You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It would seem that Tolkien's focus on Death as his chief area of exploration (he declared that LotR is 'about death, the inevitability of death) perhaps overrode other questions. Yet it lead him to ignore other issues. Its outside the tradition, yet we seem to accept it as being traditional - is this purely because so few of his readers have no knowledge of the traditions or is there more to it? Do we feel that Tolkien tapped into something that was originally there but was subsequently lost - as Drigel suggested, or is it that Tolkien's Elves are easier to relate to & identify with?

I'm not sure I quite follow this, davem. Are you including Tolkien's conception of death here when you talk about tradition? People's view of death derived from his ethical system is different from that in earlier cultures, no? Perhaps I don't know enough about the pagan myths you are referring to, but is fear of death derived from a fear of hell and damnation or does it extend to other religions and beliefs? Would the Numenorean fate have been possible outside of Tolkien's beliefs?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not sure I quite follow this, davem. Are you including Tolkien's conception of death here when you talk about tradition? People's view of death derived from his ethical system is different from that in earlier cultures, no? Perhaps I don't know enough about the pagan myths you are referring to, but is fear of death derived from a fear of hell and damnation or does it extend to other religions and beliefs? Would the Numenorean fate have been possible outside of Tolkien's beliefs?

I was not as clear there as I should have been. I meant that his conception of Faery & the motives he assigns to Fairies (ie 'love') are outside the tradition. I simply meant that its possible that his desire to focus on & explore the nature of death may have lead (even required) his to assign a common moral value system to all his races. This would throw the death question into sharp relief.

Different religions & traditions have differrent beliefs - some of the Pagan traditions had a fairly unpleasant view of the afterlife - cf The Aeneid - others held out a more pleasant prospect. Some taught reincarnation. My point, as I said, was that maybe the exploration of death over rode everything else for Tolkien, to the extent that he was required to re-create the Elves in his own image, put them in the service of his story, effectively make them into 'symbols', even 'emasculate' them. Elves & Fairies were not like that pre-Tolkien. Post Tolkien they are generally thought of in that way. The wild, fear inspiring, awesome, disturbing Fairies & Elves of tradition, the ones who can transform us & our reality, are absent from Tolkien's world & have been replaced by a unique, beautiful, powerful creation of Tolkien's own - the older Fairies occasionally peep out, & at those points we may feel a thrill, but generally his Elves are 'good Christians'.

[drigel]

the older Fairies occasionally peep out, & at those points we may feel a thrill, but generally his Elves are 'good Christians'.

Especially in The Hobbit. Tra la la lally yes, but there were some seriously drunk and leary wood elves in there too.

I still am unsure ommision from the works = ommision from the body of the elvish culture. I think about how much literature that came from multitudes of authors that have described the history of the past 2000 yrs. I then consider the limited snapshot of what Tolkien has described that covered a period of what - 4-6 thousand years? And that period was (debatably) 7, 8 or more thousand years prior to today, all from a few books and writings.

I suppose it's too simplistic (or forced application) to view this as the "traditional" pre-Tolkien elves are actually (in terms of the Legendarium) the post 4th age Morquendi who are no longer exposed or influenced by the Eldar..? Left to themselves, perpetually fading, and "gone native"..?..?

Translators Conceit, applicability, canon all rearing their ugly heads......

[davem]

drigel, good point, but... One aspect of Tolkien's Elves which is world's away from the traditional figures (particularly the Irish Sidhe) is in their sexual mores. The Fairies of tradition are notoriously lascivious & this sexual element was extremely shocking to the early Christian redactors of the Pagan material. Tolkien's Elves are almost innately 'Catholic' in as regards sex - no sex till they are married & then seemingly only for procreation - which is usually limited to a couple of children.

So, as I said they seem from a sexual perspective to be innately good Catholics - they wouldn't even need the Church's prohibitions - every 'demand' the Church makes on member's sexual conduct is just second nature to Tolkien's Elves - no struggles involved. Traditional Fairies, on the other hand, seem to have no self control (sexual or otherwise) to speak of.

