Tolkien's 'Smith of Wootton Major' & George MacDonald's 'Phantastes': A Comparison

[littlemanpoet]

I've just begun rereading George MacDonald's Phantastes.

I apologize in advance to anyone who has not read both stories referenced in the title of this thread, as you will not be able to add to the discussion as well as those who have read them; I encourage you to read both of them!

First, some obvious differences:

• SoWM in 3rd person, Phantastes in 1st person
• SoWM written in 1968, Phantastes written in 1858
• SoWM set in medieval England; Phantastes set in 19th century Scotland (probably; actually, the primary world setting of Phantastes is negligible)

Second, some basic similarities:

• the protagonist enters Fairy
• the protagonist is protected from a storm by a tree that is described as to seem a human female

This last was especially intriguing, and points up some more differences:
In SWoM, the tree is a birch; in Phantastes it's a beech.

In SWoM, after the storm has passed, we read,

When at last the Wind passed on he rose and saw that the birch was naked. It was stripped of every leaf, and it wept, and tears fell from its branches like rain. He set his hand upon its white bark, saying: "Blessed be the birch! What can I do to make amends or give thanks?" He felt the answer of the tree pass up from his hand: "Nothing," it said. "Go away! The Wind is hunting you. You do not belong here. Go away and never return!"

In Phantastes, the beech tree is a woman, and wraps her arms around the protagonist, protecting him from the Ash, an evil hearted tree that wants to bury him at its roots to fill the hole in its heart. They talk at some length. She offers some of her 'hair' to him to cut off and place around him as a means of protection. It hurts her, but she endures it willingly. She sings a 'strange sweet song':

I saw thee ne'er before,
I see thee never more,
But love, and help, and pain, beautiful one,
Have made thee mine, till all my years are done."

When day returns and the storm is over, she is once more a beech tree.

With the sun well risen, I rose, and put my arms as far as they would reach around the beech tree, and kissed it, and said good-bye. A trembling went through the leaves, a few of the last drops of the night's rain fell from off them at my feet, and as I walked slowly away, I seemed to hear in a whisper once more the words, "I may love him, I may love him, for he is a man, and I am only a beech-tree."

When I had first read Phantastes many years ago, I must not have read SWoM by then, for the similarity between the two stories is striking in this one regard.

The differences are even more striking: that which hunts the protagonist; the attitude of the protecting tree toward the protagonist; the sense of the beech tree as being of lesser worth vis-a-vie the human she protected.

Comments?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This last was especially intriguing, and points up some more differences:
In SWoM, the tree is a birch; in Phantastes it's a beech.

"I may love him, I may love him, for he is a man, and I am only a beech-tree."

Haunting and mysterious-- I remember reading and rereading that line, trying to get my thoughts around it.

What struck me in Phantastes was the difference between the protective tree, and the Ash-- the protective tree felt dangerous, meaning mysterious and unpredictable; but not terrifying like the Ash tree. Why did she love, and why offer a part of her strength in protection? It was completely sacrificial. Why? Just because? What am I supposed to take away from that?

The Ash Tree reminds me of Old Man Willow, or an Ent gone so terribly bad it's not funny. Maybe Tom Bombadil gone bad. Yeeks.

Come to that, the Beech reminds me of Goldberry, of her golden sanctuary that she offered from the Storm. Except that Goldberry doesn't suffer in giving the sanctuary; the Beech does. (Straying, aren't I? Sorry.)

At the moment (without rereading them both) the main difference between Smith and Phantastes is that while Smith is mostly mysterious, Phantastes is too, but is also very Dark. Phantastes has all the darkness of Mirkwood, Fangorn, and the Old Forest put together-- plus nasty trollish things, and worse. Smith never oppressed me that way, and conjures some mix of Lorien, the Shire, & Rivendell. But I suppose all that could be due to faulty memory...

I shall see if I can find the time to reread Phantastes, and Smith.

