"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[Bêthberry]

I take this thread's title from Tolkien's phrase in his essay, "On Fairy-Stories" because it is that essay I wish to use to provide a way to consider his fictional tales.

Tolkien's essay offers some very specific characteristics of "genuine fairy-story". He goes to some length to distinquish his meaning from a variety of "lesser" (his term) forms of fantasy. Would his fiction fit his definition and the characteristics he provides?

To what extent do The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion satisfy those qualities? We can throw the Minor Works in, too, for good measure, for those who wish. We might even consider if some of his favourite books satisfy his meaning, such as Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, if anyone has read those.

So, does Tokien take his own advice?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

This is an interesting idea for a thread, which has prompted me to go back to On Fairy-stories. I read through it last night, and was taken aback at just how open Tolkien was about his views. This was an academic lecture at a prestigious university, and Tolkien used it to set out what amounts to a literary manifesto, even quoting Mythopoeia at one point. He is, of course, quite right: what we call 'fairy-stories' were not composed in or for nurseries, although the facts of their composition are invariably difficult to unravel. That being said, Tolkien is quite right to point to essentially oral organic processes governing the changes of story over time. He is also right, in my opinion, to point to the essential internal reality of the ideal fairy-story and its direct connection to the real world.

The point at which Tolkien most notably deviates from his views as expressed in this lecture is in the depiction of evil. In the section entitled Fantasy, Escape, Consolation he wrote:

It is indeed an age of 'improved means to deteriorated ends'. It is part of the essential malady of such days - producing the desire to escape, not indeed from life, but from our present time and self-made misery - that we are acutely conscious of both of the ugliness of our works, and of their evil. So that to us evil and ugliness seem indissolubly allied. We find it difficult to conceive of evil and beauty together. The fear of the beautiful fay that ran through the elder ages almost eludes our grasp.

Tolkien's fiction does contain glimpses of beautiful evil: the corrupt and decayed spectre of Minas Morgul; Galadriel's description of how she would be were she successfully to claim the ring; and the undescribed 'fair form' which Sauron assumed when dealing with the smiths of Eregion. However, these are only glimpses. The vast majority of Tolkien's evil characters, Orcs, Trolls, Shelob, Ungoliant, Glaurung, Morgoth and Sauron themselves and their fortresses, are physically ugly or otherwise repulsive. The majesty of Smaug is at best ambivalent, certainly not beautiful; the false wisdom of Saruman becomes increasingly repulsive as his true thoughts are revealed; but none of these characters have the beauty and evil of Lewis' White Witch.

When it comes to buildings or locations that have been or are in the process of being corrupted, Tolkien's fiction is much closer to this stated preference. He follows the comments above, which seem more descriptive of characters, with specifically architectural comments.

In Faërie one can inded conceive of an ogre who possesses a castle hideous as a nightmare (for the evil of the ogre wills it so), but one cannot conceive of a house built for a good purpose - an inn, a hostel for travellers, the hall of a virtuous and noble king - that is yet sickeningly ugly.

In Tolkien's fiction there are many examples of buildings created with good purposes that have become sickening and ugly. In this respect Minas Morgul, erstwhile Tower of the Rising Moon, is more hideous for the tattered remnants of beauty that hang about its corrupt frame. Meduseld, whilst built with good intentions and housing generations of good kings, is a place of dust and shadows when Gandalf visits it in The King of the Golden Hall, an unwholesome prison for premature old age. To some extent, Erebor and the ruins of Dale have the same effect in The Hobbit, as do the tombs of the men of Cardolan on the Barrow-downs. Tolkien is very good at corrupted locations, and certainly true to the sentiments expressed above.

The rest of the comments in this lecture look like a blueprint for Tolkien's fiction. Faërie should be perilous, and the protagonist of Smith of Wootton Major certainly finds it so. It should be internally consistent and convincing on its own terms: the sheer number of people who learn Sindarin or argue Middle-earth's history is proof of that, although where the consistency fails is often where the most fervent debate may be found. There should be a definite but barely described connection with the real world: in Tolkien's fiction this arises from using the constellations of the world we know, and in earlier drafts of the Silmarillion from deliberately connecting his works and the genuine myths of the North. I leave till last the obvious fact that most of Tolkien's fiction is either about elves or involves them in some way.

That being said, most of Tolkien's work isn't actually written as fairy-story. The Silmarillion is a collection of high myths completely founded in the sub-created world. There is no connection with the primary world unless we allow Ælfwine, a character who is conspicuous by his absence in the 1977 publication. The Lord of the Rings is also only very tenuously connected with primary reality, relying on the description of a familiar world around the very unfamiliar events and characters of the story. Leaf by Niggle is more an allegorical exploration of the sub-creative act, and Farmer Giles of Ham is mock history. Whilst none of his works are actually beast-fables, travellers' tales or other forms of the fantastic, Tolkien's works of fiction are not exactly fairy-stories either.