[Lalwendë]

Ideas....

Maybe we ought not to look at Tolkien's Elves at all if we want to find any reflection of 'our' Faerie. They are altogether too perfect to be a representation of Faeries, too controlled and moral. Tolkien's Elves are more like Men, or rather, like idealised Men.

In terms of relationships, Tolkien's Elves are sometimes like stiff, buttoned-up Victorians with high romantic ideals - I'm thinking of figures like Ruskin here, with the apocryphal tale of what happened after he saw his wife undressed - for Elves, romantic ideals are easily shattered. For Faeries, quite the opposite would be the case! Seemingly, it is only when Men arrive on the scene that passions start being stirred. It fascinates me why Tolkien should write his Elves in such a way...

It is possibly in other areas of Tolkien's work that Faerie emerges. Dare I say that the Dwarves have a lot more in common with Faerie than do the Elves? They traditionally live underground (not all Elves do this, only some), and their realms are like whole other worlds, literally The Underworld. In common with Faerie, Dwarves keep their names secret, they also like to keep to themselves, and to upset a Dwarf is to make an enemy. As to the difference that Dwarves are mortal, they are also long-lived, and we cannot say that faeries are always represented as immortal; there are stories of Faery deaths. The other main difference is that we often equate Faerie with beauty, but who is to say that Faeries are not little fellas with long beards?

Relationships between Elves/Dwarves were once good but now have declined, much as the relationship of Men/Faeries has declined. Any Men who consort with Faerie might be viewed suspiciously; they live on the margins. Eol was one Elf who lived in this way, preferring the mystery of the Forest to the society of Elves, and trading with and taking company from Dwarves; he is like the figure of the Mage who lives on the edges of the community, shunning the rules and forging relationships with Faeries.

Hobbits too can be more Faerie than Elves are; Faeries are often seen as small, and fond of humour and feasting. Gollum is like the tricksy side of Faeries. The Woses may be Faeries too. And I find Tom Bombadil and Goldberry would be more appropriate as the King and Queen of Faerie than any Elf; they remain slightly enigmatic yet familiar, otherworldly and unpredictable.

Just some ideas to stir into the pot...

[drigel]

edit - Lalwendwe has already efficiently posted some points I was bringing up...

Davem,
Your correct. There is too much out there to unify it all. There is also the distortion that history provides that muddles up the picture. You have mentioned the Sidhe, and previously the Tuatha De Dananns. My problem is where to stop in regards to Tolkien. Do we stop at Celtic/Nordic traditions in regards to faerie?

There are other subjects (dragons come to mind) that cross cultures and history. In that regard, fairys (faeries) have as well: Greek, Arabic, Egyptian etc. You have your muses, genies, sirens, nymphs .. the list goes on.

What I do notice in all these variations is that Faeries are not divine in and of themselves (although most are immortal), they do represent (in most cases), the transition, or go-between our world and the "divine" world. Either as messengers, couriers, propheters, or just because they can, and want to.

[davem]

I suppose that, putting it simply, what Tolkien introduces into Faerie is Christian moral values. He has, effectively, 'baptized' the Elves into the Church. Though perhaps its more subtle - he gives us in his Elves perfect Christians. Some of them 'fall' - but again they fall as Christians fall, for the same reasons & with the same result. Having fallen they must 'repent' to be 'saved'.

Originally Posted by drigel

What I do notice in all these variations is that Faeries are not divine in and of themselves (although most are immortal), they do represent (in most cases), the transition, or go-between our world and the "divine" world. Either as messengers, couriers, propheters, or just because they can, and want to.

In the Legendarium this is certainly true, but in the essay Tolkien states:

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).

