"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

A work in which there are evil characters is not amoral - on the contrary, the amoral sort of fairy story generally does not include clearly evil characters any more than it includes clearly good ones. In fact, it seems to me that the amoral fairy story and the "bodily fluid" obsessed fairy story are nearly always less serious, less grim, and less frightening. If any kind of fairy story ought to be called puerile or adolescent, it is this kind. Or am I alone in finding Beowulf and Gawaine far more serious and 'adult' than, say, the Kalevala?

'Evil' characters may not necessarily be shown in a 'moral' way. In some tales we might see a character doing horrible things but who is the hero. In modern terms, an anti-hero.

What though, could be more serious than life and death? I actually find the amoral tale more perilous but at once more comforting than the moral tale (of any culture) which has a 'message'. Probably why I love LotR, as it has little obvious message. It is enigmatic like the most twisty, tricksy of fairy tales. And in that respect, Tolkien hit paydirt in terms of what he wanted in OFS:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

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.

Don't ask too many questions, or you'll get locked out of Faerie.

Finding Beowulf more adult than the Kalevala (I presume you mean mature and the Kalevala is juvenile?) is a matter of taste. To a Finnish reader nothing could be more serious than the Kalevala. Tolkien didn't make such distinctions between them. Fair enough if its just your taste.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

'Evil' characters may not necessarily be shown in a 'moral' way. In some tales we might see a character doing horrible things but who is the hero.

Yes, I very much agree. In fact, this is the chief characteristic of the 'amoral fairy story'. But I don't know if I'd call these characters 'evil' - for in the amoral fairy story there is really no such thing as good or evil.

In any case, the point I was trying to make here was that a story can include scores of frightening, wicked characters and still be 'moral' - as indeed Tolkien's stories do.

What though, could be more serious than life and death?

Life and death were not the 'gross' elements that Tolkien wished to purge. On the contrary, he claimed that LotR was about death. It was, rather, the amorality and, as you put it, 'bodily fluids' that he (apparently) did not enjoy, and consequently left out of his own work. And it is these elements that, in my experience, tend to render a story less serious.

I actually find the amoral tale more perilous but at once more comforting than the moral tale (of any culture) which has a 'message'.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. By 'moral' tale I don't mean one that 'has a moral' or message. I mean one in which there are moral characters and, at least implicitly, some moral system. I don't think that Tolkien's work has a message, but it is very clearly moral.

Finding Beowulf more adult than the Kalevala (I presume you mean mature and the Kalevala is juvenile?) is a matter of taste. To a Finnish reader nothing could be more serious than the Kalevala. Tolkien didn't make such distinctions between them. Fair enough if its just your taste.

The Kalevala was probably a bad example - though it is to some extent amoral (Vainamoinen and the rest do some things that one could not imagine a good character from Middle-earth doing) it is not the best example of the 'amoral fairy story'.

But my point was this: a work that is not about amoral characters and bodily fluids is quite capable of being serious; Beowulf, Gawaine, and the Silmarillion are prime examples.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

What is important to remember about Fairie Tales is that they are not 'owned' nor are they 'fixed'.

Wouldn't this statement suggest that even those expurgaters were merely involved in the (not so fluid ) fluid retelling of fairy tales, retelling them in ways they saw fit for their culture and society? If, after all, fairy tales did function in the very sociological manner you describe (being warning messages from mums to daughter, to children about strangers, explanations of creation), why cannot later redactors see fit to tell their versions.

After all, it is notoriously difficult to find 'ur' texts or original versions of fairy tales. The structuralists tried to do that eighty years ago and failed. There just ain't no original version of Cinderalla recoverable--no "One Cinder" to rule them all--but lots of very unique versions.

Originally Posted by Lal

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.

It's not so much that I disagree with you in principle as that, when I see you use words such as untainted, I see a particular value judgement shaping the discussion. I know we all of us here think we have the correct opinion on most things, but if my years reading literature and literary interpretation have taught me anything, it's that there is no "progress" to true understanding, but cyclical journeys to different perspectives. I guess what I am saying here is similar to Aiwendil's point earlier about belief in Fairy. To use the connotation of "untainted" suggests a premise based on value judgement rather than objective discussion.

Also, to dismiss Tolkien's essay because it may be largely ignored in the world of fairy tale scholarship is not an analysis of his ideas, but rejection by reputation. After all, his literary work was largely ridiculed and ignored for decades by the literary academics, so it wouldn't surprise me if his other work has also been ignored. That doesn't mean he does not have something to offer, it merely means that current scholars are going off on other directions. Which they have a right to do. But it isn't necessarily grounds for rejecting Tolkien's ideas out of hand.

