You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[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]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

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]

Originally Posted by Drigel

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.