) Lif and Lifthrasir living with Sigmund and Borghild. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.

3: My faerie IS faerie. But, so is the traditional faerie. Truth is truth, morals are morals, dont confuse religion with that idea. I do not expect you to think I have changed Faery to suit my own needs, just as I do not expect you to think I have changed history to suit my own needs.

add more as you see fit please :)

[davem]

At this point it's almost a philosophical debate. What were they (Faerie) to us really? One needs to answer this question first before attempting to describe the intent of the author.
Were they representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?
Were they representing actual gods and goddesses that have fallen (both physically and in regards cultural spiritualism) from importance?
Were they real agents of transition between the physical and spiritual?

Hmm... Well, to some people - the rural Irish (up to & including in this century) they were real beings - a 'real & present danger'. As they were (& still are) to some Icelanders. And to rural peoples everywhere. As to them being 'representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?' I suppose that would be a result of 'civilisation'. Originally they were not that at all. As beings in their own right they had their own mores & motives.

I suppose that they were available to Tolkien to make his own use of, in whatever way he wanted. But he doesn't say he's doing that - he claims he's giving them back to us as they 'really' are - or were. In this he's somewhat in the position of Jung as regards Alchemy.

This is where I get confused. All descriptions of Valinor (especially post Numenor) seem paradise-esque. But, as the essay says, Faery is Faery. Period. Hard to wrap the head around. Perhaps Faerie resides somewhere in the suburbs of Paradise?

Valinor, I suppose, is Middle-earth's 'Earthly Paradise' - yet there is no actual 'Paradise' in the Legendarium, only references to 'something' beyond the circles of the world. Faerie is used, in the early writings (& in TH & Roverandom) interchangeably with Valinor. I wonder about the connection between Niggle's Parish & the Halls of Mandos in Valinor. Both are equivalent to Purgatory - a middle ground, neither earth/hell or heaven. Faerie & its inhabitants are also 'betwixt & between'.

1: Perhaps my grounding in Catholicism inadvertantly changed my motivation in dealing with fairie in the Legendarium.

2: It is a study of death and immortality. In my work, we have the Unfallen living alongside the Fallen. Adam and Eve living with Cain and Able. Or, (plug in any religion here Lif and Lifthrasir living with Sigmund and Borghild. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.

2: My faerie IS faerie. But, so is the traditional faerie. Truth is truth, morals are morals, dont confuse religion with that idea. I do not expect you to think I have changed Faery to suit my own needs, just as I do not expect you to think I have changed history to suit my own needs.
Any of the above - & other possibilities, as you say. But I still wonder if there is any common ground between Tolkien's Faerie & traditional Fairie, between his Elves & traditional Elves. Can we say Tolkien's Elves are simply a variation on an existing theme, or are they wholly 'other'. In Appendix F he says he has used the name Elves as the nearest current equivalent for his Eldar. Fine - except that in his essays he stakes his claim to Faery.

And so we have Smith, in itself & particularly in the Smith essay. This particular 'Secondary World' & its inhabitants is another 'betwixt & between' realm, but this time it stands 'betwixt & between' the 'High', 'Christian' Faerie of the Legendarium & the simple 'rural' Faery of tradition. Yet even so it is closer to Middle-earth than to the 'Fair Elfland' of True Thomas. Perhaps if he had lived he would have moved even closer to the traditional Faery.

We seem to see in Tolkien a conflicted artist - 'torn in two'. Part of him is pulled towards the traditional Faery, part towards his religion & its requirements & values. At Birmingham Ronald Hutton gave a talk on 'Tolkien the Pagan', examining this question. It seems Tolkien was never able to give Faerie its head - he had to make it 'safe' - though maybe he had no choice in that. One gets glimpses, as I said, of traditional Faerie in his writings, but he never seems to feel it is entirely 'safe'. His mentions of 'pitfalls' & 'Dungeons' awaiting the overbold strayer into Faery seems as much a warning to himself as to his readers.

Yet maybe there was more going on. If the glimpse of the little Fairy Queen doll on the cake was better than no glimpse of Faery at all, & provided for some - both Smith himself &, according to the essay, his wife (who is named a 'walker in outer Faery in the essay) the entrance into it, maybe Tolkien intended his Legendarium to be a similar glimpse & means of ingress into traditional, 'real' Faerie? Maybe he gave us the Faery that we were capable of taking in at the time & offering us the chance of going on.

I don't know. I'm increasingly confused by the question. All I have is Tolkien's claim that he is telling 'what really happened' set against the fact that his Faerie is nothing like the Faerie we find in traditional tales & accounts, yet he tells me that it is the same 'place'.

Edit.

Thinking about it, (& with drigel's earlier mention in mind)I find the Elves of TH quite 'traditional' - even with their 'Tra-la-la-lally's - or maybe even because of them. In traditional Fairystories the inhabitants of Faery often behave in 'mad' or childish ways. There seems no contradiction between the behaviour of those Rivendell Elves & the Wood Elves encountered later, with their short tempers, self-importance, greed & drunkeness.

My point here being, it seems that in TH, which was originally not meant to be part of the Legendarium Tolkien felt able to set the Fairies free to be themselves. It was only the Legendarium Elves that were required to 'work for a living' & earn their bread.....

[drigel]

just for the record - when I ran off with the :
'representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves' answer, I was thinking of the example of how elves were to blame when a child was born sickly. It was told that they were actually sickly elvish babies that were switched with the healthy human baby.

no offense intended toward the celts or any otherwise uncivilized culture ;)

[Lalwendë]

Some more thoughts...

I think that the Faerie of SOWM quite literally is Tolkien's Faerie, but that's because Tolkien seems to have had a particular notion of what faerie was/is. I think that his Faerie, rather than being an Otherworld place was in fact the imagination, the realm within people. The star in SOWM could represent the imagination and the passing on of this could represent the encouragement of further generations to explore the Faerie within.

fairy-stories are not in normal English usage stories about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being.

Tolkien says that a fairy story is not about the people who live there, but about the place. How does this square up with his work set in Arda? We do not actually get to see very much of the Undying Lands, as the books are set in Middle-earth, and we might expect that the former would be the 'Faerie' of the story.

I think the answer to this depends on how much the books are about the places or about the people. If the answer tends towards the latter then maybe the books aren't about Faerie or Tolkien's idea of Faerie at all.

Getting back to what Tolkien said in On Fairy stories, I have to note that this was his opinion on what good Fairy Stories ought to be like, and though I agree with most of what he says, it does not necessarily apply to Faerie itself. He says that 'pigwiggenry' ought to have no place in a good fairy story, but that doesn't mean it would have no place in Faerie; if pixies wished to ride around on earwigs in Faerie then no doubt they would, it's that kind of tricksy place (I should imagine... ;) ). What Tolkien was trying to get across in his essay is that a good Fairy story ought also to be good Art, while Faerie itself would have no respect for such a notion as Art.



Amusing Footnote: I was googling for a reference on 'pigwiggenry' and only about 14 entries came up, one of which was the latest canonicity thread on the Downs. Hmmm.... :eek:

[drigel]

And to rural peoples everywhere.
Here as well to a certain extent. No fairies, but plenty of ghosts and spririts, mothmen and Jersey Devils. :) I probably shouldnt use ignorant as a descriptor. But, come to think of it, saying that tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes happen to people because God is angry with them is way, way ignorant IMO.

And so we have Smith, in itself & particularly in the Smith essay. This particular 'Secondary World' & its inhabitants is another 'betwixt & between' realm, but this time it stands 'betwixt & between' the 'High', 'Christian' Faerie of the Legendarium & the simple 'rural' Faery of tradition. Yet even so it is closer to Middle-earth than to the 'Fair Elfland' of True Thomas. Perhaps if he had lived he would have moved even closer to the traditional Faery.
It's what makes this all the more interesting - reading that I find that physicality of Faery in the essay very real. And the people and objects transitioning between here and there very real and mostly ordinary. It's almost approaching a middle ground of sorts in SOWM. Facinating! I agree with your conclusion here, and would find it much more interesting to see how he would evolve and/or combine these seemingly disparate Faeries, than reading anything about a 4th age "New Shadow". Alas..

Tolkien says that a fairy story is not about the people who live there, but about the place.
He says that 'pigwiggenry' ought to have no place in a good fairy story, but that doesn't mean it would have no place in Faerie
We seem to see in Tolkien a conflicted artist - 'torn in two'.
So is my brain trying to work this out. Is the stigma of validating things pagan too much of a conflict? Would it have been not so if Tolkien was Protestant? Agnostic?

[davem]

Its interesting that SoWM was the last thing Tolkien published. Of his other post LotR published writings, what do we have? The 'Notes for Translators of LotR published in Lobdell's A Tolkien Compass, the co-authored Road Goes Ever On - anything else?

Yet what we now find is that Tolkien didn't simply write Smith as a short story & leave it at that - he created a whole backstory for it, giving depth & history to the secondary world. In early drafts of Smith the story was to some degree linked into the world of Middle-earth:

When he got it down, he found that very little of the spices was left, and that was rather dry and musty, but in one compartment he found a ring, black-looking as if it was made of silver and was tarnished. 'That's funny!' he said, as he held it up to the light. 'NO, it isn't!' said a voice that made him jump; for it was the voice of his apprentice who had come in behind him, and he had never yet dared to speak first before he was spoken to. He was only a small boy; bright and quick, 'but he has a lot to learn yet' (so the cook thought).
So 'What do you mean, my lad' said the cook, not much pleased. 'If it isn't funny, what is it?' 'It's a magic ring' said the apprentice. Then the cook laughed. 'All right, all right,' he said. 'Call it what you like! You'll grow up someday. Now you can get on with stoning the raisins; and if you notice any magic ones tell me'.
'What are you going to do with the ring?' said the apprentice. 'Put it in the cake, of course,' said the cook. 'Surely you have been to children's parties
yourself, and not so long ago, where little trinkets like this were stirred into the mixture, and little silver coins and what not: it amuses the children.' 'But Cook? this is not a trinket, it's a magic ring' said the apprentice. 'So you've said before' said the Cook crossly. 'Very well, I'll tell the children. It'll make them laugh.'

One day, however, he was walking through a wood in Fairy, and it was autumn there, and there were red leaves on the boughs and on the ground. Footsteps came behind, but he was thinking about the leaves, and did not turn round. A man caught up with him, and said suddenly at his side: "Are you going my way, Gilthir?" For that was his name (Starbrow) in Fairy; at home he was called Alfred Smithson. "What is your way?" he answered. "I am going home", said the man, and Alfred looked at him and saw that it was the Apprentice: a tall man now, but he stooped a little, and had lines on his brow and face, though he was only a few years older than Alfred. "So am I," he said; "we will walk together."

Magic Rings & a Quenya name for Smith! Yet Tolkien removes these 'links' & moves the story away from Middle-earth. Perhaps he felt that such references would impose too many restrictions on his freedom & he wanted to explore another Faery - or explore Faery in a new way. He can't break free of his established Faery (ie Middle-earth) because the moral value system remains, yet it is in many ways a different world & the Faeries have new motives (albeit entirely Tolkienesque ones rather than traditional ones).

In speculating on possible endings for Smith Tolkien wrote:

When the Smith comes home after surrendering the star, should any more be said than has been about what became of him? In earlier draft it is said that he could go back to Fayery, for the mark of the star that had been on his brow was still visible to the folk of Fayery; but he could not go deep in, nor ever visit any new place or see any new thing that he had not already seen. (This has a significance, of course: a time comes for writers and artists, when invention and Vision' cease and they can only reflect on what they have seen and learned.)

So, we have Tolkien stating ' a time comes for writers and artists, when invention and Vision' cease and they can only reflect on what they have seen and learned.' at the same time as he is creating a brand new Secondary world - without the depth of Middle-earth, certainly, but still he is doing far more than merely 'reflecting on what he has seen & learned'. Indeed, this essay, in its own way, is as profound & important an exploration of Faery & Fairy stories as 'On Fairy Stories'. The analysis of the nature of Faery & the motives of its inhabitants is in some ways even more profound.

It is a 'Fairy Story', of the kind in which beings that may be called 'fairies' or 'elves' play a part and are associates in action with human people, and are regarded as having a 'real' existence, that is one in their own right and independent of human imagination and invention...

This is an interesting statement in light of the quote from OFS given by Lalwende

fairy-stories are not in normal English usage stories about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being.