I think Tolkien's interest in exploring the Old English word fey in early stories is interesting for the light it sheds on how he thought as well as on what could be a legitimate characteristic of the stories he names. Yes, he excludes some stories, but so do all interpreters.

After all, he is one scholar who championed story as story. He did not 'defend' fairy tales as history or myth or taboo. He championed narrative as an essential element in human imagination and that's very worthy of discussion.

I do hope this doesn't turn into that banana peel he was talking about though.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Beth

These comments must, I think, relate to what Tolkien suggests is the essential nature of fairie, not magic, nor elves, nor darkness nor travel, nor wild imagining, but “Recovery, Escape, and Consolation” .

I think that on the one hand magic represents a/the fundamental element of Fairy Stories, while recovery is an important effect of them on the reader (therefore we don't have a dilema):

Originally Posted by OFS

Faerie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic—but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician

The essential face of Faerie is the middle one, the Magical [towards Nature].

But fairy-stories offer also, in a peculiar degree or mode, these things: Fantasy, Recovery, Escape, Consolation, all things of which children have, as a rule, less need than older people.

Originally Posted by Beth

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.

Hm, I don't think Tolkien shared this idea - after all, he expected the most thorough observance of moral standards on behalf of his heroes. Frodo did not accept his fate on Mount Doom, he was forced into submission by a higher force than he (and with the rarest of exceptions, anyone) could handle.

Originally Posted by Beth

Some time ago I posted on the Downs that a later reading of LotR made me see that the quest is about Death.

I agree, he stated so in at least two letters:

Originally Posted by Letter #186

I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.

Originally Posted by Letter #203

That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivocal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among Elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men', and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!

Originally Posted by TSoAR

If the deludinccccnot in some way involved in Tolkien's vision of evil I should be extremely surprised. Morgoth and Sauron both share qualities with the Great Adversary, who is the inevitable model for evil in the Christian mind. Lucifer was once the brightest of angels, and in at least one Anglo-Saxon poem both he and his rebel angels are portrayed as retaining the ability to appear in the angelic form that once they possessed. In fact this is central to the temptation of Eve in Genesis B, a poem both several hundred years older and quite a lot better than Paradise Lost. For Tolkien not to be influenced by an element of his own religion's philosophy which he would encounter regularly in his philological studies he would need to be more difficult to influence than even C.S. Lewis thought. I suspect that the same motif had influenced medieval fantastic fiction, whence come many of Tolkien's theories about fairy-stories.

I agree

Originally Posted by Melkor/Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

As a shadow Melkor did not then conceive himself. For in his beginning he loved and desired light, and the form that he took was exceedingly bright

Originally Posted by Atrabeth

Then one [Melkor] appeared among us, in our own form visible, but greater and more beautiful; and he said that he had come out of pity.

Originally Posted by Of the rings of power and the third age, Silmarillion

Men [Sauron] found the easiest to sway of all the peoples of the Earth; but long he sought to persuade the Elves to his service, for he knew that the Firstborn had the greater power; and he went far and wide among them, and his hue was still that of one both fair and wise.

Originally Posted by Lal

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. If humans are inescapably moral (and some might argue we are at root simply apes with the evolutionary benefits of walking upright, having opposable thumbs and having a varied diet) then the writers of Faery tales might put a moral 'spin' on them. In fact its probably right that there are moral spins on all Faery tales written by humans as we only have our own understanding of the world on which to base our writings of encounters with Faerie. Therefore if we take a particular moral stance then we might put that spin on our stories to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't think that Fairy is in any way more amoral than our world is; in some cases, some characters do behave amorally, or the story we know presents them so. But I don't think that we should derive from this an absolute axiom; for one thing, most of the romanian oral tradition of fairy tales is deeply moral in nature.

Originally Posted by Lal

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

Err, that reminds me of what I thought about critics in highschool

Originally Posted by Lal

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.

Bringing the "she was" argument does not have that much of a weight in giving a character a godly status. He rejected a similar interpretation in the case of Tom:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

[(Peter Hastings) also cited the description of Bombadil by Goldberry: 'He is.' Hastings said that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God.]

As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator). You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday's Epistle – inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names.

Moreover, Ungoliant: "was one of those that he corrupted to his service
"(Of the darkening of Valinor; if we compare this with:

Originally Posted by Of the enemies, Valaquenta, Silmarillion

For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts.

then it implies rather clearly her origin; Chris' comentaries too on the fourth section of the Annals of Aman accept this.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bb

Wouldn't this statement suggest that even those expurgaters were merely involved in the (not so fluid ) fluid retelling of fairy tales, retelling them in ways they saw fit for their culture and society? If, after all, fairy tales did function in the very sociological manner you describe (being warning messages from mums to daughter, to children about strangers, explanations of creation), why cannot later redactors see fit to tell their versions.