The 'sex' question in relation to Elves is interesting. In the Legendarium sexual desire for anyone but one's spouse, for any reason other than procreation, is seen as a sign of moral corruption: Wormtongue's desire for Eowyn, Celegorm's (& Morgoth's) for Luthien, Morgoth's for Arien, (& possibly Feanor's for Galadriel), Maeglin's for Idril - the list goes on. Sam clearly has a healthy sex life with Rose, but this is within marriage & produces children. Yet, as I said, the Elves & Fairies of tradition are infamous for seducing young men & women to gratify their desires (in the Ballad Tam Lin is placed as guardian of the Fairy site of Carterhaugh, & from any maiden unwise enough to tresspass there he 'takes a fee, either their rings or their mantles, or else their maidenhead'). This is very similar to the behaviour we find among the classical gods. Even Merlin is the child of a 'nun' & an otherworld inhabitant. The children of these unions in the tradition are natives of both worlds - a concept Tolkien adapts to produce the half-Elven. These children of both worlds were often seen as 'mediators', providing a link between the worlds. Some commentators have pointed out the similarity of these beings to Christ. RJ Stewart quotes a Gaelic invocation of Christ:

In the name of the Son of Light,the Son of Maria,
Keystone of the Arch of Heaven,
Who joins as one the forks upholding of the sky.
His the right hand, His the left hand.
His the rainbow letters in the rich fermented milk.
May you go in his ways, in all shapes of shapes,
In all colours of colours.
It is the Son of Light, the Son of Maria, saying:
'Ask in my Name, you shall not be cast out.'
Do you see us here, o Son of Light?
Says the Son of Light, 'I see'.

Jesus is also a 'Child' of two worlds - Paradise through His Father, earth through his Mother, & so provides the link between Earth & Heaven. The closest thing to a 'Christ' figure, or 'saviour' in Middle-earth is Earendel, who is also a child of two worlds.

Yet what is lacking in these Pagan figures is the Christian moral value system which we find in Tolkien. There is a (mistaken imo) belief that Tolkien, because he wasn't writing a Christian allegory, was writing within the 'Fairy tradition' - giving us Elves as they 'really' were. But he clearly wasn't. Yet, in both the Fairy Stories & the Smith essays, he seems to be at pains to tie himself into that authentic tradition & have us believe that he is presenting us with 'Just the facts, ma'am.' Now, did he really believe that he was presenting us with authentic Elves & Faeries, or was he deliberately trying to mislead us? If so, why? Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants? For all our discussions here, I don't think we've yet got the heart of the matter - why did he change the traditional Elves & Fairies to the extent that he did & more importantly perhaps why did he make out that he hadn't changed them at all?

[drigel]

At this point it's almost a philosophical debate. What were they (Faerie) to us really? One needs to answer this question first before attempting to describe the intent of the author.
Were they representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?
Were they representing actual gods and goddesses that have fallen (both physically and in regards cultural spiritualism) from importance?
Were they real agents of transition between the physical and spiritual?
You tell me. Im all ears

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise.

This is where I get confused. All descriptions of Valinor (especially post Numenor) seem paradise-esque. But, as the essay says, Faery is Faery. Period. Hard to wrap the head around. Perhaps Faerie resides somewhere in the suburbs of Paradise?

Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants?

Forget balrogs wings - the heart of the matter of your thread is quite possibly IMO the most important question to ask the Prof if only one question could be asked of him. I wonder if the answer to one question would satisfy us..

If I were to imagine him answering, I would have a few alternatives.

1: Perhaps my grounding in Catholicism inadvertantly changed my motivation in dealing with fairie in the Legendarium.

2: It is a study of death and immortality. In my work, we have the Unfallen living alongside the Fallen. Adam and Eve living with Cain and Able. Or, (plug in any religion here Lif and Lifthrasir living with Sigmund and Borghild. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.

3: My faerie IS faerie. But, so is the traditional faerie. Truth is truth, morals are morals, dont confuse religion with that idea. I do not expect you to think I have changed Faery to suit my own needs, just as I do not expect you to think I have changed history to suit my own needs.

add more as you see fit please