He seems to be using a different definition of 'Fairy Stories' in the Smith essay - in OFS Fairy Stories are not stories about Fairies, but in SoWM - which is a Fairy Story according to Tolkien, Fairies are central characters - they are the initiators of the action. Smith is given the 'freedom of Faery':

In such stories there must be some way or ways of access from and to Faery, available at least to Elves as to favoured mortals. But it is also necessary that Faery and the World (of Men), though in contact, should occupy a different time and space, or occupy them in different modes. Thus though it appears that the Smith can enter Faery more or less at will (being specially favoured), it is evident that it is a land, or world of unknown limits, containing seas and mountains; also it is plain that even during a brief visit (such as one on an evening walk) he can spend a great deal longer in Faery than his absence counts in the world; on his long journeys an absence from home of, say, a week is sufficient for exploration and experiences in Faery equivalent to months or even years. ...

But then it gets interesting in other ways:

But also this must be considered: the Faery of this tale is a particular one. If one accepts it, while 'within' the tale, then clearly the Rulers of Faery — who are presented as interested in Men (not necessarily primarily) and beneficently - must be able to arrange that the experiences in Faery of favoured human persons may be enjoyed without dislocation of their normal human life. The time of their Faery must be different, even though it may be at points contiguous. For them human time is or may be also longer than that of Faery. The King dwells in Wootton for 58 years. ..

'This' Faery is a particular one - how many Faery's are there? According to OFS really just the one. Faery is, maybe, still the human imagination - or the human imagination fired by some 'Other' place or state, but it seems there is now more than one Faery. But however many there are they are not 'illusions', but objective states of being:

Entry into the 'geographical' bounds of Faery also involves entry into Faery Time. How does a mortal 'enter' the geographical realm of Faery? Evidently not in dream or illusion. Physical objects, such as the star, the Living Flower, and the elvish toy, survive transplantation from Faery to the World...

Faery(s) is not defined or limited, & it seems that only part of it has a relationship with the human world, only certain of its inhabitants are concerned with humanity - but those that are are on a mission to 'save' mankind & the human world (& by extension their own:

But in this tale Forest and Tree remain dominant symbols. They occur in three of the four 'remembered' and recorded experiences of the Smith — before his leave-taking of the Queen. They do not occur in the first, because it is at that point that he discovers that Faery is 'limitless' and is mainly involved in vast regions and events that do not concern Men and are impenetrable by them. ..

It is probable that the world of Faery could not exist* without our world, and is affected by the events in it — the reverse being also true. The 'health' of both is affected by state of the other. Men have not the power to assist the Fdvenfolk in the ordering and defence of their realm; but the Elves have the power (subject to finding co-operation from within) to assist mm the protection of our world, especially in the attempt to re-direct Men when their development tends to the defacing or destruction of their world. The Elves may thus have also an enlightened self-interest in human affairs. ..

Faery needs the human world, just as much as humans need Faery. Yet only the Faeries realise this at the beginning of the story. But Tolkien himself also recognises this need, this interrelationship. Except, according to him it is not traditional Faery that we need, but this very precisely defined creation that he sets before us.

Still no nearer....

[drigel]

One aspect of Tolkien's Elves which is world's away from the traditional figures (particularly the Irish Sidhe) is in their sexual mores. The Fairies of tradition are notoriously lascivious & this sexual element was extremely shocking to the early Christian redactors of the Pagan material.
I keep coming back to this thought. From what Ive been exposed to, it seems the traditional view on sexuality is one sided. The faeries being the aggressor as it were. Their human victims either being duped, or forced into the relationship. Is this right? Or do I need to dig up more material?

Contrast this with the Legendarium, where the few times (at least with the "higher elves") it happened it was very much mutual, and the Choice had to be made. Producing offspring for elves was also very much a Task, the sexuality nothing more than a means to the end.

Of course, initially, my modern mind views the traditional model as mainly an excuse: "I was faithfull, really! It was a confounded elf that accosted me!", etc. But anyways, the stuff I read the tryst has been either forced, coerced, or manipulated in some way by faerie, resulting in either a cursed or magiked baby, and / or the disappearance of the victim.

[davem]

I keep coming back to this thought. From what Ive been exposed to, it seems the traditional view on sexuality is one sided. The faeries being the aggressor as it were. Their human victims either being duped, or forced into the relationship. Is this right? Or do I need to dig up more material?

As I understand it, it could work both ways - there's an analysis of Kirk's Secret Commonwealth here: (http://groups.inetbot.com/showgrp/alt_pfolklore_pfaerie_s0.html). Especially

There were also more sinister aspects to human/fairy interactions.
Most people have heard of changelings, where a human baby is taken away
from its parents and a defective fairy child left in its place. But the
Subterraneans did not balk at taking adults away too. They particularly
liked women who'd just given birth. They were kidnapped to serve as wet
nurses to fairy babies. Interestingly, the fairies would leave exact
doubles of their captives behind. Kirk discusses these doppelgangers,
who he calls "co-walkers," in some detail. Like changeling infants,
co-walkers tend to weaken, become incoherent, and eventually die.
They're not human or fairy, but a sort of biological robot created by
fairy magic to distract mortals away from the truth about the abduction
of their loved ones. UFO lore is full of co-walker types. Many of the
classic "men in black" episodes feature clumsy, muddle-mouthed visitors
who don't quite seem in sync with the mundane world. MIBs, like
co-walkers, perform some task, then depart -- though they don't usually
die in front of puzzled witnesses.

Kirk gives this account of one woman's abduction (I have modernized
his spelling):

"Among other instances of undoubted verity, proving in these the being
of such aerial people, or species of creatures not vulgarly known, I
add the subsequent relations, some whereof I have from my acquaintance
with the actors and patients and the rest from the eyewitnesses to the
matter of fact. The first whereof shall be of the woman taken out of
her child-bed, and having a lingering image of her substituted body in
her room, which resemblance decayed, died, and was buried. But the
person stolen returning to her husband after two years space, he being
convinced by many undeniable tokens that she was his former wife,
admitted her home and had diverse children by her. Among other reports
she gave her husband, this was one: that she perceived little what they
[the fairies] did in the spacious house she lodged in, until she
anointed one of her eyes with a certain unction that was by her; which
they perceiving to have acquainted her with their actions, they fained
her blind of that eye with a puff of their breath. She found the place
full of light, without any fountain or lamp from whence it did spring."

Kirk goes on to say the returned woman was undoubtedly the same one
everyone thought had died, and that her husband, having remarried since
her "death," was obliged to divorce his second wife to remarry his
first.

& an article (http://www.orkneyjar.com/folklore/selkiefolk/) on Selkies gives:

The male members among the selkie-folk were renowned for their many encounters with human females - married and unmarried.

A selkie man in human form was a handsome creature with almost magical seductive powers over mortal women. These selkie men had no qualms in casting off their sealskins, stashing them carefully, before heading inland to seek illicit intercourse with an 'unsatisfied woman'.

Should such a mortal woman wish to make contact with a selkie man, there was a specific rite that she had to follow. At the high tide, the woman should make her way to the shore where she had to shed seven tears into the sea.

The selkie man would then come ashore and after removing his magical sealskin, would seek out 'unlawful love' among the women of the island.

In the words of the Orkney folklorist Walter Traill Dennison, these selkie males:

"..often made havoc among thoughtless girls, and sometimes intruded into the sanctity of married life."
If a girl went missing while out on the ebb or at sea, it was inevitably said that her selkie lover had taken her to his watery domain - assuming, of course, she had not attracted the eye of a Finman.

But if the males of the selkie race were irresistable to the island women, selkie women were no less alluring to the eyes of earth-born men.

The most common theme in selkie-folklore is one in which a cunning young Orcadian man acquires, either by trickery or theft, a selkie girl's sealskin.

This prevented her from returning to her home in the sea and the beautiful seal-maiden was usually forced to marry their 'captors' and sire children.

These tales generally end sadly, however, with the selkie wife's children finding and returning her sealskin so that she might return to the sea. In some accounts her children go with her while others have them remaining with their mortal father.

Six of one, half dozen of the other, so to speak.

[Numenorean]

Greetings Davem, Drigel , Lalwendë et al, sorry to backtrack a wee bit on this fascinating thread of yours, but I’ve also often pondered aspects of Tolkiens Faerie and its reflections/divergences from the Faerie of folklore and tradition.

Davem: Thinking about it, (& with drigel's earlier mention in mind)I find the Elves of TH quite 'traditional'

Certainly in comparison to the Elves who undertook the Great Journey and received wisdom and strength from Valinor, particularly the Noldo who returned to Middle Earth with their lordly ways and crafts. I find that the Mirkwood Elves- as described in the Hobbit - have a fey quality to them very reminiscent of the Faeries of British tradition, their behaviour can also be seen to reflect this feyness. Firstly they seem to bewitch and tease Bilbo and the starving Dwarves with illusive twinkling lights and tantalising glimpses of a wondrous unattainable woodland feast, then they repeatedly disappear entirely leaving the group in terrible danger near and at the mercy of the large evil spider colony. Furthermore, the Mirkwood Elves also have no hesitation in kidnapping, imprisoning and placing a spell on Thorin, and I find all these incidents to have a strong echo of traditional Faerie shenanighans – let alone the drunkenness and revelry. On P.162 of the Hobbit Tolkien describes them thus:

Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise.
Dangerous indeed. The very gates, the physical manifestation of the Elvenkings inner realm are also notably magical, Thranduil himself says “There is no escape from my magic doors for those who are once brought inside.”

As has already been discussed, the Elves from Valinor are very different and feel more ‘humanized’/Christianised than the Avari and the Faeries of folklore. However, I also perceive a strong seam of what Drigel calls the ‘unhindered, chaotic, wild and untamed aspect’ of Faerie, in at least some of the other Elves of Tolkiens Legendarium. In this regard the first of whom that springs to mind are the Green-elves of Ossiriand:
The Silmarillion.(P171) has these two intriguing passages concerning them and their relationship with Men:

Now the Green-elves of Ossiriand were troubled by the coming of Men, and when they heard that a lord of the Eldar from over the Sea was among them they sent messengers to Felagund.’Lord,’ they said, ‘if you have power over these newcomers, bid them return by the ways that they came, or else to go forward. For we desire no strangers in this land to break the peace in which we live. And these folk are hewers of trees and hunters of beasts; therefore we are their unfriends, and if they will not depart we shall afflict them in all the ways that we can.’

I am particularly drawn to Tolkiens use of the words ‘unfriends’ and ‘afflict’ in that passage, and note that the Green-elves do not confront Men directly here, rather they use a go-between – a ‘humanised’ Elf from Valinor, further distancing themselves from Men folk, humans. Are their words merely threatening with no real intent as it were? I tend to think not, I get the sense that they are genuinely and actively hostile to Men, as the next passage reveals, Silmarillion.(P171):

First came the Haladin; but meeting the unfriendship of the Green-elves they turned north and dwelt in Thargelion, in the country of Caranthir son of Feanor

Given what we know of the deep moral fortitude and grim determination of the Haladin, the unfriendship of the Green-elves must have been considerably fierce to spur them into such a retreat. It may also be worth considering that from the point-of-view of the Haladin folk, the Green-elves most probably never revealed either themselves or their ‘reasons’ for afflicting them, and that feels quite wild and disturbing to me.

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

You mentioned earlier Davem: they (Faeries) made the natural world a place of terror, a place to be avoided. It was their realm and humans entered at their peril. There is an echo of that in Doriath and Lorien
I would maybe also add Nan Elmoth and Nan Dungortheb, despite the fact that the latter was not an Elven realm as such, it certainly bordered them. This dreadful valley had an atmosphere of enmeshing shadows, fell creatures and poisoned streams, any or all of which could prove utterly perilous to the unwary traveller who tried to cross it. Tolkiens world, or the fear inspiring wildness of traditional Faerie?

[Formendacil]

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

And interestingly enough, Eol, Maeglin, and Saeros all have Dark Elven roots, as it were, by which I mean non-Calaquendi, and non-Sindarin.

Saeros is very specifically said to have been of the Green Elven people, of the ones who removed to Doriath after Morgoth's return and the death of Denethor. Is his distaste for men connected to that of the other Green Elves you mention?

Eol is not said to be thus in the Silmarillion, but in Tolkien's writings he speculated a great deal about his origin, and one theory, which seems to have had the most weight, is that he was one of the Avari (of Tatyarin (ie. Noldorin) origin), who eventually came west to Beleriand. And even his main alternative origin, as a kinsman of Thingol, makes him sound as much a Green Elf as a Grey...

Maeglin, of course, is connected to the Dark Elves via his father's blood, and his upbringing.

And this is beginning to make me wonder... Did Tolkien envision two "faeries" as it were? Did his Translator's Conceit give him the idea, within Middle-Earth anyway, that the more historical view of a malevolent faerie was a distortion by Men in later times of the "real" faerie (Valinor) and the attitude of those Elves most likely to meet Men (the Avari)? In other words, is an internal (in-story) reconciling of the "real world" conception of Faerie and his own, Valinorean, conception of Faerie made possible by Avarian attitudes mixed with fading knowledge of Valinor?