When we compare a sophisticated fairy-story like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight with The Lord of the Rings it's easier to see what I mean. Sir Gawain's adventures begin in reality, at a painstakingly described Christmas feast at the court of Camelot. The festivities are described in terms that are intended to evoke a contemporary court setting, and this detailed realism is carried on throughout the poem, both inside and outside Faërie. The story really begins with the arrival in this real-world setting of the Green Knight, whose outlandish appearance alone announces him as an emissary of the perilous realm. From this point of contact onwards, Gawain is drawn into a shadowy world of conflicting duties, strange magical events and misleading impressions that reach a climax in the second part of the beheading game. After this he returns to the primary world, having learned much about himself and the practice of chivalry. The missing element in LotR is the journey into Faërie: the hobbits are already citizens of Middle-earth; they do not arrive there from our primary reality. The Shire is contained within the secondary reality, in which wizards can arrive bearing fireworks without arousing more than excitement.

I have to ask at this point whether Tolkien was really trying to write fairy-stories at all. Much of what he says in his lecture applies to fantasy as well as his official theme, but I'm by no means sure that we can see his own fiction as a representation of Faërie. However, as an expression of Tolkien's ideas about what fantasy ought to be, this best-known academic foray is as explicit as he allows himself to be. In my opinion he certainly succeeded in describing a world in which a metaphorical green sun could exist, and in most respects he follows the rules he has identified for invented worlds to the letter.

Naturally I've missed a lot of ground, and I may even have misconstrued what Tolkien meant by 'fairy-stories', but hopefully others will find the time to correct me so that this thread can come to better conclusions than mine.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

Tolkien's fiction does contain glimpses of beautiful evil: the corrupt and decayed spectre of Minas Morgul; Galadriel's description of how she would be were she successfully to claim the ring; and the undescribed 'fair form' which Sauron assumed when dealing with the smiths of Eregion. However, these are only glimpses. The vast majority of Tolkien's evil characters, Orcs, Trolls, Shelob, Ungoliant, Glaurung, Morgoth and Sauron themselves and their fortresses, are physically ugly or otherwise repulsive. The majesty of Smaug is at best ambivalent, certainly not beautiful; the false wisdom of Saruman becomes increasingly repulsive as his true thoughts are revealed; but none of these characters have the beauty and evil of Lewis' White Witch.

Do not forget the Ring itself. I have noticed in my and others' discussions, here at the Downs, that sometimes we actually forget about the Ring precisely because of its virtual ubiquity in LotR. Tolkien does describe the Ring as a beautiful object; maybe not in so many words, but nevertheless. So yes, I see this theme of beautiful evil in Tolkien as well.

When we compare a sophisticated fairy-story like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight with The Lord of the Rings it's easier to see what I mean. Sir Gawain's adventures begin in reality, at a painstakingly described Christmas feast at the court of Camelot. The festivities are described in terms that are intended to evoke a contemporary court setting, and this detailed realism is carried on throughout the poem, both inside and outside Faërie. The story really begins with the arrival in this real-world setting of the Green Knight, whose outlandish appearance alone announces him as an emissary of the perilous realm. From this point of contact onwards, Gawain is drawn into a shadowy world of conflicting duties, strange magical events and misleading impressions that reach a climax in the second part of the beheading game. After this he returns to the primary world, having learned much about himself and the practice of chivalry. The missing element in LotR is the journey into Faërie: the hobbits are already citizens of Middle-earth; they do not arrive there from our primary reality. The Shire is contained within the secondary reality, in which wizards can arrive bearing fireworks without arousing more than excitement.

Does not the Shire serve as a mediation between Primary and Secondary reality? Are not Hobbits correctly construed as little Edwardian English countrymen?

[The Saucepan Man]

It's a point that has been touched on before, but it's relevant here, and so I raise it for discussion. It seems to me that there is one aspect of "traditional" Faerie that is conspicuously absent from Tolkien's works - moral ambiguity/amorality.

There are shades of grey in Tolkien's world - characters who, when we meet them are neither wholly on the side of good nor wholly on the side of evil. Gollum would be a prime example, as would Saruman, Denethor and Boromir (at the point of his corruption). But their "greyness" arises from the fact that they have been corrupted, or otherwise tainted by evil.

There are no characters who are, by their very nature, morally ambiguous or amoral. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are perhaps the closest we get although, despite references to Tom's ambivalence about the Ring, they are still firmly portrayed as being on the side of good. They are very different characters to one such as as, for example, the thistle-haired gentleman in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. He is certainly not a sympathetic character, but can he be regarded as evil in the same way as, say, Sauron? Are there equivalents within Tolkien's works? The Barrow-Wight or Old Man Willow, perhaps? Again, I suspect not, as they are again characters arising from, or tainted by, evil.

