"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[Aiwendil]

What a great idea for a thread! I wish I had time for the kind of thoughtful post this topic deserves. Anyway, a few miscellaneous points have occurred to me while reading the discussion.

Squatter wrote:

I have to ask at this point whether Tolkien was really trying to write fairy-stories at all. Much of what he says in his lecture applies to fantasy as well as his official theme, but I'm by no means sure that we can see his own fiction as a representation of Faërie.

I wonder about the distinction between fantasy and fairy-story. In my reading of OFS, Tolkien draws no such distinction - though he is careful to distinguish beast fables and such from genuine fairy-story. By "fairy-story", I think it is clear, he does not mean to restrict himself to that genre (or sub-genre) that is typically called "fairy tale" today.

It occurs to me that it might be an interesting exercise, and might teach us something about the distinctions that ought and ought not to be made here, to see if we can classify various works as "fairy story", "fantasy", "fairy tale", "myth", or whatever other possible categories we might be interested in. Where would Beowulf go? What about Grimm's fairy tales? The Silmarillion? The Book of Lost Tales? Which belong to which category?

I think that what we would find is that it is hard, if not impossible, to distinguish fairy-story from fantasy, and those again from myth.

The Silmarillion is a collection of high myths completely founded in the sub-created world. There is no connection with the primary world unless we allow Ælfwine, a character who is conspicuous by his absence in the 1977 publication.

Yet Tolkien spent a great deal of time on the Eriol/Aelfwine story in his pre-LotR writings; and the character still appears as late as the 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Tolkien had settled on another "transmission story" for the Silmarillion (i.e. through Numenor to Gondor and Rivendell, and probably via Bilbo's Translations from the Elvish) that he dropped Aelfwine.

The missing element in LotR is the journey into Faërie: the hobbits are already citizens of Middle-earth; they do not arrive there from our primary reality.

This is a good point, and certainly there is an important distinction to be drawn between what might have been called "transition" and "immersion" fantasy. But does Tolkien restrict the scope of the term "fairy-story" to the former? I cannot recall his doing so. After all, works like Beowulf or the Kalevala do not involve a journey beginning from our reality.

Bethberry wrote:

It certainly suggests that The Hobbit and the Legendarium were not initially conceived under the auspices of his thoughts about fairie, and so leads quite directly to consideration of how LotR might differ from those two earlier works.

I'm not so sure. The fact that it was written around 1937-1938 does not necessarily mean that the ideas in it were wholly new to him at that time. I suspect that the view of fairy-stories he presents was long in formation. Is there any evidence that his views had changed significantly prior to OFS?

I also feel I should point out that the Silmarillion cannot be thought of as an "early work" simpliciter (not that you necessarily were suggesting this).

Lalwende wrote:

Well if we hope in any way to reflect Faerie then yes, a tale does have to reflect the amorality of Faerie, as that's the nature of the place/concept - its somewhere outside the rules, beyond the law and out of most people's comprehension.

What is meant by "reflect Faerie"? I think that this is a point worth considering very carefully.

Faerie is, after all, not a real place that can be accurately or inaccurately described (I fear I'm straying in the direction of the dreaded C-thread, but I shall boldly press on). Faerie may, in a sense, be "real" insofar as it refers to a massive complex of cultural and psychological facts; but to speak of representing Faerie itself as distinct from human perception and interpretation thereof (i.e. as something "out of most people's comprehension") seems to me to be meaningless.

Of course, without resorting to talk about Faerie itself, we can ask about amorality in existing fairy-stories. There are two important questions we ought to ask. First, does Tolkien's definition of a 'fairy-story' say anything about amorality? Second, do existing specimens of fairy-story uniformly exhibit amorality?

The answer to the first question is clearly "no". Tolkien doesn't even use the word "amoral" or "amorality" in the essay, and he certainly doesn't posit this as a criterion for fairy-story. Insofar, then, as we are investigating whether Tolkien's fiction conforms to his views on fairy-stories, the matter of amorality is irrelevant.

The second question is more interesting. Certainly there are a great many amoral fairy-stories; and I would agree that Tolkien's work is unusual in this regard. But I think that the amorality of fairy-stories has been somewhat overstated. There are, after all, important examples of fairy stories that are not amoral, and even some that are highly moral. Look at "Beowulf" or, even better, "Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight".