EDIT: But for bedtme reading I'm definitely NOT reading Phantastes. Even the cover creeps me out. Smith it is...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

What struck me in Phantastes was the difference between the protective tree, and the Ash-- the protective tree felt dangerous, meaning mysterious and unpredictable; but not terrifying like the Ash tree. Why did she love, and why offer a part of her strength in protection? It was completely sacrificial. Why? Just because? What am I supposed to take away from that?

Let me answer with a question: if your husband's life was in danger and you could save him by plucking out your eyelashes and placing the lashes around him in a protective circle, would you do it?

She does it just because ... love.

But what in Fairy does she love about/in him? His humanity?

Funny though, the Beech Tree/woman didn't strike me as unpredictable; mysterious, yes. But she was so given to Anados in love that unpreditability doesn't fit for me.

The Ash Tree reminds me of Old Man Willow, or an Ent gone so terribly bad it's not funny. Maybe Tom Bombadil gone bad. Yeeks.

Old Man Willow or an Ent, yes. Bombadil's more of an Earth entity than a tree entity. I'll keep my eyes open for Bombadil comparisons as I read Phantastes.

Come to that, the Beech reminds me of Goldberry, of her golden sanctuary that she offered from the Storm. Except that Goldberry doesn't suffer in giving the sanctuary; the Beech does. (Straying, aren't I? Sorry.)

Well, it's still Tolkien, so that's okay.

At the moment (without rereading them both) the main difference between Smith and Phantastes is that while Smith is mostly mysterious, Phantastes is too, but is also very Dark. Phantastes has all the darkness of Mirkwood, Fangorn, and the Old Forest put together-- plus nasty trollish things, and worse. Smith never oppressed me that way, and conjures some mix of Lorien, the Shire, & Rivendell. But I suppose all that could be due to faulty memory...

Interesting. Now that you mention it, Phantastes IS very dark. Especially at night (of course). But more than dark, it's wild. Wilder than SoWM somehow. Perhaps the wildness has to do with the sheer abundance of creatures of the wild, whereas the sense of Fairy in SWoM is of numinous intensity and power. The Wind and the Elves from the Silent Sea, for example, have more of an airy, spirit/breath power than the earthy, rainy, branch and snake and bramble wildness of Phantastes.

EDIT: But for bedtme reading I'm definitely NOT reading Phantastes. Even the cover creeps me out. Smith it is...

Heh, that's exactly when I DO read it.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Wind and the Elves from the Silent Sea, for example, have more of an airy, spirit/breath power than the earthy, rainy, branch and snake and bramble wildness of Phantastes.

Okay; brambles, earth, rain &c, I dig. But over/under/behind all that is the sheer terror. Or horror. No, I think terror is more like it. The Ash isn't horrifying, it's terrifying.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Heh, that's exactly when I DO read it.

Egads. And you're telling me you don't have nightmares? Brrr.

Where was the hollow-backed woman? She was freakiness incarnate. Was that Phantastes or Lilith? More Brrr.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Where was the hollow-backed woman? She was freakiness incarnate. Was that Phantastes or Lilith? More Brrr.

Phantastes. Just read that this morning. "The Maiden of the Alder", who led Anodos along so she could remove the beech-necklace he wore as protection, so that she could give him to the Ash. Hollow-backed doesn't quite do it justice: she was a hollowed out tree in the shape of a human form fitting coffin in back. Yes, creepy! Just imagine looking at the one side then it turns and you see the other! Either way you do it, it's ...... okay to read in a book, but I wouldn't want to experience it.

Terror is right.

I think I've found a comparable character in Phantastes to Ted Sandyman. More on that later.

[littlemanpoet]

SWoM is said to be allegorical. Is that also true of Phantastes? Are there degrees of "purposed domination by the author"?

The story can be found here (thanks to Lal): Phantastes

[littlemanpoet]

I think, perhaps, we suffer an embarrassment of riches. When C.S. Lewis was awed by this work, there was no LotR, no Narnia Chronicles, no Star Wars, no Harry Potter, no Foundation Series, et cetera.

