"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

Oh but it's awash in meaning precisely because it's so much about reality.

On the PM point, point taken.

Subtlety? In Faerie Story? I should think so. I point you to Phantastes by MacDonald, especially if you want to "suss something out for yourself"....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Subtlety? In Faerie Story? I should think so. I point you to Phantastes by MacDonald, especially if you want to "suss something out for yourself"....

That depends on how you read it really; it's obviously an allegorical work, but some of the meanings (and images) are still elusive enough for people to argue about it! It's here if anyone fancies having their head expanded.