[davem]

Did Tolkien envision two "faeries" as it were? Did his Translator's Conceit give him the idea, within Middle-Earth anyway, that the more historical view of a malevolent faerie was a distortion by Men in later times of the "real" faerie (Valinor) and the attitude of those Elves most likely to meet Men (the Avari)? In other words, is an internal (in-story) reconciling of the "real world" conception of Faerie and his own, Valinorean, conception of Faerie made possible by Avarian attitudes mixed with fading knowledge of Valinor?

Its possible. Certainly Tolkien couldn't have ignored the traditional accounts. He was motivated by a desire to 're-create' what had been. So perhaps he included what was the 'original' version of events, from which the traditional stories derived. The only problem with that explanation is that his Elves are not found in the tradition. Also, given the traditional tales (as found in Kirk) depict Elves/Fairies being attracted by beautiful humans. In its own way the tradition is more complex than the one we find among the Avari. It is very much a love-hate relationship, or perhaps desire-hate.

One thing we find as a commonplace in the tradition is accounts of battles between Fairy tribes. This obviously occurs in Tolkien with the Kinslaying, but in the tradtion there is no implication of a 'fall' being involved, no moral judgement at all being passed. Its just what the Fairies do. Kirk also refers to Fairy funerals & the implication there seems to be that they are mortal.

So, I'd agree that Tolkien attempted to acknowledge the tradition, but it seems that for some reason he felt the need to rationalise it to such a degree that it became almost unrecognisable.

Edit. He also reveals techniques for gaining an experience of the Second Sight, so one could actually see Fairies!

[Lalwendë]

And interestingly enough, Eol, Maeglin, and Saeros all have Dark Elven roots, as it were, by which I mean non-Calaquendi, and non-Sindarin.

It may also be worth considering that from the point-of-view of the Haladin folk, the Green-elves most probably never revealed either themselves or their ‘reasons’ for afflicting them, and that feels quite wild and disturbing to me.

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

I sometimes get the impression that there are two distinct histories of Elves, one which we can all read, the other never having been written down at all. On the one hand we have the Noldor, and those of the Teleri and Avari who chose (maybe?) to follow them. Then we also have the unwritten history of the Teleri and Avari who remained independent of the Eldar.

The Silmarillion could be said to be written from the point of view of the Noldor. The story of Eol is a case in point; it is debatable whether he did wrong in marrying Aredhel, but the treatment he received when he went to Gondolin often seems harsh. Gondolin was a 'protected' city, but Eol was also an independent Elf, who was prevented from leaving; his anger was extreme but his freedom was at stake. The story casts no judgement on the actions of the Elves of Gondolin for the events. I wonder how it might have been told differently by other Elves?

Right up to the War of the Ring, the Eldar are still dominant in Middle-earth, despite being depleted in number. If the Elves are a part of Faerie, then we are seeing only one view of it. Thinking of the translation conceit, The Silmarillion is translated from papers in Elrond's library, and LotR is translated from other papers. The Hobbit on the other hand is Bilbo's personal tale, and it is here that we see the Elves of Mirkwood acting in a sinister fashion, and the Elves of Rivendell having fun; maybe The Hobbit is the most 'unbiased' view of Elves that we have, being written by a Hobbit with no 'agenda'?

This obviously occurs in Tolkien with the Kinslaying, but in the tradtion there is no implication of a 'fall' being involved, no moral judgement at all being passed. Its just what the Fairies do.

Tolkien's Elves as far as we are allowed to see them, have clear concepts of right and wrong, which is the opposite to Faerie, where the two concepts are irrelevant. I wonder whether Tolkien had to 'build in' such strong ideas of right and wrong in order to make a story like LotR work? It is a story which involves much killing of the opposing forces, and we might easily question whether that is the correct thing to do if we are not drilled in the 'fact' that they are most definitely 'bad guys'? So therefore the story must have strongly stated opposing forces, and we must be made to see just how bad these bad guys are?

Throughout LotR there are moments where moral grey areas seem about ready to burst forth, but they are kept controlled; I mean those moments when we see Orcs conversing of 'retirement', or Gandalf refusing to be morally didactic about Gollum. LotR lacks any kind of 'seductive' bad guy who might make doing the wrong thing look to be quite attractive; his Orcs are all ugly, Mordor is vile, no bad guy ever seems to benefit from what they do.

Perhaps in the case of LotR it is that the story cannot allow any room for traditional Faerie, it cannot allow for amoral behaviour?

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:
The Silmarillion could be said to be written from the point of view of the Noldor. The story of Eol is a case in point; it is debatable whether he did wrong in marrying Aredhel, but the treatment he received when he went to Gondolin often seems harsh.

Really? If the facts reported in the Silmarillion are to be trusted, Eol kept Aredhel in Nan Elmoth against her will and forcibly married her.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's a difference between thinking that the Silmarillion is biased and thinking that it's false. But unless it is, in certain respects, false, the room for it to be biased is rather limited.

There's also the question of what it means to wonder whether a fictional story is "true" - what we mean to ask, of course, is not whether it's literally true but whether it's true or false within a supposed fictional world. But what defines that world if not the narrative whose veracity we're doubting?

[drigel]

But what defines that world if not the narrative whose veracity we're doubting?
This does bring me back to my original inclination to force both Faeries together. It is translators conciet I admit, but the perspective of the narrator in LOTR and Silm should be taken into account. Whats hinted at in LOTR (but not the Silm) are the cultural apprehension towards elves in general. It bespeaks of the waning of the men/elf relationships. I think of Bormir's fear of entering Lorien when I consider this, as an example.

Admittedly, it does touch on the waning theme, and the general ignorance of men (hobbits, et al), and their wariness of "magic". But could the old tales (or old wives tales :) ) not also have roots (going all the way back to the 1st age) of people's direct interaction with the more "wild" elves? Not even the Ossiriand Green Elves - where there was at least a structure of leadership, and a civilization of sorts, which (to me) implies a rule/law/code of behavior set of "rules" to live by sort of thing, but elves who answered to no lord. Eol does come to mind, but even he seemed to be on a level higher (skillsets, taste in women) than the rustic, naturally free elves that the traditional model references. It goes back to the question of ommision. They arent part of any story in the works, but those old tales of caution are.

Or is that too much of a leap?

[davem]

drigel

That works in terms of the Legendarium, but it doesn't account for Tolkien's unique creation of the Elves, which don't correspond to anything in the traditional accounts of Fairies. It may be that Tolkien has allowed the traditional version in to his mythology in the way you suggest, but only as a misinterpretation by later peoples. He's basicaloly saying the traditions are wrong - which kind of implies that he didn't value them all that highly. But that goes against his praise of fairystories in OFS.

[drigel]

so my leap is executed, but falls short

aarrrgh :rolleyes:
it hurts us, yes it hurtss

So.... ,

The transition to and from, and realization of faerie that seems to be part of the foundation of the theme of the works, does seem (from a human's POV) to be (in part) the study of human nature, and how it relates with mortality. And your premise is that this theme could not be fully reached without a more "noble" form of fairy, (i.e. - one that really didnt exist)? Or, in other words, can one from faerie experience eucatastrophe? The author could not figure out how to describe this without having to invent a new fairie, eh wot?

edit:
Or was it simply that he thought no one would take the stories/legendarium seriously if he used the traditional model - a known commodity?

btw - thanks for the links! interesting stuff :)

[davem]

And your premise is that this theme could not be fully reached without a more "noble" form of fairy, (i.e. - one that really didnt exist)? Or, in other words, can one from faerie experience eucatastrophe? The author could not figure out how to describe this without having to invent a new fairie, eh wot?

The interesting question is, while he did create a mythology in the Legendarium, can we say he wrote a 'fairy story'. A few people have referred to OFS as his creative manifesto, his laying out of the rules & the groundwork for true fairy stories. But is the Legendarium as a whole & LotR in particular, actually a Fairy story. Well, it obeys the 'law' in that it contains Eucatastrophe. But is that Eucatastrophe a Fairy tale one or something more, something deeper & more profound. It may well be that the type of Eucatastrophe he wished to depict required the kind of Faerie he created.

The Eucatastrophe we find in fairy stories is of an altogether simpler, more human & earthly kind - as in the story of The Black Bull of Norroway which he cites in the essay. But the kind of Eucatastrophe Tolkien was interested in (which could rghtly be called 'Evangelium') was far from that. It was the kind of Eucatastrophe to be found in his 'True Myth' (ie the Gospel) that he was concerned with. No fairy story that I know of reaches those kinds of 'heights'.

So, what do we actually have? Tolkien wishing to 'subcreate' a world where the equivalent kind & degree of Eucatastrophe found in the Gospels could occur. That could not happen in a tale of traditional Faerie, so he had to invent a new kind of Faerie where it could.

But I still have to ask, if that was his intention, why go to such lengths to involve traditional Faerie at all? Why not just do a 'Milton'? I suppose that he wanted to include Faerie because he loved it, to 'redeem' it. Yet in the very act of saving it he changed it beyond recognition.

In Smith he seems almost to be going back to traditional Faerie - almost, but not quite - after all, there is no real going back....

[Lalwendë]

Really? If the facts reported in the Silmarillion are to be trusted, Eol kept Aredhel in Nan Elmoth against her will and forcibly married her.

I've posted on this on a dedicated thread before, which I ought find, but in order to get to the point:

Very fair she seemed to him, and he desired her; and he set his enchantments about her so that she could not find the ways out, but drew ever nearer to his dwelling in the depths of the wood. ... when Aredhel, weary with wandering, came at last to his doors, he revealed himself; and he welcomed her, and led her into his house. And there she remained; for Eol took her to wife, and it was long ere any of her kin heard of her again.

It is not said that Aredhel was wholly unwilling, nor that her life in Nan Elmoth was hateful to her for many years.

It is indeed not clear exactly what happened, but one thing is clear, that she was not 'wholly unwilling' - this much the 'writer' of the text will allow. It does not state that he forced her to marry him; he makes it impossible for her to leave the woods until she has met him, but force is not mentioned.

Now, back to Faerie, looking at this tale again with this topic in mind has made me think twice about some of the images therein. The story of Eol is directly drawn from Faerie!

there Eol would meet the Naugrim and hold converse with them. And as their friendship grew he would at times go and dwell as guest in the deep mansions of Nogrod or Belegost. He devised a metal as hard as the steel of the Dwarves, but so malleable that he could make it thin and supple; and yet it remained resistant to all blades and darts. He named it galvorn, for it was black and shining like jet, and he was clad in it whenever he went abroad.

Wayland and Eol both possess remarkable skills as Smiths, and both make armour, their skills having been learned from Dwarves. In addition, Wayland and Eol both 'seduce' important or high-ranking female figures.

The Saxon figure of Wayland is associated with Wayland's Smithy, which was built by a much older culture and had a pre-existing story about a Smith associated with it (leave a horse with a silver coin by the tomb and it will be shod in the morning). The tomb is traditionally seen as an entrance to the Underworld or Otherworld; Eol makes these very same journeys when he chooses to go to the Dwarf cities of Nogrod and Belegost. Furthermore, he has learned much more than smithing:

his eyes could see deep into shadows and dark places.

This is clearly a very different kind of Elf. The story hints that he has been 'elsewhere'. He lives away from other Elves, possibly as he yearns for the time before the Noldor came back to Middle-earth:

He shunned the Noldor, holding them to blame for the return of Morgoth, to trouble the quiet of Beleriand; but for the Dwarves he had more liking than any other of the Elvenfolk of old.

What does this signify? The Noldor have been to Valinor and lived in the Light of the Trees, yet here is an Elf who chooses to shun them and mix with the Dwarves under the earth. It is almost as though Eol is pagan man, shunning the new Christians, and preferring to mingle with and learn from the Faerie folk. When he refuses to stay in Gondolin, or to 'convert', he is provoked to madness.

There are also echoes of the ballad of Tam Lin in the 'escape' of Maeglin with Aredhel, and in the enchantment which Aredhel falls under when she first enters Nan Elmoth. And another link springs to mind with the folk tale of the last two Picts to possess the secret of Heather Ale, a father and son; the father asks for the son to be thrown from the cliffs after which he will tell the secret but then throws himself off. The Pictish men are thrown off by near kin, the Scots from Ulster.

Hmm, these are slightly mad thoughts, but now I'm writing about it, I can see something in it... Maybe Faerie does exist in Middle-earth, just not in the Eldar?

[drigel]

Hmm, these are slightly mad thoughts,
quite
welcome to my world :) thank Davem for me :eek:

Maybe Faerie does exist in Middle-earth, just not in the Eldar?

but it hurtsesss :p

Omission can be interpreted in any way, I suppose. Inclusion is really the meat of analysis because - well - omission is omission.