Phantastes now strikes me as heaps of Victorian: cluttered, close, stuffy even, in places. There's a fresh, clean air that blows through Fairy in SMOW, by contrast, that just isn't there in Fairy of Phantastes.

Just by way of slight biographical commentary, by the time one gets to the "four doors" section, one has a clear sense that George MacDonald had "mother" issues. Anodos "crashes and burns" in between mothering figures. It is said that Tolkien idealized his own mother, who is understood to have had a very strong influence on him being Catholic, which is no doubt accurate; and we have Elbereth and Galadriel, and perhaps Miriel, to show for it; however, they are much more subdued in their "mothering" than the various matrons in Phantastes, which is at times downright mammarian.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Just by way of slight biographical commentary, by the time one gets to the "four doors" section, one has a clear sense that George MacDonald had "mother" issues. Anodos "crashes and burns" in between mothering figures.

I had often thought that MacDonald's mother/ grandmother figures represent the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2, Proverbs 8...) and that's why they are so "pervasive"-- not just in Phantastes, but in just about every work of MacDonald's. "The Back of the North Wind", for instance.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I had often thought that MacDonald's mother/ grandmother figures represent the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2, Proverbs 8...) and that's why they are so "pervasive"-- not just in Phantastes, but in just about every work of MacDonald's. "The Back of the North Wind", for instance.

I could accept that if the the depictions weren't so physically female. Please don't misunderstand: I think that of the trinity, the Holy Spirit is the most obviously feminine, but that's different.... somehow....

I forgot to add last time that I find the ending to Phantastes to be deeply dissatisfying. I had better go back and read it again to remember why, but SOWM ends in a very satisfying manner. It has been said to me that the reason Phantastes ends so dissatisfyingly was because MacDonald had not resolved some of the personal/spiritual issues he was working on while he was writing the work.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I forgot to add last time that I find the ending to Phantastes to be deeply dissatisfying.

Seems to me that Anodos ended the story alive, and that was why the story is unsatisfying-- especially after having read "I was dead, and right content." Death is MacDonald's satisfaction; everything points that way. Anything else and we are bound to be dissatisfied.

Death is a consummation in MacDonald's worldview; the doorway, the portal, the threshold. THis life isn't meant to be satisfying. Hence, approaching the threshold and turning back, or being turned back, is dissatisfying. I don;t want earthly life when I'm finishing the story; I want the Beatific Vision. And in not getting it, I'm probably as frustrated as Anodos was in waking up and realizing he was still mortal.


Regarding the grandmotherly/ motherly figures: I'm not saying that they ARE the Holy Spirit. But they strongly represent him. I can happily call it "applicability". Their maternal-ness isn't upsetting to me at all, since I don't take them literally, but figuratively.

Lalwende, you do seem extremely fond of this book. Care to review it for us? Sounds interesting.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Seems to me that Anodos ended the story alive, and that was why the story is unsatisfying-- especially after having read "I was dead, and right content." Death is MacDonald's satisfaction; everything points that way. Anything else and we are bound to be dissatisfied.

Meh.

I think that, plotwise, the fatal error in the story is Anodos' death, and not his coming back to life on Earth. In order for the story to be related to its readers, in first perseon, and in a 'suspended dis-believable' fashion, it was necessary that Anodos should end the story able to write and publish. There is a story written by Robert E. Howard about a man who relates his story in first person, which is about a warrior in CroMagnon times, who defeats a giant slug, but is killed himself in the venture; and he can tell it in first person on the merit of reincarnation. Though I don't believe in reincarnation, the story works plot-wise. The reason Anodos' death and transmogrification (or whatever you would like to call it) back into Earthly life, is not only an anti-climax, but frankly against nature, especially Fairy-nature. Those humans foolish enough to go into Fairy and then put themselves in danger of death, die in Fairyland, and do not return to Earthly life; it's just not the way it works. So the upshot is that the book is either supremely dissatisfying, or must be rejected (or at least criticized) as portraying a falsehood as to what Fairy is.

