"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

There is not just unexpected deliverance in Tolkien’s theory, but an accompanying recognition of imperfection of the world, of evil, of doom. Frodo accepts his defeat before Gollem becomes the agent of the deliverance, just as Gawin submits to his fate, not expecting reprieve at the hands of the Green Knight. It is not simply that something redeems the sorry or perilous state of the hero, but that the hero must come to accept his final defeat, this tragedy or catastrophe, before he will be for the time being delivered from it.

So the hero must utterly fail and recognize his/her failure in order for the 'sudden turn' to be the eucatastrophe as described by Tolkien. I think you are right. This definitely clarifies the concept, and limits its application to LotR as well as other fairy tales/myths. Are there other myths/fairy tales that exhibit eucatastrophe, whether ancient (Beowulf, Gawain) or modern (Out of the Silent Planet, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.)?

Originally Posted by Lal

...the tale Tolkien created was not an amoral one, and it is possibly due to his wish to create a myth that was "purged of the gross", as to be honest, Faerie Tale is not about redemption or hope or joy or any of those things, its about danger, wicked fun, dreams, bodily fluids and death.

First, regarding the latter (not underlined) part: is this your opinion, or do you have evidence for this that contradicts Tolkien's own statement that fairy stories are, at their highest and best, about redemption and hope and joy? Regardless, it seems reductionist.

Second, regarding the underlined section, I think you are right that Tolkien wrote a moral fairy tale in because he wanted to create a myth that was "purged of the gross"; but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

Originally Posted by Lal

Ungoliant most defintely is ambiguous...

But not morally so. By the way, I've read the Spider thread and the theory built thereon such that Ungoliant cannot be a Maia, and may in fact be co-eval with Iluvatar, seems extremely weak.

[Aiwendil]

LMP wrote:

but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

I do not think that religion is the only viable explanation. Above, Bethberry posited an interesting alternative in philology.

I might propose another alternative, though it's one that certain literary critics wouldn't react well with: the work of art is better that way. Perhaps a less controversial way of putting it would be to say that Tolkien liked it better that way (so do I, as it happens, and I imagine so do a great many others). If Tolkien found certain elements of many fairy-stories distasteful or uninteresting, why shouldn't he write stories purged of such elements? We need not follow the likes of Edwin Muir and Edmund Wilson in claiming that any story that isn't about sex is juvenile.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I do not think that religion is the only viable explanation. Above, Bethberry posited an interesting alternative in philology. ... Perhaps a less controversial way of putting it would be to say that Tolkien liked it better that way (so do I, as it happens, and I imagine so do a great many others). If Tolkien found certain elements of many fairy-stories distasteful or uninteresting, why shouldn't he write stories purged of such elements? We need not follow the likes of Edwin Muir and Edmund Wilson in claiming that any story that isn't about sex is juvenile.

Your suggestion is based in aesthetics. I have no disagreement with it. Regarding philology, whereas it is true that Tolkien's entire Legendarium used philology as a generative strategy, I don't see how it affects the issue of "purging of the gross". Care to elucidate?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveller who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should be shut and the keys be lost.

That's what Faerie is all about. Be afraid...

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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!

Good good. We would all be very foolish if we took what Tolkien said on Faerie Tale as The Law, and I'm sure Tolkien, as an academic would also think we were fools if we only followed his rules.

Some sources, AKA more free stuff:

Andrew Lang's Fairy Books here. Tolkien liked these, but he disapproved that they were geared towards kids only and had in some cases been Bowdlerised and had the sinister magic taken out of them.

Joseph Campbells' Popular Tales of the West Highlands here.

Joseph Jacobs' tales here.

Grimm's Tales here. In German and Dutch too.

Norske Folkeeventyr here. Also in Norwegian here.

The Mabinogion, the Eddas, the Kalevala, of course, which should all be on Sacred Texts. There's enough on that site to keep you going for ever. One of the joys of the Net is that finally people can collect together folk lore and tales, without the intervention of the Collectors, who I must now post a health warning - DO put their own spin on things a lot, particularly pre-war ones. One of the things Tolkien railed against was indded the pruging of the 'gross' and difficult elements from what are supposed to simply be 'collections'.

Anyone interested should also look out for collections by Ruth Manning-Sanders, and of course, Angela Carter, an expert on the matter.

Which brings me to:

Originally Posted by lmp

First, regarding the latter (not underlined) part: is this your opinion, or do you have evidence for this that contradicts Tolkien's own statement that fairy stories are, at their highest and best, about redemption and hope and joy? Regardless, it seems reductionist.

Second, regarding the underlined section, I think you are right that Tolkien wrote a moral fairy tale in because he wanted to create a myth that was "purged of the gross"; but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

No, it's not my opinion but current thought on fairy tale and folklore, gained from the simple evidence that the tale puts before us, in particular from going direct to the most untainted fairy tales we can find, usually those told by women in remote locations. Like it or not, uncollected and unedited tales are indeed about visceral matters, perilous matters and can be quite disturbing.

What is important to remember about Fairie Tales is that they are not 'owned' nor are they 'fixed'. Likewise they can't be categorised. Some are moral tales, others tell about the natural world, still others are creation myths, some are entertainments. You can subject them to all kinds of interpretation, and Tolkien's is just a tiny fraction (and not really one of the most important ones in the minds of the scholars who go in for folklore) in the huge mass of others.

Fairy Tales indeed can be functional texts - mainly orally based, used to pass on knowledge through cultures through recognisable archetypes, and also instructional in passing on cultural norms and expectations. Peig Sayers says that Fairy Tales are intended as oral tales, as collections of images; they could take weeks to tell and used words to create images in the mind, using them over and over. 'Living shapes that move from mind to mind' as Tolkien says. Think of the Tarot, which works in the same way.

We should not underestimate the importance of Women's role in telling these tales, and some would argue that many are indeed Women's Stories. A feminist critic might argue that Tolkien wished his tales to be free 'of the gross' because he wished to expunge the elements of sex and bodily functions which were a major component of these tales, a way for women to pass on vital knowledge to their daughters about how their bodies worked, and most of all, how to deal with men.

Other reasons why Tolkien might have wanted his tales to be 'high' might include for aesthetic reasons. I think he sought in some ways to pull stock figures such as Elves out of Faerie where they are tricksy and make them into noble creatures (though why a King is more noble than a boggart to some, I don't know). And of course the most glaringly obvious answer why is this - he wanted to create an epic on the level of the Kalevala, dealing with momentous events, the movements of the Gods, a big broad swoop rather than intimate details of how individuals should live their lives. Style and feel rather than message.