You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

I keep coming back to this thought. From what Ive been exposed to, it seems the traditional view on sexuality is one sided. The faeries being the aggressor as it were. Their human victims either being duped, or forced into the relationship. Is this right? Or do I need to dig up more material?

As I understand it, it could work both ways - there's an analysis of Kirk's Secret Commonwealth here:. Especially

There were also more sinister aspects to human/fairy interactions.
Most people have heard of changelings, where a human baby is taken away
from its parents and a defective fairy child left in its place. But the
Subterraneans did not balk at taking adults away too. They particularly
liked women who'd just given birth. They were kidnapped to serve as wet
nurses to fairy babies. Interestingly, the fairies would leave exact
doubles of their captives behind. Kirk discusses these doppelgangers,
who he calls "co-walkers," in some detail. Like changeling infants,
co-walkers tend to weaken, become incoherent, and eventually die.
They're not human or fairy, but a sort of biological robot created by
fairy magic to distract mortals away from the truth about the abduction
of their loved ones. UFO lore is full of co-walker types. Many of the
classic "men in black" episodes feature clumsy, muddle-mouthed visitors
who don't quite seem in sync with the mundane world. MIBs, like
co-walkers, perform some task, then depart -- though they don't usually
die in front of puzzled witnesses.

Kirk gives this account of one woman's abduction (I have modernized
his spelling):

"Among other instances of undoubted verity, proving in these the being
of such aerial people, or species of creatures not vulgarly known, I
add the subsequent relations, some whereof I have from my acquaintance
with the actors and patients and the rest from the eyewitnesses to the
matter of fact. The first whereof shall be of the woman taken out of
her child-bed, and having a lingering image of her substituted body in
her room, which resemblance decayed, died, and was buried. But the
person stolen returning to her husband after two years space, he being
convinced by many undeniable tokens that she was his former wife,
admitted her home and had diverse children by her. Among other reports
she gave her husband, this was one: that she perceived little what they
[the fairies] did in the spacious house she lodged in, until she
anointed one of her eyes with a certain unction that was by her; which
they perceiving to have acquainted her with their actions, they fained
her blind of that eye with a puff of their breath. She found the place
full of light, without any fountain or lamp from whence it did spring."

Kirk goes on to say the returned woman was undoubtedly the same one
everyone thought had died, and that her husband, having remarried since
her "death," was obliged to divorce his second wife to remarry his
first.

& an article on Selkies gives:

The male members among the selkie-folk were renowned for their many encounters with human females - married and unmarried.

A selkie man in human form was a handsome creature with almost magical seductive powers over mortal women. These selkie men had no qualms in casting off their sealskins, stashing them carefully, before heading inland to seek illicit intercourse with an 'unsatisfied woman'.

Should such a mortal woman wish to make contact with a selkie man, there was a specific rite that she had to follow. At the high tide, the woman should make her way to the shore where she had to shed seven tears into the sea.

The selkie man would then come ashore and after removing his magical sealskin, would seek out 'unlawful love' among the women of the island.

In the words of the Orkney folklorist Walter Traill Dennison, these selkie males:

"..often made havoc among thoughtless girls, and sometimes intruded into the sanctity of married life."
If a girl went missing while out on the ebb or at sea, it was inevitably said that her selkie lover had taken her to his watery domain - assuming, of course, she had not attracted the eye of a Finman.

But if the males of the selkie race were irresistable to the island women, selkie women were no less alluring to the eyes of earth-born men.

The most common theme in selkie-folklore is one in which a cunning young Orcadian man acquires, either by trickery or theft, a selkie girl's sealskin.

This prevented her from returning to her home in the sea and the beautiful seal-maiden was usually forced to marry their 'captors' and sire children.

These tales generally end sadly, however, with the selkie wife's children finding and returning her sealskin so that she might return to the sea. In some accounts her children go with her while others have them remaining with their mortal father.

Six of one, half dozen of the other, so to speak.

[Numenorean]

Greetings Davem, Drigel , Lalwendë et al, sorry to backtrack a wee bit on this fascinating thread of yours, but I’ve also often pondered aspects of Tolkiens Faerie and its reflections/divergences from the Faerie of folklore and tradition.