Ungoliant most defintely is ambiguous, check out the evidence in the Spiders thread that Bethberry and myself found.

I must disagree. Ungoliant is evil. One can, of course, play all kinds of games along the lines of "the Silmarillion is a biased account" (though I confess that what it might mean for a fictional story to be fictionalized is unknown to me). But if we are talking about Tolkien's work, you have to accept that Eru is good and Ungoliant is not.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

What is meant by "reflect Faerie"? I think that this is a point worth considering very carefully.

Faerie is, after all, not a real place that can be accurately or inaccurately described (I fear I'm straying in the direction of the dreaded C-thread, but I shall boldly press on). Faerie may, in a sense, be "real" insofar as it refers to a massive complex of cultural and psychological facts; but to speak of representing Faerie itself as distinct from human perception and interpretation thereof (i.e. as something "out of most people's comprehension") seems to me to be meaningless.

It's real alright. That's what I mean by beyond comprehension, as most people don't understand Faerie and how to recognise it, even less how to get there. Tolkien might have been there - there is a tantalising echo in SoWM where Smith sees the warriors step down from their boat that came from somewhere beyond his comprehension. I know where there are slips into Faerie, blurs in time and consciousness, they're all over the place. It's beyond rational thought.

Of course, without resorting to talk about Faerie itself, we can ask about amorality in existing fairy-stories. There are two important questions we ought to ask. First, does Tolkien's definition of a 'fairy-story' say anything about amorality? Second, do existing specimens of fairy-story uniformly exhibit amorality?

The answer to the first question is clearly "no". Tolkien doesn't even use the word "amoral" or "amorality" in the essay, and he certainly doesn't posit this as a criterion for fairy-story. Insofar, then, as we are investigating whether Tolkien's fiction conforms to his views on fairy-stories, the matter of amorality is irrelevant.

The second question is more interesting. Certainly there are a great many amoral fairy-stories; and I would agree that Tolkien's work is unusual in this regard. But I think that the amorality of fairy-stories has been somewhat overstated. There are, after all, important examples of fairy stories that are not amoral, and even some that are highly moral. Look at "Beowulf" or, even better, "Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight".

I agree, however, our readings of the Saxon and medieval texts must be tempered by bearing in mind that these may have been transcribed by Christians who obviously wouldn't be amoral! To get to those amoral tales you need to find the tales not sanctioned by the Church, those preserved by the ordinary people. Even Beowulf isn't entirely without the chaos of Faerie. And I have to question if specifically Christian writings (which Beowulf isn't, although written down by someone of the early religion) would really get to what Faerie is - it would be like reading a Hindu tale in order to try and understand the nature of Jesus.

I must disagree. Ungoliant is evil. One can, of course, play all kinds of games along the lines of "the Silmarillion is a biased account" (though I confess that what it might mean for a fictional story to be fictionalized is unknown to me). But if we are talking about Tolkien's work, you have to accept that Eru is good and Ungoliant is not.

Hey, what about Reader Response? I can think of Eru as evil if I want! Anyway, just check out some of the text that we found as it at the very least suggests that Tolkien began with a distinctly amoral character for Ungoliant. Note also that she is exploited by Melkor, and Tolkien states that nobody knew where she came from, not the Elves nor Melkor; she came from The Void, she was not an Ainur nor was she an animal, she just was.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

It's real alright. That's what I mean by beyond comprehension, as most people don't understand Faerie and how to recognise it, even less how to get there. Tolkien might have been there - there is a tantalising echo in SoWM where Smith sees the warriors step down from their boat that came from somewhere beyond his comprehension. I know where there are slips into Faerie, blurs in time and consciousness, they're all over the place. It's beyond rational thought.

All right, let's be clear about this. You have a theory that there is a "real" place (or thing?) called Faerie, which is "beyond comprehension" and "beyond rational thought". Fine. But you must accept that, when you evaluate fairy-stories in the context of this theory, your conclusions are contingent upon acceptance of that theory. You can of course apply this belief to existing fairy-stories, but this approach is going to be highly personal, and they will not be relevant to others unless and insofar as those others agree with your theory. And they will be even less relevant if what we are interested in are Tolkien's ideas about Faerie.

I agree, however, our readings of the Saxon and medieval texts must be tempered by bearing in mind that these may have been transcribed by Christians who obviously wouldn't be amoral!