In regard to your point that Heaven is the only acceptable conclusion to death, and thus return to Earthly life is dissatisfying, I agree. Which is why I think the story has a fatal flaw as story. Pity.

[Lalwendë]

You should get hold of the new Companion and Guide*, as there are sizeable sections on Tolkien's reading, including several pages on what exactly he thought of George MacDonald. This is drawn in part from the private Bodleian collection of Tolkien's papers which I am told includes massive amounts of notes on his thoughts on Fairy Tales and records of his reading.

Without having the book here with me - and in any case said section is far too long to quote, both practically and legally - Tolkien admired two of MacDonald's books - The Princess and The Goblin, and At The Back Of The North Wind when he was a child. He also drew heavily on his Fairy Tales, especially The Golden Key, for his lecture On Fairy Stories; MacDonald was the only children's Victorian writer he liked as he found he did not bowdlerise as much as others. However, some years later he went back to read The Golden Key and found he hated it (there's a juicily vituperative quote from him I would like to share but that will have to wait...). Tolkien never liked MacDonald's other works, reserving particular approbation for Phantastes, saying it: "afflicted me with profound dislike".

Possibly its the allegorical nature as when you examine what he enjoyed reading, as evidenced in the C&G, he seems to have cast aside a great many books for their allegorical aspects.

*Should be on everyone's Christmas wish lists as it's turning out to be the definitive work on Tolkien, far more authoritative than most books, better than the Carpenter bio and essential to help iron out those oddities found in Letters.

[littlemanpoet]

It's my thread and I can double post if I want to! la lee la lee la!

Okay, seriously. I love the beginning of Phantastes because it so packed with Faery. The monsters are terrible and terrorizing, and the rescuers are true hearted and wondrous. Faery itself is a rich trove of delightful creativity. I can even put up with the flower fairies, forgiving MacDonald his 1850s time frame.

It's when the story takes its turn into spiritual allegory that I begin to dislike it. This starts in the Troll-woman's house, when the shadow runs up the corridor and attaches itself to him the moment he directly disobeys the command. So unsubtley a recapitulation of the Fall that it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief, let alone achieve secondary belief (there is a difference).

I loved the Prague story but didn't really like his vague wanderings through the castle. His attempts to rescue the marble beauty are again good, and the "you should not have touched me" is perfect. MacDonald's goblins are ridiculous; on one hand they mock him roundly, but the moment he confesses his sin and his undeserving of anything better than what they're giving him, they become proper churchmen who having succeeded in getting him to confess his sin, let him move on. Pfaugh.

And of course there's all the mothering of our rugged hero.

The story of Anodos with the two brothers who will challenge the three giants is again really good; but then it slips back to morality tale when he gets all prideful and vain about his knighthood.

Oh, there's the obviously Freudian thing with the girl with the globe; she prizes it and plays with it, and lets him play with it a bit, but then he grabs it from her and squeezes it until is breaks; this is so obviously a representation of her virginity and loss thereof, and Anodos' culpability in breaking it. That she returns later with a voice for singing actually works pretty well on the whole, but the allegory is still predominant.

Lastly, George MacDonald was a universalist, and therefore he couldn't stomach his own evil depictions. The Ash is as evil as anything gets, and it is the most true evil in the book; but it is only a tree. The giants ransack villages, and are evil also, and die for their crimes. But MacDonald's universalism seems, to me, to remove the guts from the story. ... always excepting when he actually let the story be what it wanted to be, instead of the preachy morality tale he kept forcing it to be.

How that has to do with dying in Faery and coming back to life in the real world I'm not sure, except perhaps for this: because the story is so strongly allegorical, the reader is forced to see this dying and coming to life in Christian terms, which limits its power to just one type, a moral/spiritual.

A well written Faery tale will have so many resonances all over the place by comparison.

Take Smith of Wootton Major for example. Well, maybe in another post..... (this one's long enough).