I suppose that the main difference is that, in Tolkien's world, good and evil are very real concepts. And all of his creatures are touched by one or the other - or (more likely) both. Can the same be said of traditional Faerie?

[Lalwendë]

Good points all, and SpM brings up the important point that there needs to be amorality in Fairy tales, as Faerie is itself amoral. That's not to say immoral, as that's quite a different thing.

Some good threads on relevant stuff: The Trickster in LotR, Faeries or Fairies? and finally, Spiders.

The last one is there as inside, you will find a fair bit of evidence and argument to suggest that there is actaully one very odd and ambiguous character in Tolkien's world and that's Ungoliant.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

It seems to me that there is one aspect of "traditional" Faerie that is conspicuously absent from Tolkien's works - moral ambiguity/amorality.

Hm, it is my understanding that on this thread we are judging the "fairy" quality based on Tolkien's definition. As far as I am aware, the moral aspect was quite important for him in defining a story as such:

Originally Posted by On Fairy-stories

The stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatio.

Taking that into consideration, we must bear in mind that the apex of the story, on Mount Doom, relies heavily on the morality of several acts done previously - by Frodo and Bilbo in particular. If only for this, LotR fulfills, Imo, this criterion.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Tolkien, OFS

Fairie is a perilous land, and in it are pitfalls for the unwary and dungeons for the overbold.

Pitfalls indeed, for already we are fallen into one, that of confusing what we are talking about.

Actually, yes, I was interested in seeing if Tolkien followed his own understanding of fairie. Did his left brain do what his right brain said? Did Tolkien the creative writer actually do what Tolkien the scholar said happened in the Perilous Realm?

In this, I greatly admire Squatter, thorough-going analysis. It is something I will return to in later posts, for the question of whether one begins in the primary world and walks into Fairie is an important one, as lmp asks. And yes, I also think that not all of Tolkien's work works the way he says fairy does.

Raynor points out how Sauce and Lal take this a different way, to consider what aspects of Fairie Tolkien did not cover. This question can be related both to the essay OFS and to his fiction, but it was not the main thrust that inspired this thread. So, we have two questions: "Did Tolkien get it right about Fairie? Does he cover all the aspects of it?" and "Does OFS provide a way in which we can understand what Tolkien was doing in his fiction?"

Both are equally valid approaches, but they are different and we should keep that difference in mind.

A thread, of course, belongs to those who post on it and develop its ideas. If people wish to compare Tolkien's fiction to other fairie tales (something which we have covered in many other threads, as Lal's helpful links demonstrate, why, then, they are free to take that tack. (I would really like to see a thead which compares Johanna Clarke's fairie with Tolkien's, as Spm suggests here.) Yet that does squew the topic.

I rather like Squatter's observation that fairie must start in the real world, as Gawain does. Yet I think Tolkien was striving to distinguish primary world from sub-created world. I think he wanted, above all, to make story the primary quality of discussion and not reduce fairie to sociology or history or anthropology. It might be incidental that LotR begins already in the perilous realm with hobbits because that in itself is the nature of fairie, the sustained wonder at things we wish for. The important point about Sir Gawain is that the realism of the medieval world does not dismiss the fantasy elements.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Actually, yes, I was interested in seeing if Tolkien followed his own understanding of fairie.

My apologies. I have no wish to take this thread off at a tangent, but my thoughts were inspired by Squatter's observation:

Originally Posted by Squatter

I have to ask at this point whether Tolkien was really trying to write fairy-stories at all. Much of what he says in his lecture applies to fantasy as well as his official theme, but I'm by no means sure that we can see his own fiction as a representation of Faërie.

This seems to me to be a fair point and, although your purpose is to consider whether Tolkien adhered to his own definition of "fairy-story", it is as well, I think, to make the point that this definition does not really accurately describe what is traditionally understood by the term.

Perhaps, however, I should investigate those links that Lal has helpfully provided. I see from a brief scan that one of them does consider Tolkien's conception of Faerie in comparison with that depicted by Susanna Clarke. Having recently read an thoroughly enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, it is a thread which I really ought to have a look at.

And now back to your scheduled discussion ...

[mark12_30]

Fascinating discussion with many good points...

Moving into Faerie from reality: I'll side with lmp here. Tolkien states, regarding hobbits, that there is little or no magic about them, except the kind that lets them disappear quickly and quietly when large stupid folk like you and me come bungling along. I think the Shire is Mundane. Mind you, I didn't say I don't like it-- just that it's mannishly realistic.

Faerie is woven into LOTR in various ways. One way is that the hobbits physically move from 'perilous realms'-- Old Forest, Rivendell, Lorien, Fangorn, Moria-- back into standard non-magical territory (Shire, Bree, The Road, The Anduin, Rohan, Gondor....) The mannish areas are surprised when the Fae shows up, even in the form of good old Legolas. For example, Eomer doesn't know quite what to do with 'the three hunters.' He considers Aragorn a 'legend' that springs out of the grass, magic sword and all. Eomer is suprised by Aragorn's Faerie-like invasion of his mundanely mannish realm.