Well let's be honest and a bit blunt - many of these modern versions weren't adapted to 'fit', they were simply Bowdlerised, as Tolkien himself points out, reduced to mere nursery tales.

The point that's being missed is that Fairy Tales are not literature, as in books wot we study in skool, they are oral tales. And oral tales, like oral language, belong to the Speople who tell 'em, not to the clever folk who come with them sinister pens 'n' paper 'n' write 'em down. We know its not possible to find ur-texts as how could we if they're oral tales? Tolkien says so too.

Originally Posted by Bb

Also, to dismiss Tolkien's essay because it may be largely ignored in the world of fairy tale scholarship is not an analysis of his ideas, but rejection by reputation. After all, his literary work was largely ridiculed and ignored for decades by the literary academics, so it wouldn't surprise me if his other work has also been ignored. That doesn't mean he does not have something to offer, it merely means that current scholars are going off on other directions. Which they have a right to do. But it isn't necessarily grounds for rejecting Tolkien's ideas out of hand.

His work hasn't been largely ridiculed, in fact there's a huge industry now of criticising Tolkien to varying degrees of usefulness. And I don't dismiss OFS, just pointing out that its not commonly used.

Originally Posted by Bb

After all, he is one scholar who championed story as story. He did not 'defend' fairy tales as history or myth or taboo. He championed narrative as an essential element in human imagination and that's very worthy of discussion.

Agree with that. After all the hot air we blow, the most crucial element is story.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for quoting those Letters, Raynor.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think that on the one hand magic represents a/the fundamental element of Fairy Stories, while recovery is an important effect of them on the reader (therefore we don't have a dilema)

Thanks also for providing this clarification. I had been referring to that other form of magic Tolkien references, the one he calls mere mechanical magic and should have made that distinction clear.

Originally Posted by myself

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.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Hm, I don't think Tolkien shared this idea - after all, he expected the most thorough observance of moral standards on behalf of his heroes. Frodo did not accept his fate on Mount Doom, he was forced into submission by a higher force than he (and with the rarest of exceptions, anyone) could handle.

Other than cringing at my phrasing, there, I would say there are two ways that your concerns here can be addressed. First of all, it is I would say a matter of interpretation whether Frodo failed or not. That is, fans and scholars would not have been able to expend all the ink they do in discussing this point had it been crystal clear. I personally accept Tolkien's explanation that all that was required of Frodo was that he expend himself to the utmost to allow conditions to enable the destruction of the Ring. (Now, how's that for a convoluted grammar?) There is, to me, no failure in that.

Other than this recourse to the inevitable differences of opinion, however, is the significance of this idea of eucatastrophe. If any good happenstance or reversal of fortune is taken to be Eru's silent hand (not to be confused with Adam Smith's), then that to my mind cheapens Tolkien's idea of facing one's doom. It distorts them away from the most powerful expression of Hope which resides in his idea. There are two passages in the Orodruin chapter which reflect what I had meant to express.

Originally Posted by Frodo, Mount Doom

'I am naked in the dark, Sam,' and there is not veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.

This is before the Ring overwhelms Frodo's will. Even more to my point is a following passage.

Originally Posted by passage on Sam and Frodo, Mount Doom

With a gasp Frodo cast himself on the ground. Sam sat by him. To his surprise he felt tired but lighter, and his head seemed clear again. No more debates disturbed his mind. He knew all the arguments of despair and would not listen to them. His will was set, and only death would break it. He knew that all the hazards and perils were now drawing together to a point: the next day would be a day of doom, the day of final effort or disaster, the last gasp.

This was the point of final acceptance of fate which I meant and it is fascinating in that the grammar of the pronoun 'he' is not expressly clear. It is not a failure by any means or a loss of moral standards but the point of ultimate understanding that the journey has come to its last stand.

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps Tolkien has written into LotR, by means of "the long defeat", a deterioration of the Elves (aka Fairies). They descend from the heights of the First Age when their deaths are accompanied by the flame of their hot fëar corruscating from their heads, to, fourth age onward, quaint, earthy beings that have lost all trace of that hot fëa. Thence until now they become ever more reminiscent of woody trees, florid blossoms, and winged butterflies, or the muddy ferment and fluid fecundity of natural processes. Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon comes to mind in terms of the descent to fluid and amoral fecundity.