Considering the body of work (Legendarium, OFS, SoWM, LOTR, Silm, et al), I can find different aspects of:
1: how a traditional fairy tale aught to be
2: how a fairy tale could and should be
3: what a fairy tale really is, once you strip it down to it's essence. No cultural stigmata, no yarn-spinning - just the original tale, as told by the players.

[Numenorean]

LalwendëI sometimes get the impression that there are two distinct histories of Elves, one which we can all read, the other never having been written down at all. On the one hand we have the Noldor, and those of the Teleri and Avari who chose (maybe?) to follow them. Then we also have the unwritten history of the Teleri and Avari who remained independent of the Eldar.
and
The Hobbit on the other hand is Bilbo's personal tale, and it is here that we see the Elves of Mirkwood acting in a sinister fashion, and the Elves of Rivendell having fun; maybe The Hobbit is the most 'unbiased' view of Elves that we have, being written by a Hobbit with no 'agenda'?
I really like those theories Lal, and to me at any rate they go a long way to explaining the differing realities and perceptions of Faerie that saturate through the Legendarium, or as Drigel succinctly states:
Considering the body of work (Legendarium, OFS, SoWM, LOTR, Silm, et al), I can find different aspects of:
1: how a traditional fairy tale aught to be
2: how a fairy tale could and should be
3: what a fairy tale really is, once you strip it down to it's essence. No cultural stigmata, no yarn-spinning - just the original tale, as told by the players.
Lalwendë Perhaps in the case of LotR it is that the story cannot allow any room for traditional Faerie, it cannot allow for amoral behaviour?
Maybe because it deals with – amongst other themes - the ascendance of Mans Dominion over Arda? Moral ambiguity in the LoTR seems to be evident only when we are hearing of someone or something second or even thirdhand, notably the Rohirrims warped and superstitious viewpoint of Galadriel. They are deemed to be an honourable and ‘good hearted’ race, yet their fear and lack of comprehension as to what Galadriel is actually about is perhaps indicative of humankinds fading respect and understanding of Faerie as a whole.

On a bit(!) of a tangent:-
Davem In Smith he seems almost to be going back to traditional Faerie - almost, but not quite ...*The chronology Tolkien constructed for the story has Smith born in the year 1063, discovering the Star in 1073, marrying Nell in 1091 & making his last journey into Faerie in 1120 - making him about 57. 'His long journeys in Faerie probably were undertaken mostly in the years between 1098 & 1108, & 1115-20
Davem, when I saw the above chronology I was struck by the curious and maybe deliberate coincidence of the Smith storyline intersecting with the arrival and ascendancy of the Normans in Britain from 1066 onwards. Was this a conscious motivation for Tolkien?
History records that their policies were harsh and oppressive upon the native Anglo-Saxons and Brits, and heralded the commencement of the grim ‘modernising’ feudal era. The Norman invasion and subsequent proliferation of their culture across the land can also be seen as a time when traditional Faerie waned. The mystery of the land was greatly lessened via Norman military conquests, power motivated projects such as Domesday and as a result of local administrative centres based in castles.
In short, the erosion of traditional Faerie was vast and in most places irredeemable, and where it even survived at all Faerie was pushed back to the deepest corners and forests of the land. JRRT was probably acutely aware of the crushing impact of Normanisation upon the previously rich tapestry of native British myths, legends and lore, and that leads me to believe that the Smith timeline is no mere coincidence, or perhaps it was…

[drigel]

JRRT was probably acutely aware of the crushing impact of Normanisation upon the previously rich tapestry of native British myths, legends and lore, and that leads me to believe that the Smith timeline is no mere coincidence, or perhaps it was…
Nice thoughts about folding in historical influences, Numeronean!

I think about macro timelines as well esp when considering the Catholic/Christian POV, and how it relates to the Great Defeat as well. How the view of our history being a "downhill slide" since Eden. That is pronounced esp when looking at Legendarium elvish history, although being apart from Ea, there is a high-to-low progression. Contrast that to standard scientific view of "its all uphill" since we arose from the slime....

[davem]

Nice thoughts about folding in historical influences, Numeronean!

I think about macro timelines as well esp when considering the Catholic/Christian POV, and how it relates to the Great Defeat as well. How the view of our history being a "downhill slide" since Eden. That is pronounced esp when looking at Legendarium elvish history, although being apart from Ea, there is a high-to-low progression. Contrast that to standard scientific view of "its all uphill" since we arose from the slime....

In the Smith essay Tolkien refers to a 'reformation':

The Great Hall is evidently in a way an 'allegory' of the village church; the Master Cook with his house adjacent, and his office that is not hereditary, provides for its own instruction and succession but is not one of the 'secular' or profitable crafts, and yet is supported financially by the village, is plainly the Parson and the priesthood. 'Cooking' is a domestic affair practised by men and women: personal religion and prayer. The Master Cook presides over and provides for all the religious festivals of the year, and also for all the religious occasions that are not universal: births, marriages, and deaths. The Great Hall is however no longer painted or decorated. If antique carvings, whether grotesques like gargoyles, or beautiful and of religious import, are preserved at all it is by mere custom. The Hall is kept rainproof, weatherproof and warm: that is the prime object of any care spent on it. Festivals are mere public assemblies, for talk assisted by eating and drinking: there are no longer songs, music, or dances. The church has been 'reformed'. Memory survives of 'merrier' days, but most of the village would not approve of any revival of them. That a MC (Master Cook) should himself sing is regarded as out of accord with his office.

Perhaps Tolkien was not thinking so much of the Norman invasion as of the English Reformation & the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII. Under ther Protestant Reformers (& later under Cromwell & the Commonwealth) there were, to a great extent, 'no longer songs, music, or dances' - it was (as Flieger noted when she read the essay out at Birmingham) the end of 'Merrie England' - as much of a fantasy as that may have been.

In fact, this whole passage is clearly (if only on one level) an 'allegory' of the Reformation & the rise of Protestant England. That being the case, what are the 'Faeries' in Smith - not 'Angels or Messengers of God' says Tolkien, but it seems they may have had Catholic sympathies!

[littlemanpoet]

Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, still more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unpossessive love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful even glorious. Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): esthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound [=Imagination](lmp's italics)-of [1]awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; [2]a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and [3]a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' [as it represents Imagination]is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.

I have bolded and italicized portions of this paragraph to highlight what I take to be the core meaning Tolkien is expressing, which seems to have been missed so far in the discussion.

It's interesting that he distinguishes 'this' 'Faery' in the way he does - because this distinction implies that there is another Faery - perhaps the Faery of tradition. What's also interesting is that he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life' as opposed to the Faerie of tradition - which he perhaps considered to be unnecessary - or perhaps even worse than unnecessary: truly 'dangerous' in a spiritual way? Who knows?

Let us distinguish with care: Tolkien is saying that Faery does not equal Imagination, but represents it. Is this nevertheless a modern notion? Surely the ancients thought Faery to be real rather than imagined, but is that saying something different? Nevertheless, how does Faery represent Imagination? According to the paragraph I've quoted first, Imagination (as represented by Faery) is the one thing in our (modern) lives that cannot be known, possessed, controlled. While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.

I think what particularly interests me is that Tolkien set SoWM in a very 'medieval' world, & in that period of our history Faeries/Fairies were generally feared & seen as malicious & dangerous...

Perhaps this has to do in part with Tolkien's claim in On Faery Stories that desirability is the key ingredient: I (personally) desire dragons (and faery) with a deep desire. That Tolkien set SoWM in a medieval Wootton may derive from that which his mental life was most taken up with. His linguistic studies were all pre-Renaissance, so maybe he was writing what he knew (and desired); I find it also interesting that a medieval village was his entry point to a fairy story rather than 1960's Oxford. I think it's important to reckon with Tolkien's insistence upon the Forest as opposed to the Chthonic Underground as his entrypoint into Fairy itself.

We do well to remember also that Tolkien is fleshing out the rationale for THIS particular story. The plot-problem he settles on is the growing vulgarization of Wootton Major, and the plot-solution is the help of Faery. Thus he has presented himself with a rationale problem: why would Faery bother to help Wootton Major out of its vulgarization? What possible answers avail themselves to this question? Tolkien hits upon love and self-interest, which two he sees as not mutually exclusive. I also note that Tolkien suggests to himself that there may have been relations between Elves and humans, resulting in certain unnamed "sanctions".

So here's a question with which we may attempt to second-guess Tolkien: ;) what possible answers avail themselves to the question Tolkien found himself facing: What would motivate Faery to help Wootton Major out of its vulgarization, if not those which Tolkien hits upon?

*The chronology Tolkien constructed for the story has Smith born in the year 1063, discovering the Star in 1073, marrying Nell in 1091 & making his last journey into Faerie in 1120 - making him about 57. 'His long journeys in Faerie probably were undertaken mostly in the years between 1098 & 1108, & 1115-20.' ie he would have been 35-45 & 52-57 - coincidentally the ages Tolkien was when he did most of his major work on The Sil & LotR....

I also find it interesting how these dates correspond to the Norman Conquest. This is a tangent, but Tolkien could not have used these dates without an awareness of their import upon the three imaginary villages of the story. It could be said that his story had nothing to do with that conquest, but I find the dates peculiar nonetheless. Perhaps he found them necessary because of the state of technology he has set up. But I tend to agree that he is doing this on purpose as a conscious statement (at least to himself) in regard to the Normanization of England.

Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all.Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories) condemned the 'Flower Fairies' imagery for its falseness & 'Pigwiggenry', yet his own 'Elves' are just as 'false' a creation & no closer to genuine Elves & Fairies.

Hold on just a minute. I see why you say this, but in your revisionistic zeal I think you may be overlooking what Tolkien faced in the construction of his own Legendarium, for admittedly he DOES hit upon love of humans as the Fairy motivation, and it does carry through his entire ouvre. I submit that Tolkien's thesis, if you will, was (in part at least) that human myths have lost all memory of a former race of being that were Fairy, namely the highest of them, because these very beings have departed from the shores of our middle earth. Therefore, I submit to you that Tolkien was consciously writing a corrective to what he saw as a lack, and thus I find it ironic that here we are these many decades later claiming that Tolkien got it wrong because the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them. Additionally, I don't see that it's really necessary to presuppose a necessarily Catholic (let alone Christian) view in order to see this submitted thesis through. I'm thinking about Tolkien's motivation for writing, as presented in the Carpenter Biography and his Letters. He and his three friends were bound by a common love for things Northern, and for things Saxon (pre-Norman), and for Myth (what a powerful combination!). Add his love of Welsh (thus Celtic roots) to this, and his Atlantis dream, and there is plenty to work with absent any religious directedness other than theism.

If you don't accept that submission, perhaps you may accept that such beneficent Elves & Faeries were required for the stories he had chosen to write. As was his right. I think he would be surprised that his version of the beings would come to be thought of as "received doctrine". Be that as it may, Tolkien did set a paradigm; he also awakened interest and knowledge, such that we know the differences between fairies of antiquity (whether Alfar or Sidhe or yet another group), those of Victoriana, and Tolkien's. So I ask: is Tolkien's corrective (as I claim) worth consideration as such? Is it a valid addition to Faeriana? Tolkien's own answer to this question is clear enough, as one or more of you have reminded us from LotR, such as the Rohirrim attitude toward Galadriel.

maybe the exploration of death overrode everything else for Tolkien, to the extent that he was required to re-create the Elves in his own image, put them in the service of his story, effectively make them into 'symbols', even 'emasculate' them.

Perhaps the questions posed by Tolkien in the essay presented at T2005, were posed specifically about SoWM, but perhaps not. However, whereas death is clearly important to Tolkien, this Beneficent High Faery seems to be really rather important to him in its own right.

Maybe we ought not to look at Tolkien's Elves at all if we want to find any reflection of 'our' Faerie. They are altogether too perfect to be a representation of Faeries, too controlled and moral. Tolkien's Elves are more like Men, or rather, like idealised Men.

At first I agreed with this until I allowed myself to think that perhaps we need to pay attention to Tolkien's point, if it is indeed accurate as I have submitted it. Consider that Tolkien wished his critics, as regards to sex in his works, would "grow up". Tolkien's Elves are super-human; the successful marriage of earth and spirit, and thus attempting to attain unto something utterly foreign to the Sidhe, Alfar, or other such beings.

Tom Bombadil and Goldberry would be more appropriate as the King and Queen of Faerie than any Elf; they remain slightly enigmatic yet familiar, otherworldly, and unpredictable.

Yes. Tom and Goldberry always seemed like they belonged in Middle Earth more than the Elves could.
Which now seems interesting in terms of my little submitted thesis. Should I start a new thread?

Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants? For all our discussions here, I don't think we've yet got the heart of the matter - why did he change the traditional Elves & Fairies to the extent that he did & more importantly perhaps why did he make out that he hadn't changed them at all?

I hope I've helped to approach the heart of the matter. Let me know what you think.

It seems that we are treating the Legendarium and the essays, as the "Gospel of Faery According to Tolkien", as it were. Granted, the "On Fairy Stories" and other essays do lend persuasiveness to do so, but maybe we would do well to back off of that and remember that these are Tolkien's fallible views, and his works fallible works. Perhaps that goes without saying, but there does seem to be an underlying need to "dethrone the author from his high place", which wouldn't seem so needful if we hadn't mistakenly (and unintentionally) put him there in the first place; I doubt he wanted or sought it.

Hmm... Well, to some people - the rural Irish (up to & including in this century) they were real beings - a 'real & present danger'. As they were (& still are) to some Icelanders. And to rural peoples everywhere.

Except in in the U.S., where the new bugaboo in rural areas appears to be Harry Potter books and the like; but that's fodder for another thread. ;)

We seem to see in Tolkien a conflicted artist - 'torn in two'. Part of him is pulled towards the traditional Faery, part towards his religion & its requirements & values.

I don't see it this way now that I've thought about it. I think that he wanted to correct some misconceptions abour Faery as he saw them, and loved that which is contained by Faery as well. Faery is a big place, and I don't see such a thesis/antithesis problem in this.

My point here being, it seems that in TH, which was originally not meant to be part of the Legendarium Tolkien felt able to set the Fairies free to be themselves. It was only the Legendarium Elves that were required to 'work for a living' & earn their bread.....

This is one way in which I like TH better than LotR, treasonous as that may be. The Legendarium is thus a two-edged sword, used by Tolkien to carry his theme of the existence of the forgotten High Elves. Tolkien's Elves are a very refined type of being, whereas the Fairies of SoWM are not so minutely defined; and remain mysterious. I was going to say that this is part of why SoWM has a greater appeal to me than anything else Tolkien wrote, but I think it may have more to do with Tolkien being at his maturest and ablest in storytelling by this point in his life. That Wootton is medieval also adds to that appeal, for me, although Tolkien apparently chose that particular date-set for reasons having directly to do with the story he wished to tell. (In that regard, the pictures by Pauline Baynes, which accompanied the original publication, have a striking resemblance to the stained glass windows in York Minster; I was stunned by the similarity, as if she had sat in the pews in the nave and copied the style from some of the stained glass in the southern aisle of the nave. Sorry about the tangent) That there is a whole backstory shows how Tolkien's practice at writing had matured him into a full-fledged writer/artist by the 60s. Backstories are the kind of thing writers do in order to make their story more real to themselves. It's tough work. Here he is doing it, and still making the story itself exquisite in its seeming simplicity.

I think that the Faerie of SoWM quite literally is Tolkien's Faerie, but that's because Tolkien seems to have had a particular notion of what faerie was/is. I think that his Faerie, rather than being an Otherworld place was in fact the imagination, the realm within people. The star in SoWM could represent the imagination and the passing on of this could represent the encouragement of further generations to explore the Faerie within.

This seems to run slightly counter to Tolkien's statement: The King ... devised the token or insigne of the silver star, devised it or revived it. His own insigne was a brilliant star upon the forehead. The token was a very small representation of this. Those who wore it were thus accredited (as if they were stamped with a crown and OHMS!) and received the guidance and guard of all Elvenfolk, as being in the King's service or in his favour. But it remained the King's property, and was not transferable, nor heritable Thus the star Smith wore on his forehead was a symbol of the authority of the King of Faery within Faery, a passport as it were.

I don't know that Faerie itself would have no respect for such a notion as Art. Much of the point of SoWM seems to be that Faery does indeed care deeply about human Art. But of course now we run into the issue of "your Faery or my Faery?" Still, if we're discussing Tolkien's conception of Faery, we ought to at least give it its head insofar as it's Tolkien's story and theme, and see if his point is not valid.


On Other stuff from the essay:

Also he intended to make a very long stay in Wootton including in his plans the making of at least two Great Cakes, which would be memorable, and leaving behind a tradition of a long 'reign' of light colour and mirth, as well as culinary excellence, together with the rumour that this was due to a beneficent intrusion from Faery. It was therefore necessary to allow time for him to appear to age in human fashion at an at least credible rate.

This seems odd to me. There was in fact little hint of a rumour, except perhaps in the family of Smith. So rather than allowing for a rumour, it seems that Alf's slow aging was meant to quiet any rumour of help from Faery. Or am I missing something?

Another question I have that didn't seem to bother Tolkien was, why is Ned dependent upon his father? Why can he not go to Outer Faery? He is, after all, descended from Rider, and from Rose of Walton. How is he "one precisely of the practical and plain normal men and workers whose enlightenment and vivification was one of the objects of the King's plan"?

[HerenIstarion]

Perhaps I'll be giving discussion turn off the main course, but since we do not have other active threads on Smith going right now, I feel the turn may be justified

In the text itself (not an essay), there are two types of Evil in the Faery itself - Greater Evil (or Evils) and Lesser Evil. The latter is defied by the Star, and from the Greater Smith is guarded (by the Queen?)

It is not explained what are those Evils. Now, vague impression I have that Lesser is Vanity, and gifted person is rarely vain, but the Greater should be Pride/Arrogance, and here gifted person is in greater peril. Yes? No?

I'm not going to elaborate further, at the very least bacause I'm not sure what else may I add. Imagine me standing by the pot and adding just another spice to the 'boiling soup' of your debate here.

[littlemanpoet]

Huh. I had always thought of those lesser and greater evils as, say, hobgoblins and dragons, respectively. But you may have something there. Hmm....

[davem]

I want to reply to LMP properly later, but just for now

It is not explained what are those Evils. Now, vague impression I have that Lesser is Vanity, and gifted person is rarely vain, but the Greater should be Pride/Arrogance, and here gifted person is in greater peril. Yes? No?

What interested me in this comment was that it interprets the evils allegorically - which, given Tolkien's clear statement in the LotR foreword, Tolkien 'cordially disliked'. But in the Smith essay he writes:

The Great Hall is evidently in a way an 'allegory' of the village church;

So he acknowledges that allegory may well be present. So, did he consciously write it as an allegory, or did he only realise he'd written an allegory 'after the fact'?

[littlemanpoet]

My hunch would be that, given all the backstory, he was aware of how the Great Hall replaced the Church in his village, from early on though not before he started it.

[davem]

Let us distinguish with care: Tolkien is saying that Faery does not equal Imagination, but represents it. Is this nevertheless a modern notion? Surely the ancients thought Faery to be real rather than imagined, but is that saying something different? Nevertheless, how does Faery represent Imagination? According to the paragraph I've quoted first, Imagination (as represented by Faery) is the one thing in our (modern) lives that cannot be known, possessed, controlled. While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.


Who's imagination, though? Is this Faerie as the human imagination, or as the Imagination of the Deity? Maybe even the imagination of the earth itself (why not - if Tom can be the spirit of the countryside?) Faerie as the imagination of the earth strikes me as a distinct possibility, if Men are turning away from the earth & towards technology. Faeries would be the spirits of the earth attempting to awaken Men from their mechanistic 'dream' to reality once more. But I think this asks deeper questions about our relationship with the earth itself. If the Fairies of tradition are antagonistic to Men have we given them reason. Was there a time when we were in harmony with the earth - or sufficiently so that the Faeries more like Tolkien's Elves (or like some of them at least)? If so, then SoWM might represent the 'middle' period, when Faeries sought to bring us back to that harmonious relationship, & the traditional accounts our current state - we have rejected them with contempt, they respond in kind.

I see why you say this, but in your revisionistic zeal I think you may be overlooking what Tolkien faced in the construction of his own Legendarium, for admittedly he DOES hit upon love of humans as the Fairy motivation, and it does carry through his entire ouvre. I submit that Tolkien's thesis, if you will, was (in part at least) that human myths have lost all memory of a former race of being that were Fairy, namely the highest of them, because these very beings have departed from the shores of our middle earth. Therefore, I submit to you that Tolkien was consciously writing a corrective to what he saw as a lack, and thus I find it ironic that here we are these many decades later claiming that Tolkien got it wrong because the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them.

Well, Tolkien invented this concept of Faeries having left these shores & their true nature having been forgotten. If there is such a 'lack' it is a consequence of his own belief/theory/invention. My question is, why invent such a thing? Is this 'lack' universally felt, or was it only felt by Tolkien himself? Well, no longer. We all feel that 'lack' (those of us who respond to his works, that is) but would we have felt it if he hadn't written his Legendarium? Has he actually made us feel the lack of something which we wouldn't have missed otherwise? My point is that we don't find Faeries/Faerie represented/representing in that way prior to him, but he claims in OFS that we did. The whole point is that ' the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

So I ask: is Tolkien's corrective (as I claim) worth consideration as such? Is it a valid addition to Faeriana?

Is Faerie a 'real' place. or simply a construct of the Human imagination. If it is the former, then one cannot simply 'add' things to it which become accepted on equal terms with what already exists there. One can only so that if it is 'merely' a human construct. If we could add things to it it would be our subject to manipulate & control, to use as we will.

On 'Allegory'

My hunch would be that, given all the backstory, he was aware of how the Great Hall replaced the Church in his village, from early on though not before he started it.

The reason I think his acceptance of 'allegory' in Smith is interesting is that every single time an allegorical interpretation of any of Tolkien's works is brought up those lones from the Introduction to LotR are brought up. I know very well that if I, or anyone else, had suggested that the Great Hall in SoWM was an allegory of the Church, the response would have been one of absolute rejection of the idea, because 'Tolkien disliked alllegory'.

But if Tolkien could write Smith as a 'Fairy story' & later 'discover' an allegorical dimension to it (after dismissing other people's allegorical interpretations: cf his appreciation of Roger Lancelyn Green's statement that to look for an allegorical meaning in Smith was like cutting open the ball to look for its 'bounce') then can we so easily rule out allegory in his other works? Whatever the answer to that question we now have to accept that Tolkien didn't find allegory as distasteful as he makes out in the LotR Foreword.

[littlemanpoet]

:eek:

Um, you do really believe there are Faeries, I take it.

Okay.

I admit to having played with the notion in days gone by, but never gave it actual credence, as such.

Such a belief most definitely will affect how one views Tolkien's work. It would, I suppose, be on a par with, in my case, someone, say, a J.R.R. Van Essendelft, writing an entire Legendarium that adds to the New Testament in ways that are not exactly according to accepted doctrine, but actually beautifies it in profound (and therefore) troubling ways. Is this how you see Tolkien?

[Formendacil]

The reason I think his acceptance of 'allegory' in Smith is interesting is that every single time an allegorical interpretation of any of Tolkien's works is brought up those lones from the Introduction to LotR are brought up. I know very well that if I, or anyone else, had suggested that the Great Hall in SoWM was an allegory of the Church, the response would have been one of absolute rejection of the idea, because 'Tolkien disliked alllegory'.

But if Tolkien could write Smith as a 'Fairy story' & later 'discover' an allegorical dimension to it (after dismissing other people's allegorical interpretations: cf his appreciation of Roger Lancelyn Green's statement that to look for an allegorical meaning in Smith was like cutting open the ball to look for its 'bounce') then can we so easily rule out allegory in his other works? Whatever the answer to that question we now have to accept that Tolkien didn't find allegory as distasteful as he makes out in the LotR Foreword.[/quote]

Perhaps it would be better to leave the LotR Foreword to the LotR. Whether or not Tolkien disliked allegory is up for debate, but disliking something does not automatically mean that one will not write it.

The thing here is that people seem to think that what allies to the LotR applies to SoWM- which is not necessarily the case. For all that Tolkien was renowned for his literary works getting sucked into the Legendarium, that does not mean that this is necessarily the case. In particular, I am thinking with regards to allegory. Allegory is a good deal easier to insert into a story without a ruining it when the story is short, because a short story is a good deal simpler than a complex, longer one. If allegory is purposefully inserted into a grand epic, it twists the epic and does not allow for the complex story to take its course and become a STORY, first and foremost. On the other hand, a short story can be entirely based around an allegorical idea while NOT ruining the experience as a story. Or so I view.

My point, distilled, is that there is no reason on earth that Tolkien's statement in the Foreword to the Lord of the Rings should be taken as applicable to Smith of Wooton Major. There is no obvious, overt, link other than the author, and that does not necessitate the transferral of the Foreword's statements.

[littlemanpoet]

...and to the Imagination, for which it stands.

:p ...to bowdlerize a certain dearly loved (by some) bit of verbage...