If Frodo hadn't been carrying the Ring, then the Ringwraiths wouldn't have bothered with him, nor would wizards, except for Ganda;f's chumminess with Bagginses. Frodo's trip east (had he taken it) would have been uneventful and mannish-- he'd have evaded The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs. But in essence, the Ring drags or drives him to all these faerie places. Which brings us to, the Beautifully Evil Ring.

But (isn't it odd, now) we knew it as evil only now that Gandalf has done his research. To Bilbo, it was simpy beautiful and useful. Moral ambivalence? Perhaps Bilbo thought of it that way. Once we know Isildur's story we know better, so Frodo is haunted and frightened by the evil that Bilbo was blissfully ignorant of.

It was the Ring (from Faerie) entering into Frodo's mundane life, that drives him into Faerie (Old Forest, Bombadil, The Downs, Rivendell, Lorien). If the Ring were not a threat to 'Faerie', he would not have gone to those places.

[hopefully a clarifying Edit:]I do think LOTR is a faery story-- actually, lots of them, substories, in an overall narrative. Eucatastrophes are there too, for mowst if not all of the forays (out of the mundane into the Fae.) For instance, Bombadil is the eucatastrophe for both Old Man Willow, and The Barrow Wight. The white-horse-flood is a mini-eucatastrophe for the journey to Rivendell. Galadriel's testing, and her own test, is Peril in Lothlorien. It's not uber-consistent or iron-clad-- the narrative would end up predicatable and boring if it were-- but I think the pieces are there in enough abundance to satisfy. (Well, to satisfy me anyway.)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

SpM brings up the important point that there needs to be amorality in Fairy tales, as Faerie is itself amoral. That's not to say immoral, as that's quite a different thing.

Does there really need to be amorality in Fairy tales? I rather think Tolkien makes a good point by saying that human fairy tales are about humans in Fairy, not about Fairies; Fairies wouldn't write stories about Fairy since they live it. Humans are inescapably moral beings, thus their Fairy Stories must be moral stories, regardless of whether Fairy is itself amoral.

However, Tolkien's Middle Earth, with all of its Fairies (Elves) is not in the least amoral. It seems to me that a rather important question, along with those that have been raised already, is NOT "Was Tolkien wrong?", but "Why did Tolkien make his Fairy Realm moral?"

Originally Posted by Lal

The last one is there as inside, you will find a fair bit of evidence and argument to suggest that there is actaully one very odd and ambiguous character in Tolkien's world and that's Ungoliant.

But not morally ambiguous.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by SpM

I have no wish to take this thread off at a tangent

What are you calling Tangent, Sauce? You know I am interested in the question of Tolkien’s depiction of evil and you were simply trying to get to it before I could.

There’s some neat stuff developing here, so I hope what I have to say in this post won’t derail it.

I have been fascinated by OFS since I first read it. It was courageous stuff, giving a formal academic lecture about fantasy and fairy tales in 1938. And if that wasn’t enough to whet my interest, Tolkien in the original introduction says it was written at the same time as LotR was started. So, whatever went into OFS was rattling around up there along with the beginnings of the Ring saga. This reason in itself suggests it might be interesting to apply the essay to Tolkien’s fiction. It certainly suggests that The Hobbit and the Legendarium were not initially conceived under the auspices of his thoughts about fairie, and so leads quite directly to consideration of how LotR might differ from those two earlier works. Maybe his thought was inchoate in the earlier works but finally born out in the latter? (And, of course, I suppose we would have to consider how CT may have shaped The Silm as it was eventually published.)

There are many things intriguing about OFS. Tolkien’s insistence that there are misguided notions about fairie tales for one. And his insistence that there are higher and lesser forms of fantastical literature, to say nothing of his defense of fairy tales as adult rather than children’s literature. As I read OFS, I keep in mind two of his comments from elsewhere: that it was WWI which made him a serious reader of fairie, although he was heading over to the Perilous Realm already before the War took him there directly; and that the War made others readers of fairie as well. I’ve always thought that there was more to these comments than mere escapism, “Run away! Run away!” in Python terms.

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” . Yet why is this? Is it Tolkien’s religious sense being imposed upon fairy tales? Does he force eucatastrophe on the stories?

It may be—and here I have to say that I don’t share Helen’s reading of eucatastrophe in every fortunate turn of events in LotR, for I think there is a particular state of mind which must accompany the fortuitous redirection. There is not just unexpected deliverance in Tolkien’s theory, but an accompanying recognition of imperfection of the world, of evil, of doom. Frodo accepts his defeat before Gollem becomes the agent of the deliverance, just as Gawin submits to his fate, not expecting reprieve at the hands of the Green Knight. 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. And in any case, he carries with him a token of that tragedy, the scar on Gawin's neck from the third strike, barely averted, and the loss of a finger in Frodo's case.

