[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

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?