It would seem that belief-set does after all underlie our discussion (now that I am over the initial shock of discovering what seems to be the truly held belief of some BDrs). I think that Tolkien wished that Faery was real, but believed that it was at least true (this is also my own belief). My sense from OFS and the essay you so kindly passed on, davem, is that Tolkien believed in the power of the Imagination.

If there have ever been spirits or beings associated with lakes, hillocks, streams, woods, copses, mountains and the like, for someone with my personal belief-set (and I am with Tolkien here), these beings must and will stand in some sort of relationship with the First Cause, Who (in the belief-set I share with Tolkien) is a Person. According to this belief-set, this Person created an Eden in which all creation was at one harmony; that is to say, if there was a Faery, it had its place in Eden, and it was the onset of Evil in Eden that splintered the unities into all their fractious parts. I can see how Tolkien, loving Faery and Myth, allegiant to one particular Myth that he believed to be True, would see a lack, and needed to write about it. That's the way it looks to me.

Perhaps Tolkien found himself in a strange half-belief that I often find myself in. I wish that Faery was real, and at least want it to be, and sometimes I half-believe that it is. Then my belief-set re-establishes itself, and I wonder what I do really believe about Faery, and how it might fit into my belief-set, if that's possible. Hmmmm.....

My point is that we don't find Faeries/Faerie represented/representing in that way prior to him, but he claims in OFS that we did. The whole point is that ' the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

I apologize for my denseness, but could you kindly provide the quote you are referring to? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[davem]

Um, you do really believe there are Faeries, I take it.

I've met some.

I apologize for my denseness, but could you kindly provide the quote you are referring to? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

I was generalising based on the essay as a whole. Tolkien, in my reading, was attempting to show that fairystory works on us in the same way as the Christian story - but not to the same depth or extent - sorry I'm struggling here to say what I want to. Tolkien states in OFS that fairystory provides, at its best a glimpse beyond the walls of the world, of Evangelium. Tolkien implies that is, if not its purpose, then certianly its effect.

I don't think this is the case in traditional fairystories - what they actually do is give us a glimpse of the world as it is - which is something Tolkien also says is the purpose of fairystories - but that, for me, is as far as it goes - a glimpse beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief? I can't think of one that does that - not even the Black Bull of Norroway, which Tolkien cites as evidence of his theory.

Now, Tolkien's Legendarium (LotR in particular) does provide that glimpse beyond the walls of the world. Smith does not. SoWM is a story set firmly within the circles of the natural world - Heaven doesn't come into it.

Certainly fairystories provide a glimpse of something beyond the man-made, & maybe that's what Tolkien meant, but I think not, because he brings in Christianity, & the existence of a 'World' beyond this world. In SoWM Faery & the Human world co-exist within the circles of the world & there is not a trace of Evangelium.

What Tolkien has done in OFS is to 'Christianise' fairystory & then claim it was 'Christian' all along. Smith is a step away from that, back to what Faery had been, but the Faery of Smith is still not the Fairie of tradition, & my question is why did he want to convince us it was?

You see, I'm not criticising what Tolkien actually produced, or the value of his theories, only asking about his reasons for setting himself up as a 'champion of Faery' when he was really only championing his own take on it?

[drigel]

What Tolkien has done in OFS is to 'Christianise' fairystory & then claim it was 'Christian' all along. Smith is a step away from that, back to what Faery had been, but the Faery of Smith is still not the Fairie of tradition, & my question is why did he want to convince us it was?
Was it to convince us, or to show us an example of an historical authenticity? I lean towards the former... but why?

edit:
I've met some.
come on Davem - give :cool:

[davem]

come on Davem - give

One was about five feet tall & stepped out (literally) of a silver birch, the other was about six feet tall, dressed in black & silver-grey carrying a longbow. I was sitting in a copse of trees & my sense was that he was a 'guardian' or protector of the place.

And while some may think I was hallucinating (or drunk) you'll find this kind of experience regularly reported in many parts of the world.

And I don't care if anyone believes me or not :)

[drigel]

not once but twice
outstanding!

[littlemanpoet]

Sets my skin a-tingling.

[littlemanpoet]

davem, this discussion has been on my mind since the last post was placed here. Your basic question seems to still have been unanswered to your satisfaction. I'm not sure that it can be.

I personally do not doubt the veracity of your experience. You see, I don't want to. Which leads me to the inevitable (for me) question that must plague the mind of someone who is a modern Christian (not post-modern, an orthodox believer): if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

How does one come to perceive them? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life......he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary...I wonder if he meant that it was necessary to him? Though I must admit that it's necessary to me; it certainly seems that way.
Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all. How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.Who's imagination, though? Is this Faerie as the human imagination, or as the Imagination of the Deity? Maybe even the imagination of the earth itself (why not - if Tom can be the spirit of the countryside?)

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

Was there a time when we were in harmony with the earth - or sufficiently so that the Faeries more like Tolkien's Elves (or like some of them at least)? If so, then SoWM might represent the 'middle' period, when Faeries sought to bring us back to that harmonious relationship, & the traditional accounts our current state - we have rejected them with contempt, they respond in kind.This seems as right and true as we can possibly hope to be.

My question is, why invent such a thing? Is this 'lack' universally felt, or was it only felt by Tolkien himself? Well, no longer. We all feel that 'lack' (those of us who respond to his works, that is) but would we have felt it if he hadn't written his Legendarium? Has he actually made us feel the lack of something which we wouldn't have missed otherwise?

An orthodox Christian who loves faery would say that this lack is real, and that even if it isn't felt, it should be. This is because we were closer to, and are now disconnected from, nature (you know, I dislike that word as a too handy catch-all that loses much in the short-hand).

The whole point is that 'the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.If by 'very thing' we're talking about the presence of beneficent Elves in Tolkien's Legendarium, where in OFS does Tolkien say that? Isn't Tolkien saying that the seminal difference in fairy-story is eucatastrohpe, rather than the presence of high elves?

Is Faerie a 'real' place. or simply a construct of the Human imagination. If it is the former, then one cannot simply 'add' things to it which become accepted on equal terms with what already exists there. One can only so that if it is 'merely' a human construct.Using this argument, we may not write historical novels either. Wouldn't you say that the literature about something, as opposed to the reality of it, is by necessity two different things, especially in terms of those things that remain most steeped in mystery? Also, what do you make of Tolkien 'finding out' what happened? From what did this inspiration derive? Was it his own imaginative power alone? Or was he receiving inspiration from outside himself? In the end, he didn't think it all came from within his own head. Where then?

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emissaries of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, still more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unpossessive love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful even glorious.

The underlined bolded text appears to me to be what, to Tolkien, Faery represents, whether Faery is real or not. Its reality appears to be of secondary importance to him, at least in terms of the story he is writing. If that is offensive to you, or at least objectionable, that's understandable. However, taken on its own terms, for the sake of the story, it seems to achieve the author's desired ends. Thus Tolkien's elves (in SoWM) must be definition love humans unpossessively, because they are other, just as are all creatures.

Lastly (long post again, sorry), I'm not really trying to give what I consider final answers because, obviously, I don't know them. It's all mystery. Who can know what Faery really is, without having been there? Who can know what Tolkien really thought without being Tolkien (or God)? I'm interested in a continued discussion, more to search things out than to arrive at any definites, which I think is frankly impossible.

[davem]

if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'. Tolkien clearly sees some such role for them, some part to play in the 'saving' of Humanity - if not from 'Hell' at least from the Machine - & in awakening us to seeing the world as we were meant to see it. But did our ancestors see that as their role & purpose? They were just there, like trees, stars & sunsets - & one could ask what are the 'roles' of those things?

How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story - or if you like the human imagination? You say:

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda ;)

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments.

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - Thomas of Eceldoune was a real person who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce & William Wallace, & who, as a result of an encounter/initiation by the Fairy Queen, became a prophet (or, poetically, was given by Her the gift of The Tongue that Cannot Lie). Many of his predictions came true & its said that he didn't die but passed into Faery & lives there to this day.

In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour......

[littlemanpoet]

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'.

No, but bear with me: by 'place' within creation I'm speaking as one who believes that there is an entity that did create all there is; to assume that faery has to have a place in human salvific history is presumptuous, as if all creation has to be involved in that particularly human story.

On the other hand, since (at least to Christians) the salvific story is the all important human story, and human story written about faery will probably (not inevitably I suppose) have that element in it, because (as Tolkien says) human faery stories are about humans in faery. I hope that made sense.

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story) - or if you like the human imagination? . . . The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda ;)

Again, I think that he did not believe faery to be objectively real (i.e., primary belief). However, he achieved secondary belief in faery for the sake of his story so that he could write it in such a way that others could do the same.

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments. I guess the phrase I meant, and could not think of at the time of writing, was "take exception to".

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - ... In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Into the church? Yes, I guess that's possible. But now I'm intrigued with the notion that there could be a faery that, its story/history not being human, the salvific story has nothing to do with faery, nor faery with it. Which reminds me of C.S. Lewis's idea that there are many Edens in the universe; but that's not a direct parallel, because the idea of Eden seems to necessitate a story of a temptation if not a fall. Being the believer I am, however, I can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour...... Serves us right, eh? ;)

[davem]

Again, I think that he did not believe faery to be objectively real (i.e., primary belief). However, he achieved secondary belief in faery for the sake of his story so that he could write it in such a way that others could do the same.

Being the believer I am, however, I can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.

Spot the difference? You say Tolkien didn't believe Faery to be objectively real - you, however, 'can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.' You seem to suggest that Tolkien saw Faery as another term for the human imagination & didn't believe it to have any existence beyond that - hence Faeries are created by humans & have only 'secondary' existence. You, however, want to think of Faeries as being created by God & therefore as having 'primary' existence.

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

[littlemanpoet]

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

Thanks heaps for the next conundrum. ;) I'll have to think on this.

I'm still hoping for at least an attempt at an answer to my battery of questions:

How does one come to perceive faeries? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

[Lalwendë]

How does one come to perceive faeries? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

While I'm not going to try and write "Faerie spotting for dummies" - I can tell you that your questions kind of answer themselves in the main. I think that you would stand more chance of seeing some if you wanted to see some, and you would have to possess the right kind of mindset, i.e. it might be more difficult if you wree a dyed-in-the-wool cynic! But you would not have to be either in England or to be English or British to see them; faeries are found in many cultures, they just go by different names.

I am sure many see them and do not know what they have seen. I happen to think that alien sightings are more likely to be sightings of faeries; our culture has replaced tales of faerie abductions with tales of alien abductions as we have moved out of our rural lifestyles and into the world of possibility that the space age offers. I also think, in regard to aliens, that if there were any then they would have been here by now and taken us over (who knows, maybe they have, I might be in the Matrix or something now :eek: ) - history shows that more 'advanced' cultures are never kind to the cultures they 'discover'. Those little green men are more likely to be faeries. So, knowing what you might see when you leave yourself open to Faerie is always helpful.

I have a boggart in the house - though many might not know what they had seen. When I saw a little wizened figure crouching near the ceiling before dropping down and scuttling away I knew what he was because we had them about when I was a child. Now I've seen him a few times around the house.

I wish I could explain ghosts so easily. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

One was about five feet tall & stepped out (literally) of a silver birch, the other was about six feet tall, dressed in black & silver-grey carrying a longbow. I was sitting in a copse of trees & my sense was that he was a 'guardian' or protector of the place.

Do you think.......were they the 'spirits' of the tree(s) they came out of? Or were the trees 'gateways' into Faery? Or is Faery not a different dimension, it's just that we mostly can't see it?

Also, is there good and evil in Faery, or is that something human story-telling brought into it that doesn't belong? Corollary: are there dragons, trolls, goblins, and other such in Faery, or is that something from Nordic myth that doesn't belong?

How did Feary get all wound up with Myth? Or are they one and the same.

I s'pose we can't be as scientific about this as these questions sound, but the questions are in my head, so why not ask 'em here? I can't think of a better place. :)

[davem]

Do you think.......were they the 'spirits' of the tree(s) they came out of? Or were the trees 'gateways' into Faery? Or is Faery not a different dimension, it's just that we mostly can't see it?

Also, is there good and evil in Faery, or is that something human story-telling brought into it that doesn't belong? Corollary: are there dragons, trolls, goblins, and other such in Faery, or is that something from Nordic myth that doesn't belong?

How did Feary get all wound up with Myth? Or are they one and the same.

I s'pose we can't be as scientific about this as these questions sound, but the questions are in my head, so why not ask 'em here? I can't think of a better place. :)

In short, I don't know.I go with the 'gateways' theory myself. Faery, for me, 'underlies' the world we experience with our physical senses, it is the 'archetype', the perfect 'unfallen' world from which this one devolved. I often sense myself surrounded by trees - even in cities - for instance.