This is undoubtedly true and is a good point. Beowulf is a pagan tale told by a Christian, and Gawaine is a thoroughly Christian story. I don't know enough about myth and folklore to know whether there are examples of moral (i.e. non-amoral) stories outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

But are we to disqualify stories written by Christians from classification as "fairy-stories"? Aren't Beowulf and Gawaine just as valid as such? And, what's more important, didn't Tolkien consider them valid as fairy-story?

Hey, what about Reader Response? I can think of Eru as evil if I want!

Okay, sorry if you felt the cold hand of literary oppression from my direction.

I do agree that Ungoliant is a strange and, in many ways, ambiguous character. I just don't agree that she is morally ambiguous. At least, I certainly wouldn't expect Tolkien to agree have agreed that she is.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

All right, let's be clear about this. You have a theory that there is a "real" place (or thing?) called Faerie, which is "beyond comprehension" and "beyond rational thought". Fine. But you must accept that, when you evaluate fairy-stories in the context of this theory, your conclusions are contingent upon acceptance of that theory. You can of course apply this belief to existing fairy-stories, but this approach is going to be highly personal, and they will not be relevant to others unless and insofar as those others agree with your theory. And they will be even less relevant if what we are interested in are Tolkien's ideas about Faerie.

Not a theory, knowledge and experience.

And indeed, a debunking of those who know about Faerie, who have experienced it, applying knowledge to what they read could likewise be applied to those who apply Christianity or other formalised religious beliefs or theories to what they read. Steady.

Now from my own knowledge, of course, I can recognise all the signs in Tolkien's work that he might well have seen Faerie himself. That motif of the Star on Smith's head is an interesting one to me, as it symbolises the 'signs' that we can recognise in others who may have seen Faerie. And remember:

Originally Posted by SoWM essay, new edition

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. 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.

Interesting that while his interpretation of the human world of Wooton Major is 'allegorical' his interpretation of Faerie is mystical/philosophical. He will not have Faerie 'allegorised' under any circumstances. Faerie must exist in its own right and not be 'put in the service of' any other thing. Faerie as a realm is sacrosanct. Humans may enter there, but human things must not dominate it, or make it serve their own ends - even religious ones.

This is undoubtedly true and is a good point. Beowulf is a pagan tale told by a Christian, and Gawaine is a thoroughly Christian story. I don't know enough about myth and folklore to know whether there are examples of moral (i.e. non-amoral) stories outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

Actually, Gawaine is also a Pagan story that was Christianised.

There are lots of 'moral' tales from all around the world. One of the several functions of folktale and fairy tale is to 'teach' - you will read many moral tales from the African tradition for example, you might not agree with the morals therein, but they are morals nevertheless.

But are we to disqualify stories written by Christians from classification as "fairy-stories"? Aren't Beowulf and Gawaine just as valid as such? And, what's more important, didn't Tolkien consider them valid as fairy-story?

No, but are they stories about Faerie, as it is? Or are they tales made safe, as if for the nursery?

I do agree that Ungoliant is a strange and, in many ways, ambiguous character. I just don't agree that she is morally ambiguous. At least, I certainly wouldn't expect Tolkien to agree have agreed that she is.

Nor would I, that's what's so surprising about the evidence.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Not a theory, knowledge and experience.

Call it what you like, I suppose. Perhaps "belief" is a better word? The point is that this is your opinion, not a universally acknowledged truth. So you cannot expect others to accept it as a premise.

And indeed, a debunking of those who know about Faerie, who have experienced it, applying knowledge to what they read could likewise be applied to those who apply Christianity or other formalised religious beliefs or theories to what they read. Steady.

Yes.

In a rational discussion among people who do not necessarily share the same religious/supernatural beliefs, we cannot take any of those beliefs as premises. Christians will read and evaluate Faerie stories in the context of their Christianity. You read and evaluate them in the context of your belief that Faerie is real. There's nothing wrong with that. But unless you are talking to other people who share your beliefs, you cannot expect those beliefs to be taken as given. Of course you can try to convince others that your beliefs are true, but I fear that would take us rather off-topic.

Which I seem to be accomplishing anyway . . .

No, but are they stories about Faerie, as it is? Or are they tales made safe, as if for the nursery?