Davem:

Thinking about it, (& with drigel's earlier mention in mind)I find the Elves of TH quite 'traditional'

Certainly in comparison to the Elves who undertook the Great Journey and received wisdom and strength from Valinor, particularly the Noldo who returned to Middle Earth with their lordly ways and crafts. I find that the Mirkwood Elves- as described in the Hobbit - have a fey quality to them very reminiscent of the Faeries of British tradition, their behaviour can also be seen to reflect this feyness. Firstly they seem to bewitch and tease Bilbo and the starving Dwarves with illusive twinkling lights and tantalising glimpses of a wondrous unattainable woodland feast, then they repeatedly disappear entirely leaving the group in terrible danger near and at the mercy of the large evil spider colony. Furthermore, the Mirkwood Elves also have no hesitation in kidnapping, imprisoning and placing a spell on Thorin, and I find all these incidents to have a strong echo of traditional Faerie shenanighans – let alone the drunkenness and revelry. On P.162 of the Hobbit Tolkien describes them thus:

Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise.

Dangerous indeed. The very gates, the physical manifestation of the Elvenkings inner realm are also notably magical, Thranduil himself says “There is no escape from my magic doors for those who are once brought inside.”

As has already been discussed, the Elves from Valinor are very different and feel more ‘humanized’/Christianised than the Avari and the Faeries of folklore. However, I also perceive a strong seam of what Drigel calls the ‘unhindered, chaotic, wild and untamed aspect’ of Faerie, in at least some of the other Elves of Tolkiens Legendarium. In this regard the first of whom that springs to mind are the Green-elves of Ossiriand:
The Silmarillion.(P171) has these two intriguing passages concerning them and their relationship with Men:

Now the Green-elves of Ossiriand were troubled by the coming of Men, and when they heard that a lord of the Eldar from over the Sea was among them they sent messengers to Felagund.’Lord,’ they said, ‘if you have power over these newcomers, bid them return by the ways that they came, or else to go forward. For we desire no strangers in this land to break the peace in which we live. And these folk are hewers of trees and hunters of beasts; therefore we are their unfriends, and if they will not depart we shall afflict them in all the ways that we can.’

I am particularly drawn to Tolkiens use of the words ‘unfriends’ and ‘afflict’ in that passage, and note that the Green-elves do not confront Men directly here, rather they use a go-between – a ‘humanised’ Elf from Valinor, further distancing themselves from Men folk, humans. Are their words merely threatening with no real intent as it were? I tend to think not, I get the sense that they are genuinely and actively hostile to Men, as the next passage reveals, Silmarillion.(P171):

First came the Haladin; but meeting the unfriendship of the Green-elves they turned north and dwelt in Thargelion, in the country of Caranthir son of Feanor

Given what we know of the deep moral fortitude and grim determination of the Haladin, the unfriendship of the Green-elves must have been considerably fierce to spur them into such a retreat. It may also be worth considering that from the point-of-view of the Haladin folk, the Green-elves most probably never revealed either themselves or their ‘reasons’ for afflicting them, and that feels quite wild and disturbing to me.

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

You mentioned earlier Davem:

they (Faeries) made the natural world a place of terror, a place to be avoided. It was their realm and humans entered at their peril. There is an echo of that in Doriath and Lorien

I would maybe also add Nan Elmoth and Nan Dungortheb, despite the fact that the latter was not an Elven realm as such, it certainly bordered them. This dreadful valley had an atmosphere of enmeshing shadows, fell creatures and poisoned streams, any or all of which could prove utterly perilous to the unwary traveller who tried to cross it. Tolkiens world, or the fear inspiring wildness of traditional Faerie?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Numenorean

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

And interestingly enough, Eol, Maeglin, and Saeros all have Dark Elven roots, as it were, by which I mean non-Calaquendi, and non-Sindarin.

Saeros is very specifically said to have been of the Green Elven people, of the ones who removed to Doriath after Morgoth's return and the death of Denethor. Is his distaste for men connected to that of the other Green Elves you mention?

Eol is not said to be thus in the Silmarillion, but in Tolkien's writings he speculated a great deal about his origin, and one theory, which seems to have had the most weight, is that he was one of the Avari (of Tatyarin (ie. Noldorin) origin), who eventually came west to Beleriand. And even his main alternative origin, as a kinsman of Thingol, makes him sound as much a Green Elf as a Grey...

Maeglin, of course, is connected to the Dark Elves via his father's blood, and his upbringing.