Faery is the realm of the imagination - but not the human imagination.

But this is straying off topic.....

[littlemanpoet]

But this is straying off topic....Since when has that stopped you? ;)

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

I think, the human imagination. How could he do that to Faery? He only was a type of Smith, just like the rest of us, and made beautiful things in his smithy, greatly influenced by Faery.

Faery, for me, 'underlies' the world we experience with our physical senses, it is the 'archetype', the perfect 'unfallen' world from which this one devolved. That makes it synonymous with Eden for me, but I suppose that's just one of many myths with a once-upon-a-time unfallenness. But your view of Faery seems a tad idealized to me.

[Bêthberry]

In short, I don't know.I go with the 'gateways' theory myself. Faery, for me, 'underlies' the world we experience with our physical senses, it is the 'archetype', the perfect 'unfallen' world from which this one devolved. . . .


That makes it synonymous with Eden for me, but I suppose that's just one of many myths with a once-upon-a-time unfallenness. But your view of Faery seems a tad idealized to me.

So it seems to me also, lmp, very idealised. However, I would ask davem just what he means by "perfect 'unfallen' world". As he has pointed out, many of the original 'fairies' are contemptuous, cruel and malicious and it is Tolkien who sanitizes them. (See his first post in this thread.) Perhaps davem could clarify what he means by this unfallenness.

[davem]

That makes it synonymous with Eden for me, but I suppose that's just one of many myths with a once-upon-a-time unfallenness. But your view of Faery seems a tad idealized to me.

So it seems to me also, lmp, very idealised. However, I would ask davem just what he means by "perfect 'unfallen' world". As he has pointed out, many of the original 'fairies' are contemptuous, cruel and malicious and it is Tolkien who sanitizes them. (See his first post in this thread.) Perhaps davem could clarify what he means by this unfallenness.

'Fallen' away from its archetypal state. My problem is that you're both asking me to explain my experiences - I can't - I can only theorise about them & my theories may be wrong.

I feel that Faeries are 'children' of the earth & that Faery is not the human imagination but the imagination of the earth itself. I also feel that Tolkien spoke quite literally when he stated that the 'Secret Fire' was sent to dwell at the heart of the world, & that this is a 'spiritual' (ie conscious) fire & is the life & soul of the earth itself. If it has life & soul it seems reasonable to conjecture that it has imagination as well.

As for the traditional antagonism of the Fairy races to the human, I suspect that can be accounted for by our own antagonism towards the earth. As the 'primary' races of the Archetypal (Fairies) & devolved (Human) worlds, our task is perhaps to find a way to re-establish the harmony that once existed - perhaps that original harmony was what Tolkien was describing in his mythology. The two worlds are 'out of synch' & that may be the explanation for the disharmony.

Or I could be completely wrong - as I say, I'm attempting to construct an explanation for something that happened to me.

[littlemanpoet]

I feel that Faeries are 'children' of the earth & that Faery is not the human imagination but the imagination of the earth itself. I also feel that Tolkien spoke quite literally when he stated that the 'Secret Fire' was sent to dwell at the heart of the world, & that this is a 'spiritual' (ie conscious) fire & is the life & soul of the earth itself. If it has life & soul it seems reasonable to conjecture that it has imagination as well.I resonate with this more than you might expect. It falls in line with something I mentioned earlier on another thread: "mountains aren't rock, that's just what they're made of"; just so, the earth may be more than its inanimate elements. There's so much we don't perceive; a blind man can't prove the existence of green.

[Bêthberry]

As the 'primary' races of the Archetypal (Fairies) & devolved (Human) worlds, our task is perhaps to find a way to re-establish the harmony that once existed - perhaps that original harmony was what Tolkien was describing in his mythology. The two worlds are 'out of synch' & that may be the explanation for the disharmony.


Indeed I can quite understand your attempts here to explain your experience, but what I find interesting is this idea that once there was harmony, but now is disarray. What was it in your experience that caused you to perceive this state? Is it not possible that things always were in this state of disharmony and our desire for something Other suggests to us the possibility of rapproachment?


There's so much we don't perceive; a blind man can't prove the existence of green.

Very much so. Yet, yet, a blind man can smell green and sense it on the air and touch it, no? For some, sensations compensate for other loses.

[littlemanpoet]

Yet, yet, a blind man can smell green and sense it on the air and touch it, no? For some, sensations compensate for other losses.

And so it is with us and Faery? It seems that way, does it not?

[davem]

Indeed I can quite understand your attempts here to explain your experience, but what I find interesting is this idea that once there was harmony, but now is disarray. What was it in your experience that caused you to perceive this state? Is it not possible that things always were in this state of disharmony and our desire for something Other suggests to us the possibility of rapproachment?

My feeling is that all things arose out of a state of primal unity, & it also seems that according to all the traditional accounts Faery it is a world/realm that is closer to its natural state than our own. Hence, it seems to me that Faery represents some archetypal state which still exists & can be passed into & out of. To this extent it is very close to what we find in SoWM, but there is still an element missing from Tolkien's Faery, & that is the 'chaotic' dimension, the absence of 'rules' (I don't mean of rule breaking - which we find in his Orcs, Balrogs, Dragons, etc, but the absence of any rules to be broken).

(By the way, for anyone who's interested, the whole of Robert Kirk's Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies can be found here (http://www.dreampower.com/Kirk_WBW/contents.htm))

[littlemanpoet]

I don't mean of rule breaking - which we find in his Orcs, Balrogs, Dragons, etc, but the absence of any rules to be broken.

I know what you mean. It's the kind of thing that I really want to write about, but seems just beyond my grasp. Still, there can't be complete chaos, or Faery would be unliveable and not only in regard to humans. But cause & effect, immutability of solids (if you take my meaning); these would be up for grabs; transformation would be typical. And words fail to adequately convey my meaning.

[davem]

I know what you mean. It's the kind of thing that I really want to write about, but seems just beyond my grasp. Still, there can't be complete chaos, or Faery would be unliveable and not only in regard to humans. But cause & effect, immutability of solids (if you take my meaning); these would be up for grabs; transformation would be typical. And words fail to adequately convey my meaning.

I suppose it could be that Faery has different rules, which would seem entirely logical to its inhabitants, but not to humans, just as it may be that it has its own laws & moral codes. Tolkien presents us with a Faery whose rules, laws & morality are the same as our (Christian) ones.

I'm referring to things like 'Geasa' (taboos),
Irish taboo, and inferentially all Celtic taboo, dates back to an unknown pagan antiquity. It is imposed at or before birth, or again during life, usually at some critical period, and when broken brings disaster and death to the breaker. Its whole background appears to rest on a supernatural relationship between divine men and the Otherworld of the Tuatha De Danann; and it is very certain that this ancient relationship survives in the living Fairy-Faith as one between ordinary men and the fairy-world. Therefore, almost all taboos surviving among Celts ought to be interpreted psychologically or even psychically, and not as ordinary social regulationshttp://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/ffcc/ffcc130.htm#fr_236/
where, for instance in the story of Cuchulain the hero was forbidden to eat the flesh of a dog, & when he is tricked into doing so his fate is sealed - there's no logical reason for that to be a consequence, but once he has eaten it there is no way to avoid his fate. Or we could look to the story of Baldur in Norse Myth - he could only be slain by a spear of misletoe. There are similar things in the Legendarium (Turin, for instance, seems to to have a number of Geasa imposed on him by Morgoth) but nothing like the traditional accounts of Faeries stealing babies & replacing them with changelings, or Selkies leaving their seal skins on the beach & appearing as young women.

Of course Geasa are rules, so maybe I'm now arguing against myself, but what I was referring to was the absence of what we would call 'rules' or 'laws' of nature - like cause & effect, thermodynamics, logical consistency. As I say, Tolkien does have something similar to geasa in Turin's story, but he gives it a 'logical reason - Morgoth's malice - rather than simply having it as a 'given' in his world that heroes have strange fates, that Faeries are an unknown quantity & that Faery is just a place where wierd stuff happens...

[littlemanpoet]

It now begins to seem to me that Tolkien the modern made Faery acceptable to a modern, and therefore, scientific mind. Our contemporary imagination, having been baptized by Tolkien, has thereby been freed to move beyond the scientific mind to Faery as it is/was.

Which means, in a sense, that as the Star was to Smith, allowing passage to Faery, and as Faery was to Wootton Major, so Tolkien's Middle Earth is for us, allowing our minds to conceive of Faery as it is, and thus Faery can be to us as it was to Wootton Major? I don't know, but I hope so.

[davem]

It now begins to seem to me that Tolkien the modern made Faery acceptable to a modern, and therefore, scientific mind. Our contemporary imagination, having been baptized by Tolkien, has thereby been freed to move beyond the scientific mind to Faery as it is/was.

Which means, in a sense, that as the Star was to Smith, allowing passage to Faery, and as Faery was to Wootton Major, so Tolkien's Middle Earth is for us, allowing our minds to conceive of Faery as it is, and thus Faery can be to us as it was to Wootton Major? I don't know, but I hope so.

Perhaps what Tolkien did was to make Faery 'acceptable' not the modern, scientific, mind but to the minds of people who, whether they are Christians or not, are products of 2,000 years of Christianity & have grown up with a Christian worldview.

In traditional. pre-Christian belief, there was no Satan, no personification of moral evil - there was life & death, good & bad, but no Good vs Evil. Tolkien 'Christianises' Faery by introducing Morgoth, a fallen Angel, & introduces a (Judeo) Christian element which from then on determines & defines that Faery as a Christian one - it couldn't have been otherwise once he'd made that decision.

The consequence was that Middle-earth would become the battleground in a moral war. Rather than the battle being an eternal one between light & dark, order & chaos, summer & winter which never ends, it becomes an extended war which will one day end in the victory of Good over Evil. There will be winners & losers.

We have all, Christian or not, absorbed that worldview, & so would have expected it, I suppose, in the Faery that Tolkien gave us. Yet, it is not traditional Faery - it is, for whatever (good?) reasons Tolkien had - an invention of his own. As I've repeatedly stated, though, what interests me is why he staked such a claim to traditional Faery (particularly in OFS), & presented himself as a writer within the tradition. He may have acted as a mediator between Faery & modern readers brought up in a Christian world, but was that his intention - is that how he saw his role? Did he think of himself as someone opening a door to traditional Faery, so that we could enter into that 'pre-Christian' world, 'freeing' us from Christian 'indoctrination' - or did he actually want to make Faery Christian - or at least make us see it in that way, as 'the best introduction to the Mountains'? Was he using Faery for his own, evangelical, purposes- we know that that was his original motivation (one only has to read Garth's book) but was that desire something he left behind?

I think its clear that Lewis desired to use Faery to evangelise (the Narnia stories at some points are little other than 'parables' designed to inspire/encourage their readers to be good Christians) - did Tolkien intend the same thing? I think its clear from his letters that if he didn't exactly intend it, he would not have been upset by the prospect.

[littlemanpoet]

We have all, Christian or not, absorbed that worldview, & so would have expected it, I suppose, in the Faery that Tolkien gave us. Yet, it is not traditional Faery - it is, for whatever (good?) reasons Tolkien had - an invention of his own. As I've repeatedly stated, though, what interests me is why he staked such a claim to traditional Faery (particularly in OFS), & presented himself as a writer within the tradition.

Is it possible that he did indeed see himself that way, and saw no tension or contradiction, because the distinction you see had not been perceived in his time?

He may have acted as a mediator between Faery & modern readers brought up in a Christian world, but was that his intention - is that how he saw his role? ... Was he using Faery for his own, evangelical, purposes- we know that that was his original motivation (one only has to read Garth's book) but was that desire something he left behind?

I haven't read Garth, so your reference to him that he intended to evangelize, is something new to me. All other readings about Tolkien seemed to declare pretty strongly that Tolkien was actually against such efforts, and steered clear of it himself.

Did he think of himself as someone opening a door to traditional Faery, so that we could enter into that 'pre-Christian' world, 'freeing' us from Christian 'indoctrination' - or did he actually want to make Faery Christian - or at least make us see it in that way, as 'the best introduction to the Mountains'? Yes to the former, no to the latter, in my opinion. However, Christianity was so ingrained in him that he couldn't write any other way and be true to himself.

[davem]

I haven't read Garth, so your reference to him that he intended to evangelize, is something new to me. All other readings about Tolkien seemed to declare pretty strongly that Tolkien was actually against such efforts, and steered clear of it himself.

An old post of mine from the dreaded :eek: Canonicity thread :http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=322566&postcount=248

Of course, this was the young Tolkien, & he may have changed in his later years, but I think it shows that 'once upon a time' (before his crest fell) he certainly was inspired by a desire to 'evangelise' his fellow countrymen.