What is this that requires such doom in fairy for Tolkien? What made Tolkien create this special kind of fantasy he insisted was the higher order of fairie?

I don’t think it was his religion. I think it was his philology. And last night, I was finally able to put the last piece together in this puzzle (for me at least), due to an important tip from Rune, Son of Bjarne, who alerted me to a particular meaning of fey. The Old English word fey had a different meaning than the Middle English word fay.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

Word History: The history of the words fey and fay illustrates a rather fey coincidence. Our word fay, “fairy, elf,” the descendant of Middle English faie, “a person or place possessed of magical properties,” and first recorded around 1390, goes back to Old French fae, “fairy,” the same word that has given us fairy. Fae in turn comes from Vulgar Latin F ta, “the goddess of fate,” from Latin f tum, “fate.” If fay goes back to fate, so does fey in a manner of speaking, for its Old English ancestor f æge meant “fated to die.” The sense we are more familiar with, “magical or fairylike in quality,” seems to have arisen partly because of the resemblance in sound between fay and fey.

Somewhere in the Letters or Carpenter’s biography is the statement that all of Tolkien’s writing derived from his work with language. (I do hope I've got that right.) He created a world to explain words. And here in this linguistic coincidence of fay and fey lies his life long fascination with the Perilous Realm: that it is a world where we can with arresting newness and strangeness confront death and our mortality, but come away without despairing loss.

Originally Posted by OFS

they [these old fairy stories] open a door on Other Time, and if we pass through, though only for a moment, we stand outside our own time, outside Time itself, maybe.

Some time ago I posted on the Downs that a later reading of LotR made me see that the quest is about Death. (Yes, this was years before a prominent Downer made a similar recent claim. ) But then, I thought it was merely my personal circumstances which inspired this reading. Now I have—at least to my satisfaction—a philological argument to support that reading.

Yet whether other fantasy—or even The Hobbit and The Silmarillion-- must conform to this sense of the Perilous Realm is for others to discuss. I'm sure it will be possible to work evil and amorality and travel to and from into the Cauldron!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

An interesting thread topic indeed. But first:

Squatter are you sure you are apprehending the citation about beauty and evil correctly? You quote Tolkien as writing “to us evil and ugliness seem indissolubly allied. We find it difficult to conceive of evil and beauty together.” To me, this would appear as though he is arguing that to modern readers “us/we” evil and ugliness only “seem” to be “indissolubly allied” with the implication being that in true fairy-story this limitation of the modern imagination is overcome by a different, “older” view in which beauty and evil are not divorced but all too often commensurate. I wonder how much of the Apocryphal tradition concerning the deluding beauty of Lucifer lies behind this view?

Or do I misunderstand you?

But as to the Professor’s ability to write stories as he claims fairy-stories are properly written… I have always been struck by how clearly LotR works toward the sense of “Recovery” outlined in OFS. Again, away from my books so I am unable to provide specific citations, but I do know that the definitive idea of Recovery is that fairy-story uses the Secondary World as a means whereby we can see the Primary World from which it is built not so much in a new way, but in a “recovered” manner. That is, we can see the world and humanity “anew” in a light that is richer and fuller than we now possess. In this regard I think we see that throughout insofar as he shows us models of kingship, kinship, friendship, oath-taking, loyalty and even religious faith that are now absent from the world, but which perhaps we could benefit from. The primary example I would choose for this is the manner in which Tolkien is able to Recover a sense of caritas, of divine love of the other, for the sake of the other, which puts the self at the service of the other. In the end, it’s caritas that saves the day with all the heroes giving over their selves for the love of other people, or simply of people. The modern and shabby remnant we have of this concept is simply “charity” – not nearly what the theologians ans story-tellers of the Middle Ages meant, and what Tolkien is having us remember.

It’s in this recovery of words that Tolkien really shines. “Charity” is recovered in its fullest and richest sense; so are other words like “fellowship”, “power” and “kingly”. None of the words are used in the story as we use them today, but in a manner that evokes older and richer histories – demonstrating that these simple words which we take so much for granted offer us much more capacity than we give them credit for. Kind of like the hobbits!