And this is beginning to make me wonder... Did Tolkien envision two "faeries" as it were? Did his Translator's Conceit give him the idea, within Middle-Earth anyway, that the more historical view of a malevolent faerie was a distortion by Men in later times of the "real" faerie (Valinor) and the attitude of those Elves most likely to meet Men (the Avari)? In other words, is an internal (in-story) reconciling of the "real world" conception of Faerie and his own, Valinorean, conception of Faerie made possible by Avarian attitudes mixed with fading knowledge of Valinor?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Did Tolkien envision two "faeries" as it were? Did his Translator's Conceit give him the idea, within Middle-Earth anyway, that the more historical view of a malevolent faerie was a distortion by Men in later times of the "real" faerie (Valinor) and the attitude of those Elves most likely to meet Men (the Avari)? In other words, is an internal (in-story) reconciling of the "real world" conception of Faerie and his own, Valinorean, conception of Faerie made possible by Avarian attitudes mixed with fading knowledge of Valinor?

Its possible. Certainly Tolkien couldn't have ignored the traditional accounts. He was motivated by a desire to 're-create' what had been. So perhaps he included what was the 'original' version of events, from which the traditional stories derived. The only problem with that explanation is that his Elves are not found in the tradition. Also, given the traditional tales (as found in Kirk) depict Elves/Fairies being attracted by beautiful humans. In its own way the tradition is more complex than the one we find among the Avari. It is very much a love-hate relationship, or perhaps desire-hate.

One thing we find as a commonplace in the tradition is accounts of battles between Fairy tribes. This obviously occurs in Tolkien with the Kinslaying, but in the tradtion there is no implication of a 'fall' being involved, no moral judgement at all being passed. Its just what the Fairies do. Kirk also refers to Fairy funerals & the implication there seems to be that they are mortal.

So, I'd agree that Tolkien attempted to acknowledge the tradition, but it seems that for some reason he felt the need to rationalise it to such a degree that it became almost unrecognisable.

Edit. He also reveals techniques for gaining an experience of the Second Sight, so one could actually see Fairies!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And interestingly enough, Eol, Maeglin, and Saeros all have Dark Elven roots, as it were, by which I mean non-Calaquendi, and non-Sindarin.

Originally Posted by Numenorean

It may also be worth considering that from the point-of-view of the Haladin folk, the Green-elves most probably never revealed either themselves or their ‘reasons’ for afflicting them, and that feels quite wild and disturbing to me.

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

I sometimes get the impression that there are two distinct histories of Elves, one which we can all read, the other never having been written down at all. On the one hand we have the Noldor, and those of the Teleri and Avari who chose (maybe?) to follow them. Then we also have the unwritten history of the Teleri and Avari who remained independent of the Eldar.

The Silmarillion could be said to be written from the point of view of the Noldor. The story of Eol is a case in point; it is debatable whether he did wrong in marrying Aredhel, but the treatment he received when he went to Gondolin often seems harsh. Gondolin was a 'protected' city, but Eol was also an independent Elf, who was prevented from leaving; his anger was extreme but his freedom was at stake. The story casts no judgement on the actions of the Elves of Gondolin for the events. I wonder how it might have been told differently by other Elves?

Right up to the War of the Ring, the Eldar are still dominant in Middle-earth, despite being depleted in number. If the Elves are a part of Faerie, then we are seeing only one view of it. Thinking of the translation conceit, The Silmarillion is translated from papers in Elrond's library, and LotR is translated from other papers. The Hobbit on the other hand is Bilbo's personal tale, and it is here that we see the Elves of Mirkwood acting in a sinister fashion, and the Elves of Rivendell having fun; maybe The Hobbit is the most 'unbiased' view of Elves that we have, being written by a Hobbit with no 'agenda'?

Originally Posted by davem

This obviously occurs in Tolkien with the Kinslaying, but in the tradtion there is no implication of a 'fall' being involved, no moral judgement at all being passed. Its just what the Fairies do.

Tolkien's Elves as far as we are allowed to see them, have clear concepts of right and wrong, which is the opposite to Faerie, where the two concepts are irrelevant. I wonder whether Tolkien had to 'build in' such strong ideas of right and wrong in order to make a story like LotR work? It is a story which involves much killing of the opposing forces, and we might easily question whether that is the correct thing to do if we are not drilled in the 'fact' that they are most definitely 'bad guys'? So therefore the story must have strongly stated opposing forces, and we must be made to see just how bad these bad guys are?