[Bêthberry]

Of course, this was the young Tolkien, & he may have changed in his later years, but I think it shows that 'once upon a time' (before his crest fell) he certainly was inspired by a desire to 'evangelise' his fellow countrymen.

Well, we do know that Tolkien insisted that Edith convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism to marry him at a time when the Church itself (herself?) never required that of Catholic spouses. The only requirement was to agree to raise the children Catholic. And according to Carpenter, Tolkien apparently had little sympathy for or was unable to appreciate the difficulties Edith faced because of that decision.

Yet this seems to be contradicted by Tolkien's statement of "consciously so in the revision", as that would suggest he only late in his long writerly thought came to see that.

[davem]

Yet this seems to be contradicted by Tolkien's statement of "consciously so in the revision", as that would suggest he only late in his long writerly thought came to see that.

So much in SoWM seems to reflect a kind of post-Reformation Catholic yearning for 'Merrie England'. Once upon a time England had been Catholic, there was dancing & singing (& faeries) in the Greenwood & Morris Men & a Maypole on the Green. But then things changed & the wonder went away. Its so close to what happened in the Shire. Things had been perfect - before the Lotho's & Sharkeys came along, & made everything dull & bleak. The Elves were, in a roundabout way, responsible for the Shire's renaissance through Galadriel's gift to Sam, as they were in SoWM.

Tolkien's own 'allegorical' interpretation of SoWM makes this pretty blatant. Wooton Major has suffered its own reformation.

Well, we do know that Tolkien insisted that Edith convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism to marry him at a time when the Church itself (herself?) never required that of Catholic spouses. The only requirement was to agree to raise the children Catholic. And according to Carpenter, Tolkien apparently had little sympathy for or was unable to appreciate the difficulties Edith faced because of that decision.


I wonder whether Tolkien saw Edith's conversion as necesary in order to confirm her 'committment to the cause'. Certainly he seemed to consider Catholicism to be, if not the only, then definitely the best & purest form of Christianity (cf his disappointment when Lewis went back to the Anglicanism of his childhood rather than Catholicism - of course, he didn't have the same leverage with Jack as he had had with Edith ;) )

[Lalwendë]

I think it is not entirely surprising that Tolkien was an ardent Catholic, seeing as his guardian as a child was a priest; not only that, but his mother's conversion and consequent struggle seems to have acquired mythical status. I also think that his request that Edith convert must have been partly due to keeping his guardian happy; it would have been the 'done thing' in his mind. Maybe had he been ten years older when he married he might have been less insistent.

Having had two grandmothers who were raised as Catholics and who 'became' Anglicans at marriage, I know for a fact that conversion may be an act put on to appease a partner, as one Grandmother remained in her heart a Catholic (and was buried with Rosary beads, in an Anglican graveyard). My point being that the Church a person outwardly belongs to is not necessarily all that important and other factors have a bearing.

Ronald Hutton raised the point that Tolkien himself seemed to allow his faith to lapse during the 20s and 30s, not going to mass or confession. He clearly had his own reasons for this, but it suggests that he may not have always been the devout Catholic we take him to be. Therefore, we might place too much importance on his Catholicism.

I think that rather than his Catholicism having a bearing on how he created and developed the Legendarium, it might be more appropriate to look at his own morals and how they came to bear on it. His Catholicism definitely shows through in some aspects (and I also think that in SOWM, in the light of what we now know about it, reference to his Catholicism is very appropriate), but his morals (wherever they may come from, Catholicism, Christianity as a whole, upbringing, experience etc.) are the larger influence.

I find that SOWM is different to the other texts as it seems to have hidden subtexts which have clear spiritual messages, whereas in LotR, The Sil etc., he has created something more self contained, with a morality and spirituality which can be understood without reference to his own beliefs. SOWM, on the other hand, is improved by application of other information.

[Amanaduial the archer]

What interests me is why Fairies were ever perceived as dangerous. The natural world at one time presented greater dangers than it does today

Why are children afraid of the dark? Fear is not always rational; indeed, more often than not it is irrational – a fear of tiny, harmless spiders or grass snakes is hardly uncommon. Yet the unknown, even for the most rational of beings, has always presented a challenge to humans – space, darkness, science…fairies. They are an unknown quantity, and in times when people were far more superstitious and belief in such beings was far more widespread, certainly tales of fairies were not always of benevolent creatures ‘bestowing powers’ – the Morrigan, for example, a figure of Irish Mythology, has been described by some as a kind of fairy, yet by others she is likened to a hag, a crone, a witch, even a devil-like/ ‘wicked’ character. Certainly not someone you want to meet on a dark night. And the tales of fairies were so elaborated over time – from peasant storytelling, into folk-lore, and even into the works of essayists and scholars, and telling of everything from through kidnap, mutation, bearing illnesses, or simply playing havoc with the every day lives of humanity – that it is easy to see why fairies, this unknown, changeable quantity, were feared. Indeed, they were considered even to be part of the natural world, and were worse than animals in some respects because they had that one thing over animals that made they all the more terrifying because it is the one thing that we as humans have over the animal world: intelligence which is far more than simply instinct. They have this, as well as the power of the natural world – and when you consider the power that this gives them, the consequences could be pretty scary.

This idea of the ‘unknown’ is retained to some extent, in the reactions of other characters to the elves: they are wondering and even a little afraid of these creatures who seem so ‘noble’. There is much Men do not seem to know about the race of elves (with the exception of Aragorn, naturally), and this causes fear and even distrust.

Earlier in the thread, the mention of Angels came up – the traditional, religious sense of angels, that is. This is a particularly interesting point, especially in relation to Tolkien’s elves. Consider: they are immortal and do not age, they cannot catch disease, they are incredibly wise, and what is more, they have some knowledge beyond that of men into Eru – who is basically a God-figure, the creator of Arda (although for a deeper discussion on that, consider Fordim’s ‘Is Eru God’ discussion! ;)). What is more, they are beautiful and glorious to the eyes of men. These are all angelic traits, traditionally. Even the idea that elves and humans could come together and have children is one that fits: in Genesis, angels and the ‘daughters of men’ had children, the Nephilim, who “were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (sorry, that was a slight deviation, admittedly). So maybe Tolkien’s elves are more reminiscent of the Judeo-Christian angels rather than of traditional ideas of fairies. However…the two ideas are not mutually exclusive: in Elizabethan times, there were two main theories on fairies (which Shakespeare especially took into consideration in his writing of such fairy characters as Puck in ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ and Ariel in ‘The Tempest’), one classifying them into folklore ideas of nymphs, driads, fauns etc – and the other considering them to be fallen angels. Tolkien even, in one of his early works, refers to “The Holy fairies and immortal Elves” on this subject, and they are related to heavenly ideas such as the stars – the name Eldar, for example, and the roles of Galadriel and Arwen ‘Evenstar’. So maybe the similarities between Tolkien’s elves to fairies could also be a comparison to angels…?

However, this does naturally present a few problems – such as the slightly glaringly obvious fact that the fallen angels were those who fell with Lucifer and were therefore against God rather than with him. Bother. ;) However…maybe this was intentional on Tolkien’s part, to give the elves something more of humanity? After all, for all their loftiness, their distance, their mystery, the elves are still, at heart, very human creatures.

[davem]

The Elves of BoLT were quite 'Angelic'. It seems they were to represent ideal beings, the teachers of Mankind through Aelfwine/Eriol. Its only over time that they develop increasingly negative traits: they become 'embalmers', etc. Yet they never move completely away from Tolkien's original conception. Hence, they remain moral beings. The Fairies of tradition are amoral.

[littlemanpoet]

In some traditions, including early English ones, some of the angels exiled from Heaven with Satan became devils, but others, more undecided or more neutral, became elves. At Judgement Day some of these may regain forgiveness and salvation and return to their old home, as Galadriel does at the very end of The Return of the King. This still does not make Galadriel into an angel, even in the sense of a messenger, in the way that Gandalf is; but one can imagine how a human being, looking back at the events of the Third Age and the First Age 'from a historical distance', .... could be confused, could put together Galadriel the Noldo exiled by the Valar and Gandalf the Maiar sent by the Valar (both of them allowed in the end to return) and no longer be able to see much difference. Tom Shippey, from J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century

[Amanaduial the archer]

In some traditions, including early English ones, some of the angels exiled from Heaven with Satan became devils, but others, more undecided or more neutral, became elves. At Judgement Day some of these may regain forgiveness and salvation and return to their old home, as Galadriel does at the very end of The Return of the King. This still does not make Galadriel into an angel, even in the sense of a messenger, in the way that Gandalf is; but one can imagine how a human being, looking back at the events of the Third Age and the First Age 'from a historical distance', .... could be confused, could put together Galadriel the Noldo exiled by the Valar and Gandalf the Maiar sent by the Valar (both of them allowed in the end to return) and no longer be able to see much difference. Tom Shippey, from J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century
Thank you. You have no idea how much you may have just helped me with me English Literature coursework ;)

[davem]

Found this interesting:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2215993,00.html

The wild ones


Fairies and other spirits have long haunted the words and images of English literature. AS Byatt looks beyond the bright-cheeked children and pretty dolls of Edwardian illustrators to explore the menace that lurks beneath

Interesting reading & more importantly it calls into question Tolkien's statements re fairy stories being reduced to 'children's literature' & relegated to the nursery in OFS - he attacks Victorian/Edwardian fairy stories for trivalising Faerie. Yet, as we see here, there was a very dark, threatening, aspect to the fairy literature of the time - a whole dimension which Tolkien chooses to ignore.

And yet, its influence is not entirely absent in his own work:

Reading about all these people, grown-up boys with a sly interest in cruelty, incompetent grown-ups attracted by an imaginary world in which real horrors lurked, clubmen reproducing in their fastnesses the stodgy food of the schools where they had tortured and been tortured, the bright Edwardian nursery frieze can be seen with real goblins and greenteeths, wurricoes and strangling willows just visible behind the bright-cheeked children in their aprons with their nice apples and dolls.

'Greenteeths & strangling willows do indeed haunt the Old Forest ('Greenteeth' is a reference to Jinny Greenteeth, a female river spirit of British folklore with a tendency to drown unwary travellers, as Goldberry attempted with Tom on their first meeting).

I wonder why Tolkien leaves all this kind of faerie literature out of OFS? Is it because it would completely destroy his argument re 'Escape' - who would choose this dark Faerie world of animal torture & babies being buried alive as a place of Escape:

Take Maurice Hewlett, whose book The Lore of Proserpine is an apparently factual account of his relations with the fairy world. As a small boy he saw in the woods a fairy child his own age. It is throttling a rabbit, for pleasure, "the way children squeeze a snap-dragon flower to make it open or shut its mouth". Hewlett observed that the fairy's "cruel fingers, as if by habit, continued the torture, and that in some way he derived pleasure from the performance". Hewlett is interested in the fairies precisely because their nature has other laws, which include indifference to cruelty.

John Anster Fitzgerald painted a series of sleeping figures - an artist, some young girls - dreaming drugged visions of wraiths, demons and insect-like tormentors. He painted rats, white mice and sinister-looking flowers. His world is brightly coloured, almost hectic. His fairies are not kind. They persecute small creatures, torture snails and robins. If their faces are doll-like, it is because their feelings are alien. His Ariel lies on a branch of blossoming hawthorn in a diaphanous, flowery garment that seems to sprout out of him/her. It has a pretty face and mad, protuberant blue eyes - like a china doll come unpleasantly to life. It is not human. It is weird. The creatures relate to that disturbing Victorian poem, "Goblin Market", which attracted illustrators from Dante Gabriel Rossetti to Housman and Rackham. Housman's goblins have things in common with Grahame's human animals, except that they are nasty: half-mole, half-imp, or half-rat, half-dwarf. They have dangerous rodent teeth in black visages. Rackham's goblins have a certain comic, nursery quaintness, a darker version of Beatrix Potter.

Barrie's chilling portrayal of Peter's inhumanity almost gets out of hand - the narrator sweetly describes the little graves Peter makes in the gardens for babies who fall out of the perambulators and die, but he then insinuates that Peter may sometimes have buried them alive. "I do hope that Peter is not too ready with his spade. It is all rather sad." Worse is his own heartlessness. He is annoyed with David's mother for discovering that he has put David's combinations on with the buttons at the front. He punishes her by sending a photo he has taken of David being hanged from a tree. Executions again.

As I say, this kind of thing hovers just on the edge of M-e, in the darker parts of the Old Forest, but in the main we don't see it - though we could imagine Orcs indulging in such things, in their case they would find an evil joy in it, rather than an amused, if slightly detatched, pleasure from the exercise.