I suppose in the end the single more important act of Recovery accomplished by his tales is an appreciation of language and of its importance and power that is lamentably absent today. With characters like Gandalf, Galadriel, Bombadil and Treebeard insisting on the importance of words and language, it’s pretty clear that words are not just a vehicle for communication but whole worlds of meaning in their own right. If I might be permitted a rather elaborate and self-conscious metaphor: he reminds a world now committed to the idea that words are coal-carts of a time when they were seen as rich mines.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Squatter are you sure you are apprehending the citation about beauty and evil correctly? You quote Tolkien as writing “to us evil and ugliness seem indissolubly allied. We find it difficult to conceive of evil and beauty together.” To me, this would appear as though he is arguing that to modern readers “us/we” evil and ugliness only “seem” to be “indissolubly allied” with the implication being that in true fairy-story this limitation of the modern imagination is overcome by a different, “older” view in which beauty and evil are not divorced but all too often commensurate. I wonder how much of the Apocryphal tradition concerning the deluding beauty of Lucifer lies behind this view?

Good to see you again, Fordim. I'm always deeply suspicious of opinion posts that remain unchallenged in their fundamentals, particularly mine. In this case, however, you do misunderstand me. I agree with your reading of the passage I quoted, and my comments should be read in that light. I was, in fact, pointing out that Tolkien very rarely shows us beauty and evil together, although he identifies this as an element of fairy-stories, an element of which he appears to approve. In fact, he seems to regard the tendency for evil and ugliness to become conflated in the contemporary mind as a symptom of moral and aesthetic degeneration; yet despite this the motif occurs more frequently in his fiction than does that of evil beauty. Since Tolkien's use of the first person necessarily includes him in the group described, it's probable that he recognised this a tendency in his own imagination as well as that of the modern collective consciousness which he describes.

If the deluding beauty of Lucifer were not 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.

Unfortunately time is short, so I must break off here. Really I only wanted to clarify my point above, and I hope that I've managed to do so.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Does there really need to be amorality in Fairy tales? I rather think Tolkien makes a good point by saying that human fairy tales are about humans in Fairy, not about Fairies; Fairies wouldn't write stories about Fairy since they live it. Humans are inescapably moral beings, thus their Fairy Stories must be moral stories, regardless of whether Fairy is itself amoral.

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.

This of course is without considering the purpose of the tale. Are we talking about Hansel and Gretel, which serves the purpose of teaching children not to stray from the path and end up in strangers' houses? Or are we talking about Bluebeard which teaches young women about predatory men and how to bring them to heel? Or are we talking about Tam Lin which simply relates a juicy tale of a pair of lovers and how the pregnant girl extricates her lover from the clutches of the Faerie Queen? The last type of tale does not really have a specific moral message (you could find one but then you'd have to smash up the story so much it would lose it's sense of Faerie magic), and is probably there to satisfy the human urge for narrative. Adventure, peril, love and sex. A lot of Faerie Tale is there to entertain simply, like an old fashioned version of the mdoern soap opera.

Originally Posted by lmp

However, Tolkien's Middle Earth, with all of its Fairies (Elves) is not in the least amoral. It seems to me that a rather important question, along with those that have been raised already, is NOT "Was Tolkien wrong?", but "Why did Tolkien make his Fairy Realm moral?"

We have already found that the tale Tolkien created was not an amoral one, and it is possibly due to his wish to create a myth that was "purged of the gross", as to be honest, Faerie Tale is not about redemption or hope or joy or any of those things, its about danger, wicked fun, dreams, bodily fluids and death. Many of the tales are about parents murdering or abandoning their children, about predatory men, periods, adultery, and all kinds of other stuff that Tolkien did not write about (well not much anyway, The Children of Hurin is another matter...). I'd love to have put Tolkien and Angela Carter in the same room and sat back and watched the fur fly.

Originally Posted by lmp

But not morally ambiguous.

Ungoliant most defintely is ambiguous, check out the evidence in the Spiders thread that Bethberry and myself found.

Originally Posted by Fordim

I suppose in the end the single more important act of Recovery accomplished by his tales is an appreciation of language and of its importance and power that is lamentably absent today. With characters like Gandalf, Galadriel, Bombadil and Treebeard insisting on the importance of words and language, it’s pretty clear that words are not just a vehicle for communication but whole worlds of meaning in their own right. If I might be permitted a rather elaborate and self-conscious metaphor: he reminds a world now committed to the idea that words are coal-carts of a time when they were seen as rich mines.

Of course Tolkien made great use of language, its origins and meanings, and this is a great interpretation of Recovery, but you've spoiled it now by saying that this appreciation of language is 'lamentably absent today' as that's just wrong! You could have a whole army of modern writers after your blood, and in the front line would be the poets with their pitchforks, closely followed by a lot of other writers of the most unlikely kind. For example the copywriters who bend, twist and turn words to get the exact phrase which will both catch the eye and be deep with alternate meanings. I've written speeches and believe me, those words are not used as 'coal-carts', every single word and where it is placed counts, and I mean seriously counts; the top speech writers are cherished as finding a brilliant one is like finding moondust.