Throughout LotR there are moments where moral grey areas seem about ready to burst forth, but they are kept controlled; I mean those moments when we see Orcs conversing of 'retirement', or Gandalf refusing to be morally didactic about Gollum. LotR lacks any kind of 'seductive' bad guy who might make doing the wrong thing look to be quite attractive; his Orcs are all ugly, Mordor is vile, no bad guy ever seems to benefit from what they do.

Perhaps in the case of LotR it is that the story cannot allow any room for traditional Faerie, it cannot allow for amoral behaviour?

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

The Silmarillion could be said to be written from the point of view of the Noldor. The story of Eol is a case in point; it is debatable whether he did wrong in marrying Aredhel, but the treatment he received when he went to Gondolin often seems harsh.

Really? If the facts reported in the Silmarillion are to be trusted, Eol kept Aredhel in Nan Elmoth against her will and forcibly married her.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's a difference between thinking that the Silmarillion is biased and thinking that it's false. But unless it is, in certain respects, false, the room for it to be biased is rather limited.

There's also the question of what it means to wonder whether a fictional story is "true" - what we mean to ask, of course, is not whether it's literally true but whether it's true or false within a supposed fictional world. But what defines that world if not the narrative whose veracity we're doubting?

[drigel]

But what defines that world if not the narrative whose veracity we're doubting?

This does bring me back to my original inclination to force both Faeries together. It is translators conciet I admit, but the perspective of the narrator in LOTR and Silm should be taken into account. Whats hinted at in LOTR (but not the Silm) are the cultural apprehension towards elves in general. It bespeaks of the waning of the men/elf relationships. I think of Bormir's fear of entering Lorien when I consider this, as an example.

Admittedly, it does touch on the waning theme, and the general ignorance of men (hobbits, et al), and their wariness of "magic". But could the old tales (or old wives tales ) not also have roots (going all the way back to the 1st age) of people's direct interaction with the more "wild" elves? Not even the Ossiriand Green Elves - where there was at least a structure of leadership, and a civilization of sorts, which (to me) implies a rule/law/code of behavior set of "rules" to live by sort of thing, but elves who answered to no lord. Eol does come to mind, but even he seemed to be on a level higher (skillsets, taste in women) than the rustic, naturally free elves that the traditional model references. It goes back to the question of ommision. They arent part of any story in the works, but those old tales of caution are.

Or is that too much of a leap?

[littlemanpoet]

davem, this discussion has been on my mind since the last post was placed here. Your basic question seems to still have been unanswered to your satisfaction. I'm not sure that it can be.

I personally do not doubt the veracity of your experience. You see, I don't want to. Which leads me to the inevitable (for me) question that must plague the mind of someone who is a modern Christian (not post-modern, an orthodox believer): if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

How does one come to perceive them? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life...

Originally Posted by davem

...he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary...

I wonder if he meant that it was necessary to him? Though I must admit that it's necessary to me; it certainly seems that way.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all.

How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

Originally Posted by LMP

While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.

Originally Posted by davem

Who's imagination, though? Is this Faerie as the human imagination, or as the Imagination of the Deity? Maybe even the imagination of the earth itself (why not - if Tom can be the spirit of the countryside?)

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

Originally Posted by davem

Was there a time when we were in harmony with the earth - or sufficiently so that the Faeries more like Tolkien's Elves (or like some of them at least)? If so, then SoWM might represent the 'middle' period, when Faeries sought to bring us back to that harmonious relationship, & the traditional accounts our current state - we have rejected them with contempt, they respond in kind.

This seems as right and true as we can possibly hope to be.

Originally Posted by davem

My question is, why invent such a thing? Is this 'lack' universally felt, or was it only felt by Tolkien himself? Well, no longer. We all feel that 'lack' (those of us who respond to his works, that is) but would we have felt it if he hadn't written his Legendarium? Has he actually made us feel the lack of something which we wouldn't have missed otherwise?

An orthodox Christian who loves faery would say that this lack is real, and that even if it isn't felt, it should be. This is because we were closer to, and are now disconnected from, nature (you know, I dislike that word as a too handy catch-all that loses much in the short-hand).

