Don't do me like that

[davem]

I haven't read Tatar's 'Annotated Fairy tales, but from this interview it seems that she focusses on the value & relevance of Fairy stories to children:

Tatar gives much of the credit for her book to the students who have taken her Core course, which explores fairy tales as a point of departure for considering broader cultural issues of childhood.

In fact, exploring the 'broader cultural issues of childhood.' seems to be her concern - fairy stories, it seems, have no value in & of themselves as far as she is concerned, & they only have any relevance in the service of something else - ie to tell us something about children.

I doubt Tolkien would have given any credence to such an approach. In fact he dismisses the idea that fairy stories belong in the nursery, or are the especial province of children in OFS.

Just because some fairy stories involve children does not make them children's stories, & does not mean they tell us anything at all about 'broader cultural issues of childhood'. In fact, as the stories were not invented or written by children the most they could tell us is something about the broader cultural issues of adults. These tales were created & told by adults as entertainment first & foremost, & they were not aimed at any age group in particular. They weren't written, either, to conform to any particular 'philosophy' (which, for instance, the 'fairytales' of Angela Carter were).

I can only say that her final words in the interview:

"I have enough trouble with the real world, and suddenly there's this other world, where everything has a new name," she says of J.K. Rowling's wildly popular fantasy series. "I have trouble mastering the rules of soccer. I don't want to have to learn about Quidditch."

seem to me to perfectly sum up her irrelevance as far as the subject of fairytales is concerned.

[Lush]

Mithalwen, my original post is more tongue in cheek than anything. Please don't think that I am not interested in what you have to bring to the table. I am merely tired of what I perceive to be the flatness of the discourse on gender here at the Downs.

Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

To me, a lot of them do not directly deal with the biological functions of men and women, but rather with more abstract notions, rites of passage, for example, or chemical marriages (yin and yang and so on). Besides that, the very idea of a woman giving birth has different implications. An ancient Indian myth recalls a monk witnessing a woman who gives birth to a child, nurses it tenderly, then grows horrible in apperance, and devours it. Obviously this legend's view of birth is more nuanced.

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.

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.

Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.

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.

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).

(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.)

[Lalaith]

At the risk of flattening what has become, IMO, a most rich discourse, I'd like to know if I understand Lush's original question/challenge aright and if my own thoughts are along the right lines.

Downers, one assumes, enjoy and accept Tolkien's world of fantasy. A world which lives by its own rules and its own terms, beyond our own experience - to the extent that it was originally flat. There is for example a race that lives forever, that does not need to sleep and defies the laws of physics by running over snow. There are spirits that can assume humanoid form, be reincarnated and battle with others through mind power alone. There are tree-like personages of huge antiquity, there are spirits of great power and evil, and a great variety of creatures, great and small, that can only be imagined in our own world.
Even among the mortal humans of middle earth, there is much that is para-normal - for example, a certain race of men that can live way beyond the lifespan of ordinary folk, and heal with their touch.
All these things have been accepted on their own terms - and alternatives, possiblities and explanations are discussed with subtlety, depth and humour (Balrog wings, anyone?) by Downers.

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

Lush, is this the kind of thing you were getting frustrated by?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

No problem with replacing the entire FotR with women, changing the gender of Gollum, etc. To me, with enough time and help and thought, the LotR trilogy could be completely reworked to have heroines in place of heroes.

The point is that Tolkien could not do this, and did not.

And so we can make whatever changes that we like; my concern is that I'm not sure that Lush really cares about how I could have Gandalf as a woman and still have a story similar to the original.

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .

[Lush]

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .

I think Lalaith said it better than I ever could.

[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.

[Lush]

Lush, is this the kind of thing you were getting frustrated by?

Precisely.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

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?

I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are. Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.

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.

Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.

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.

I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.

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.

We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.

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.

Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).

And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar:

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are.

We are? Like, totally?

Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.

Jung's my boy, but I don't think he's the end-all be-all, if you know what I mean,

Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.

And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.

It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.

I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).

LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar.

Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. I think Lalaith summed it up best above.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

We are? Like, totally?

as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.

And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

I know - I was making a general point not a specific one.

It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

more of the latter than the former.

I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

No, but they're not the same thing, & the experience is always true, while the analysis is not always so. Our ancestors experienced the sun on the eastern horizon in the morning, overhead at noon & on the western horizon at evening. Their analysis was that it was the sun that was moving.

(And I'm not saying that you said it was the sun moving - I feel I now have to make such clarifications....)

LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

Risking becoming repetitive I can only say that I never said that all feminists are that simple. I only said it was 'likely', not that it was inevitable. Admittedly, feminist (& marxist) analyses of fairytales is not something I go in for studying (neither is Jungian any longer, if it comes to that). I did hear Germaine Greer make exactly that analysis of Cundrie in Parsifal though, & I don't think its so uncommon among feminists.

Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. I think Lalaith summed it up best above.

Are you referring to:

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

If so, i accept that that can happen. The point, though, is that Tolkien created Middle-earth & the rules by which it operates. No, there are not many significant female figures in TH or Lotr. But that's what he wrote. You might as well object that there are no aircraft in the story, & say, well, its a fantasy world, so why shouldn't there be flying machines in it. There just aren't. Live with it, or read something else. No-one's forcing you to read it. If challenged, I think Tolkien might have responded along the lines of 'I'm not here to live up to your expecations. There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'.

This is what I'm still struggling with. Its like me finding fault with the Mona Lisa because Leonardo painted a woman. By God, it wouldn't have hurt him to put a bloke in there as well!'.

I can only say that I still haven't got your real point. Of course you can ask why there aren't many more female characters in LotR, but all anyone can really say to that is, you know, you're right , There aren't. We can't change the story. We can't even psychoanalyse the author. A feminist critique will suggest one reason, a marxist critique another. And I'm sure there are any number of other theories around which will come up with something else, but none of them will change the story & add more women in there. I accept that it may be annoying but that's just the way things are.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Cultural references change so the meaning of tales can also change. This is why feminist or marxist interpretations of traditional tales are at best questionable & at worst completely misleading - we cannot know the worldview(s) of the culture(s) & individuals which produced, adapted & altered them. We cannot know what they meant to our ancestors or what they will mean to our decendants. To state, as some 'experts' do, that this particular tale means 'such & such' & so our ancestors must have believed such & such is nonsensical. 19th-20th century political theories tell us nothing about traditional songs & tales.

That's the nature of criticism though. It doesn't seek to find 'the truth' of the text, it seeks to find the 'truth' of individual readers' experiences. It's that old chestnut applicability. It's also a critical phenomenon of the post-modern era. If we want to find the truth, or what the author intended then that's a different thing. But for example, Marxist criticism might seek to discover what Tolkien's text (but not necessarily Tolkien) says about society and the class struggle. So there's nothing wrong in a feminist critique of the text in itself. Some might seek to find what the text says about that, and I'd defend their right to do so, even if i did not agree with what they said.

Might not bring us any closer to what Tolkien wanted the text to mean, in fact it might take us further away from that, but it's not about that, it's about seeking to discover and articulate what the reader might find.

I'm not saying what I think is the right way.

Originally Posted by Child

What most fascinates me about this thread is the emotion it elicits. We can debate canon, language, or whether the earliest chapters are successfully integrated into the rest of the book and, only rarely, will posters show strong personal feeling. Yes, they will have well defended opinions, but it is not at the "gut level" we are talking about here. But the minute the question of gender is raised, the discussion takes a different turn. I believe this is part of what Lush was referring to in her initial post. The only other question that I can think of that has a similar impact is how and if race plays a role in the delineation of characters and peoples in LotR. (And I am not talking about a bone headed and over simplistic question that asks whether Tolkien was a racist!)

Simple answer? It's that the most common and vehement criticisms of Tolkien have centred around three things: it's childish, it's racist or it's sexist. So naturally our hackles are raised when we hear those three things being raised! We have ready lines to take and we fire them out!