For me the sense of Recovery is in the sense that Tolkien created his mythology to dedicate to England. He did indeed gather up a sense of Englishness, encapsulating so much of what our language means to us, our tales and most of all, our land, redolent with history and the people who walked it before us. As Tolkien's narrative unfolds (and lets's be frank, the narrative is the most important factor, lets not damn the poor professor into Pseud's Corner, he was above all an exceptionally gifted storyteller, of the most magical kind, and that gift is an intangible one) we are taken along and see the things we'd not noticed before. We see the trees, the foxes, the barrows, the ruined forts, the elusive Elves, we see what was all around us all along and we hadn't bothered opening our eyes to really seeing before. There's the Recovery for me. And it worked in a very real sense as after reading his work, I Recovered all the stories about this country that had slipped form my notice and might well have remained that way.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Some time ago I posted on the Downs that a later reading of LotR made me see that the quest is about Death. (Yes, this was years before a prominent Downer made a similar recent claim. ) But then, I thought it was merely my personal circumstances which inspired this reading. Now I have—at least to my satisfaction—a philological argument to support that reading.

Standing outside Time is something we all, as mortals seek to do (even if we have accepted Death already, as I have, I've already seen what it's like!) as the torment of being trapped in time, in a temporal existence sometimes makes us feel we are limited. That's why we like History and why we like the opposite, Sci-Fi. It allows us an escape of the here and now of the cubicle and the morning bus ride and the bills. We can walk with our ancestors or our descendants.

davem didn't make the claim about Death, Tolkien did. That's what it's about, and what as I said on davem's thread, I suspect all fantasy is ultimately about. What's interesting is the way that the different writers deal with it. Tolkien deals with it by trying to take us outside time, but he also tells us that whatever we think, one day we will all be dead and in the ground with the worms. Pullman deals with it by telling us to do things with our lives and not wish them away, to have true tales to tell the Harpies when we die.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Of course Tolkien made great use of language, its origins and meanings, and this is a great interpretation of Recovery, but you've spoiled it now by saying that this appreciation of language is 'lamentably absent today' as that's just wrong! You could have a whole army of modern writers after your blood, and in the front line would be the poets with their pitchforks, closely followed by a lot of other writers of the most unlikely kind. For example the copywriters who bend, twist and turn words to get the exact phrase which will both catch the eye and be deep with alternate meanings. I've written speeches and believe me, those words are not used as 'coal-carts', every single word and where it is placed counts, and I mean seriously counts; the top speech writers are cherished as finding a brilliant one is like finding moondust.

Ah, but my dear Lal, you are rather proving my thesis! Of the instances you cite above I would argue that the overwhelming majority attitude (I would never say "all") is of a decidedly un-Tolkienian type. There are, of course (as in every era) wonderful wordsmiths who craft elegant and beautiful language. But it's that very attitude toward writing as a "craft" which I was talking about -- the presumption amongst most modern writers is that words are objects which they can use instrumentally. The two examples you cite give the full spectrum of what this means:

The current dominant attitude in poetry is that language is an object in and of itself that can be played with, worked upon, abused and generally "used". Words are themselves the things that poets play with, resulting in such extraordinarily wonderful works like Eunoia by Canada's own Christian Bok. This book is composed of five chapters, with each chapter devoted to a single vowel -- meaning, in each chapter there is a series of poems in which only one vowel may be used. To cite just one example:

Whenever Helen needs effervescent refreshments, she tells her expert brewer: ‘brew me the best beer ever brewed.’ Whenever she lets her fermenters ferment the perfect beer, revellers wreck the kegs, then feed themselves the lees. Retchers retch; belchers belch. Jesters express extreme glee. Wenches then sell these lewd perverts sex

(If anyone wants to see the whole collection there’s a wonderful hypertext edition available free.)

The "meaning" of words is contained by the play and craft of the poet -- words are rendered meaningful through the process of poetic articulation.

The other example of speechwriters is akin to this. There are superb speech writers and I do not look down upon their ability, but the sense of language there is that there is a "message" which needs to be appropriately "packaged" and "delivered" to an audience. The coal-car metaphor is entirely apt -- the speech writer finds the perfect words with which to bear meaning from the hidden mine to the light of audience understanding. The purpose of said communication is not to unlock the intrinsic meanings of the words themselves but, like the poets, to use the words for some other purpose.

With Tolkien, the attitude could not be more different. He does not simply see language as important, he sees words themselves as harbingers and bearers of meaning that is to be unlocked (recovered) by story. This is the reverse of the modern way of thinking: now, we use words to tell stories; Tolkien used stories to recover for words their full meaning. Remember Treebeard's discourse upon the world "hill" -- for him, language, history and story are one and the same. To speak the word of something is to tell you all about that something. Gandalf is much the same on a moral plane: he tells Frodo at the beginning of their journey that "pity" is important, and then there is a 1200 page novel to elaborate upon (recover) a much richer and fuller sense of the word than exists today ("pity" from pieta, the divine grace which comes to humans for their suffering; the reflection in the temporal realm in relations between self and other of the beneficent nature of the universe in which God's grace and revelation is manifest in His Pity for the world when he sent himself/his son to die for our sins -- I do not sermonise, I merely elaborate upon what pity "really" means in the fullest etymological and philological sense, not as we have it today).