Beowulf was made "safe, as if for the nursery"? That's one grim nursery! In any case, Tolkien refers to Beowulf several times in OFS, which at least indicates that he considered it a valid specimen.

[Lalwendë]

Freebie at end of Post! Please skip if you want a gift!

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Call it what you like, I suppose. Perhaps "belief" is a better word? The point is that this is your opinion, not a universally acknowledged truth. So you cannot expect others to accept it as a premise.

In a rational discussion among people who do not necessarily share the same religious/supernatural beliefs, we cannot take any of those beliefs as premises. Christians will read and evaluate Faerie stories in the context of their Christianity. You read and evaluate them in the context of your belief that Faerie is real. There's nothing wrong with that. But unless you are talking to other people who share your beliefs, you cannot expect those beliefs to be taken as given. Of course you can try to convince others that your beliefs are true, but I fear that would take us rather off-topic.

I aint going to try and convince anyone that it's true, this isn't the place for that. Believe what you like is what I say, I'm not Richard Dawkins. And indeed, its always worth bearing in mind that not all readers/contributors will accept that personal beliefs are a 'given' for everyone, nor that all will even accept them as valid points of argument. I'm not going to stop you from questioning that approach however and am not offended by you questioning it. Still, I come at Tolkien's works from all kinds of angles, I'm not a stereotyped this that or the other nor am I trying to 'find' anything, as I just want to enjoy his work for what it is and the effect it gives off.

Like I've said earlier, I do find that Tolkien's work lacks an essential of Faerie, the amorality, the chaos. But it does reflect Tolkien's experience, which he articulated in the light of his earthly world understanding, which included for him Catholicism amongst other things (noting that he did not exist in a Catholic vacuum, he was a lot of things, like all of us).

OFS in some ways is his attempt to tie up all of the things he was and all the things he had seen; it is not in any way the Law on Faerie. Nor on Faerie Tale.

Beowulf was made "safe, as if for the nursery"? That's one grim nursery! In any case, Tolkien refers to Beowulf several times in OFS, which at least indicates that he considered it a valid specimen.

Haha, but it would certainly be an interesting nursery? No, I was not meaning quite literally for the nursery, but referring to Bowdlerisation which would render Shakespeare's stories suitable for 'the kiddies'. Vile idea, and not quite in the same vein as what Christian writers did to tales like Beowulf which was not in any way wrong, just inevitable!

But in terms of texts like Beowulf, inevitable. Old tales of Faerie were naturally in opposition to the new religion and so were altered, not always drastically so, as indeed shown in Beowulf. Tolkien actually made a good choice in choosing to refer to that text as it retains enough of the 'old ways' while including the modern morality to fit with his theory. Does it fit his idea of 'high, purged of the gross'? It would certainly be an exciting and seemingly true tale for kids (particularly boys, English teachers take note), which is one of the points Tolkien wants Faerie tales to have.

Anyway, has everyone read OFS? 'Cause I think some Downers might be excluded from this by not having the text. If they've not got it, it's available for free on the link on this thread.. It's an easy read, don't be put off.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Freebie at end of Post! Please skip if you want a gift!

Thanks for reposting that link, Lal. It would be great to have other Downers read OFS and contribute their thoughts here.

Originally Posted by Lal

OFS in some ways is his attempt to tie up all of the things he was and all the things he had seen; it is not in any way the Law on Faerie. Nor on Faerie Tale.

Just a small clarification here in case anyone interprets this comment to suggest that Tolkien gives us the One Springle--er, Fairie--Ring. I don't think anyone here has said that Tolkien wrote Chapter and Verse on Fairie or Faerie Tale. We've been considering some of the characteristics he sees in Fairie and applying them to his work and then his work to other works. (Well, really just to generalisations outside of his work, as I don't think anything other than Gawain and Beowufl have yet been tendered, of early Fairie, although Strange and Norrell have also been mentioned and of course Grimm's also, but there's not yet been any substantive discussion of other fairy tales. Links to early fairy tales might be very welcomed!

I also hasten to point out that the thread title is offered in quotation marks as befits its genesis as a phrase used by Tolkien. The question mark is wholly mine, though, and as such it does provide a prophylactic against automatic acceptance of Tolkien's ideas--an invitation to consider them if you will.

As an aside, would anyone have any links to some authentic online versions of the Beowulf tale before it became codified in the Old English poem? I'm not aware of any myself.