Originally Posted by davem

The whole point is that 'the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

If by 'very thing' we're talking about the presence of beneficent Elves in Tolkien's Legendarium, where in OFS does Tolkien say that? Isn't Tolkien saying that the seminal difference in fairy-story is eucatastrohpe, rather than the presence of high elves?

Originally Posted by davem

Is Faerie a 'real' place. or simply a construct of the Human imagination. If it is the former, then one cannot simply 'add' things to it which become accepted on equal terms with what already exists there. One can only so that if it is 'merely' a human construct.

Using this argument, we may not write historical novels either. Wouldn't you say that the literature about something, as opposed to the reality of it, is by necessity two different things, especially in terms of those things that remain most steeped in mystery? Also, what do you make of Tolkien 'finding out' what happened? From what did this inspiration derive? Was it his own imaginative power alone? Or was he receiving inspiration from outside himself? In the end, he didn't think it all came from within his own head. Where then?

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.

The underlined bolded text appears to me to be what, to Tolkien, Faery represents, whether Faery is real or not. Its reality appears to be of secondary importance to him, at least in terms of the story he is writing. If that is offensive to you, or at least objectionable, that's understandable. However, taken on its own terms, for the sake of the story, it seems to achieve the author's desired ends. Thus Tolkien's elves (in SoWM) must be definition love humans unpossessively, because they are other, just as are all creatures.

Lastly (long post again, sorry), I'm not really trying to give what I consider final answers because, obviously, I don't know them. It's all mystery. Who can know what Faery really is, without having been there? Who can know what Tolkien really thought without being Tolkien (or God)? I'm interested in a continued discussion, more to search things out than to arrive at any definites, which I think is frankly impossible.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'. Tolkien clearly sees some such role for them, some part to play in the 'saving' of Humanity - if not from 'Hell' at least from the Machine - & in awakening us to seeing the world as we were meant to see it. But did our ancestors see that as their role & purpose? They were just there, like trees, stars & sunsets - & one could ask what are the 'roles' of those things?

How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story - or if you like the human imagination? You say:

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments.

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - Thomas of Eceldoune was a real person who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce & William Wallace, & who, as a result of an encounter/initiation by the Fairy Queen, became a prophet (or, poetically, was given by Her the gift of The Tongue that Cannot Lie). Many of his predictions came true & its said that he didn't die but passed into Faery & lives there to this day.

In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour......

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'.

No, but bear with me: by 'place' within creation I'm speaking as one who believes that there is an entity that did create all there is; to assume that faery has to have a place in human salvific history is presumptuous, as if all creation has to be involved in that particularly human story.

On the other hand, since (at least to Christians) the salvific story is the all important human story, and human story written about faery will probably (not inevitably I suppose) have that element in it, because (as Tolkien says) human faery stories are about humans in faery. I hope that made sense.

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story) - or if you like the human imagination? . . . The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda

Again, I think that he did not believe faery to be objectively real (i.e., primary belief). However, he achieved secondary belief in faery for the sake of his story so that he could write it in such a way that others could do the same.

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments.

I guess the phrase I meant, and could not think of at the time of writing, was "take exception to".

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - ... In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Into the church? Yes, I guess that's possible. But now I'm intrigued with the notion that there could be a faery that, its story/history not being human, the salvific story has nothing to do with faery, nor faery with it. Which reminds me of C.S. Lewis's idea that there are many Edens in the universe; but that's not a direct parallel, because the idea of Eden seems to necessitate a story of a temptation if not a fall. Being the believer I am, however, I can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour......

Serves us right, eh?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Again, I think that he did not believe faery to be objectively real (i.e., primary belief). However, he achieved secondary belief in faery for the sake of his story so that he could write it in such a way that others could do the same.

Being the believer I am, however, I can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.

Spot the difference? You say Tolkien didn't believe Faery to be objectively real - you, however, 'can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.' You seem to suggest that Tolkien saw Faery as another term for the human imagination & didn't believe it to have any existence beyond that - hence Faeries are created by humans & have only 'secondary' existence. You, however, want to think of Faeries as being created by God & therefore as having 'primary' existence.

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

Thanks heaps for the next conundrum. I'll have to think on this.

I'm still hoping for at least an attempt at an answer to my battery of questions:

Originally Posted by me

How does one come to perceive faeries? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?