[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, that's a theory. Its a very modern take on the meaning of fairytales though. Whether our ancestors saw that as the 'meaning' of the stories is another matter. The problem with 'theories' is they tend to result in you finding exactly (& only) what you set out to find.

Were our ancestors so alike in thought and character with one another?

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with theorizing. Provided you've got your eyes and ears and open to whatever it is that might be out there.

Our ancestors worldview was not 'political' or 'philosophical', but magical. The world worked differently for them to the way it does for us. For them Elves & Dwarves were not (as they were for Tolkien - at least when he put off his artist's hat & put on his critic's) - 'aspects of the human'. They were real beings. Faerie was a real place. Modern critical theories abound, but none of them seem to take that simple fact into account. Our ancestors lived in a reality where you could stray into Faery & encounter the Faery Queene. Critical & literary theories can go on till the cows come home about Archetypes & the idealisation of the Feminine, about male societies reducing women to stereotypes of the Virgin or the Whore, but they miss the point entirely. The 'meaning' of your story of the Monk & the mother eating her baby is clear enough to anyone who has encountered the Dark Goddess in meditation. It isn't 'nuanced' at all - its very stark & simple. The Goddess is both giver & taker of Life, She weaves & she unweaves all things, is both womb & tomb of all life. Ask any Pagan.

Once again, davem, I fear that you are putting words into my mouth. I used the example of the goddess devouring the baby to provide a little more depth to phantom's statement that "females give birth," which, at least to me, didn't really clear up what he meant.

Furthermore, to suggest that our "ancestors" (which ones are we speaking about anyway? Mine are the Varangians. What are yours?) had no concept of philosophy or politics is beyond belief. Aristotle? Plutarch? Plato? Cyrrill and Mefodious? Wu Zeitan?

Finally, I'm not quite sure how a good dose of critical thinking on the subject of, say, the Faerie Queene somehow renders how myth impotent and unimportant. One can reduce almost anything to an abstract, but I am surprised that you would accuse me of this kind of reductionism, indeed, tell go as far as to tell me what I am and am not thinking about and what my purposes are. Whatever it is you're reacting against when you write these posts, I think it has little to do with me.

I don't know which of Kate Atkinson's books you're referring to. What I can say is that whatever it is it isn't a fairy tale in the strict sense, but a novel, by an known individual. True Fairy tales are different, work differently, & served a different purpose. The problem I have with this approach to fairy tales is that it treats them as being no different to the modern novel, believing that they can be deconstructed, 'translated', & made to serve a particular theory about life, the universe & everything. Such theories are claimed to be 'bigger' than the tales they 'analyse', able to encompass them, 'explain' them. Actually, as Tolkien pointed out in both OFS & the Smith essay, the fairy story is bigger than any 'theory' which could be created to 'explain' it.

Kate Atkinson is writing the postmodern fairy tale, which does place the fairy tale into the framework of the novel. Having said that, accusing Atkinson of making theory "bigger" than fairy tale is, in my opinion, a misinformed sort of decision. One of the reasons why I admire Atkinson so much is that I think she treats myth with a whole lot more respect than some of the few other writers out there. I think myth is a living part of life to Atkinson. I don't know if that necessarily makes her a "true" fairy tale writer, and I don't care. She's working with a medium that she knows best, that suits her best, but I think she does it beautifully and with much love and respect to the rich tradition of myth that she draws upon.

Peig Sayers, the Aran Island storyteller, told how she remembered long stories (which could take many evenings to relate) after a single hearing. She would stare at a blank wall & visualise the events as the storyteller related them. These tales are collections of Images & these Images have very powerful effects on the individual consciousness, if they are allowed to work, & not subjected to 'analysis'. Tolkien's work is full of such Images & that's why it affects us so powerfully (its also why all our attempts at explanation & analysis are ultimately unsatisfying - these images, like the traditional images of folktale & song - affect us on a much deeper level than the intellectual).

Davem, if you don't want to explain and analyse, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't think that it has to be a choice between one and the other, though. The intellectual level is a part of the overall experience, and an important part, in my opinion.

(If you want to really understand what the story of the mother becoming a monster & eating her child means, visualise it as powerfully as you can, as if it were happening in front of you. Don't analyse it, or attempt to 'explain' it to yourself. No 'theory' will tell you as much about the 'meaning' of it.)

I disagree, up to a point. I think theory helps us to sort out our most powerful responses to the things we encounter in life. I would agree with you that encountering the goddess/the magical does ultiamtely render all our attempts to explain and to analyse useless. But we have these tools at our disposal for a reason. We cannot forever remain in a spiritual ecstasy; and analysing and explaining help guide us on our way from one revelation to the next.