[Lalwendë]

I think that's exactly what he intended to get across - note that those left in Middle-earth are the Moriquendi who had not seen the Light of Valinor. However a little of it is that Elves simply withdraw from men's lives, as do Hobbits (and Wizards and Dwarves), which is also a neat writerly device for showing how the magic has declined and the world has become more mundane.

Indeed in Mists of Avalon, an important book for modern Pagans, the only descent we see is the 'descent' to Christianity which takes the power away from the Land, the Britons (or Brythons if you prefer, having noted this term when I was reading about the long lost Cumric language yesterday) and from women. But I wouldn't expect you to be kind about this work as Zimmer Bradley's not all that kind to Christians. Gwynhwyfwr (can't remember the spelling) is a bit of a caricature TBH, but hey, so are 'heathens' in Christian Arts. Is it all 'redressing the balance' or just having a go back? You decide.

There's certainly a descent into something or other in LotR, possibly just mundanity, a decline from the mystical and magical (which is what makes me sad at the end, no more Elves and wizards and dragons! Boo!), so that's very interesting if we're saying it marks the beginning of more 'earthlike' religions in Middle-earth.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm rather amused (as I hunch you are, Lal) that what I see from a Christian point of view as a descent, you from a pagan point of view see as an ascent, and vice versa. It has been said among Christians that the Fall turned the world upside down and backward, and the Incarnation and its aftermath turned it right side up again; which you would of course consider upside down and backwards.

And this may be the "corrective" that Tolkien was trying to achieve in LotR, but especially in The Silmarillion, as compared to paganism. Thus, perhaps, part of "genuine fairy-story" was, for him, a reclamation of myth from not only its nursery backwaters, but also its paganocentric locale, by placing it squarely in an Eru based cosmos?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'm rather amused (as I hunch you are, Lal) that what I see from a Christian point of view as a descent, you from a pagan point of view see as an ascent, and vice versa. It has been said among Christians that the Fall turned the world upside down and backward, and the Incarnation and its aftermath turned it right side up again; which you would of course consider upside down and backwards.

And this may be the "corrective" that Tolkien was trying to achieve in LotR, but especially in The Silmarillion, as compared to paganism. Thus, perhaps, part of "genuine fairy-story" was, for him, a reclamation of myth from not only its nursery backwaters, but also its paganocentric locale, by placing it squarely in an Eru based cosmos?

Firstly, if you want to know what I think (and its not what you might think ) going by some assumptions you've made, best off doing it off board so as not to take Bb's thread down unwanted paths. I don't see the world in terms of ascents and descents, I'm just pointing out what some pagans would say to that as a contra-view. I'm not sure Tolkien wanted to 'correct' anything in terms of historical religious/spiritual background, the most I think we could say he was doing was writing as a Catholic, with a natural bent towards understanding the world against that background.

Originally Posted by Bb

This is why I think Tolkien is so popular and successful among many persuasions. It's Tolkien who has the 'subtle leaf', as opposed to, say, Pullman's 'unsubtle knife' as well.

I wholly agree that Tolkien is the subtle writer compared to Zimmer Bradley, Pullman and Lewis, and that's why nobody can agree on what his books mean etc. The crafty old cove did it on purpose, having bought proto-shares in internet companies and sellers of obscurist academic books in order to keep the family going.

Not really.

But yes, I agree. And why is it different? Tolkien hasn't got a message, he hasn't got an agenda, and his work is neither allegory nor lesson. We're all beating ourselves over the head trying to find the meaning when there isn't really any.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Indeed in Mists of Avalon, an important book for modern Pagans, the only descent we see is the 'descent' to Christianity which takes the power away from the Land, the Britons (or Brythons if you prefer, having noted this term when I was reading about the long lost Cumric language yesterday) and from women. But I wouldn't expect you to be kind about this work as Zimmer Bradley's not all that kind to Christians. Gwynhwyfwr (can't remember the spelling) is a bit of a caricature TBH, but hey, so are 'heathens' in Christian Arts. Is it all 'redressing the balance' or just having a go back? You decide.

Interesting that you should bring up Zimmer Bradley's depiction of her POV in Mists of Avalon. (I had to defend my ownership of it when I sat reading it at a yard sale one spring and someone insisted I had to sell it!) I have tried several times to get throught it but the ideology just seems too obvious. Okay, I get it, I get! I don't like being kicked in the head over something multiple times. This is the same reason I have never cottoned to Narnia--the allegorising is just too obvious. Oh please, give me a chance to suss something out for myself.

This is why I think Tolkien is so popular and successful among many persuasions. It's Tolkien who has the 'subtle leaf', as opposed to, say, Pullman's 'unsubtle knife' as well.

Although whether subtlty is an aspect of Fairy Tale . . . .