For the contemporary poet, "pity" is an interesting object-formation that can be organised and played with and deployed in an imaginative process of meaning-creation; for the speech-writer, "pity" is a useful word that can be appropriately used to convey a particular meaning with specific polemical and rhetorical effect. For Tolkien, "pity" is a word that unlocks and reveals an entire history of struggle, sacrifice and redemption -- a story that he finds necessary to recover a sense of the word utterly lost by the first two modes.

[Lalwendë]

I'm afraid this all makes Tolkien sound like an out and out pretentious Pseud! He did not construct the whole LotR around his conception of the meaning of the word Pity. It's an interesting reading, but is far too reductive. It might in fact be the kind of clever literary trick employed by one of the modern 'literary/Booker-seeking' novelists, but it entirely bypasses all notion of story, which for Tolkien was the driver, certainly as he got older and settled down to writing The Hobbit and LotR. That's how his notion of Eucatastrophe works, as a shocking turn of narrative, not via trickery with language.

Nobody would disagree that Tolkien explores language and works with multiple meanings, but the danger of reading too much into this is to bypass narrative drive. Had LotR lacked this then it wouldn't have been popular except amongst those who maybe wished to impress their tutors with all the 'clever books' they'd read. If you want to find a writer who really does do what you say, go directly to James Joyce and do not pass Go.

Words are objects, and writing is a craft. Tolkien uses words in the same way as any other good writer, recovers older meanings, constructs new ones, plays with them to put together something of his own. Yes, plays, as what Tolkien does is only another way of playing, trying to find layers of old meaning much as a modern writer might play with the multitudes of meaning associated with the word 'black'. That's how the writer uses the creative process and his/her craft, to sweat over pulling together narrative, tone, style, character and meaning. Tolkien does this to no lesser or greater a degree than any other writer. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what modern or ancient micro-theories we apply to his work, its all done in the hope that we can somehow crack the formula and produce something similar, but we won't.

We can't just generalise and say that x, y or z modern writer does not work with words in the same way that we think Tolkien did. On the contrary, modern fiction has far more of this than Tolkien's work has! Possibly why his work is derided so much is that he does not resort to the trickery of the Pseuds, his work with words is subtle and embedded. And it takes a reductive reading to bring that out. On the surface LotR is nowt but a great story, quite different to modern fiction.

And poetry does not 'contain' or limit the meaning and importance of words. If anything it allows them to go free, and these words are more open to exploration and the possibility of recovery.

[Aiwendil]

What a great idea for a thread! I wish I had time for the kind of thoughtful post this topic deserves. Anyway, a few miscellaneous points have occurred to me while reading the discussion.

Squatter wrote:

I have to ask at this point whether Tolkien was really trying to write fairy-stories at all. Much of what he says in his lecture applies to fantasy as well as his official theme, but I'm by no means sure that we can see his own fiction as a representation of Faërie.

I wonder about the distinction between fantasy and fairy-story. In my reading of OFS, Tolkien draws no such distinction - though he is careful to distinguish beast fables and such from genuine fairy-story. By "fairy-story", I think it is clear, he does not mean to restrict himself to that genre (or sub-genre) that is typically called "fairy tale" today.

It occurs to me that it might be an interesting exercise, and might teach us something about the distinctions that ought and ought not to be made here, to see if we can classify various works as "fairy story", "fantasy", "fairy tale", "myth", or whatever other possible categories we might be interested in. Where would Beowulf go? What about Grimm's fairy tales? The Silmarillion? The Book of Lost Tales? Which belong to which category?

I think that what we would find is that it is hard, if not impossible, to distinguish fairy-story from fantasy, and those again from myth.

The Silmarillion is a collection of high myths completely founded in the sub-created world. There is no connection with the primary world unless we allow Ælfwine, a character who is conspicuous by his absence in the 1977 publication.

Yet Tolkien spent a great deal of time on the Eriol/Aelfwine story in his pre-LotR writings; and the character still appears as late as the 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Tolkien had settled on another "transmission story" for the Silmarillion (i.e. through Numenor to Gondor and Rivendell, and probably via Bilbo's Translations from the Elvish) that he dropped Aelfwine.

The missing element in LotR is the journey into Faërie: the hobbits are already citizens of Middle-earth; they do not arrive there from our primary reality.

This is a good point, and certainly there is an important distinction to be drawn between what might have been called "transition" and "immersion" fantasy. But does Tolkien restrict the scope of the term "fairy-story" to the former? I cannot recall his doing so. After all, works like Beowulf or the Kalevala do not involve a journey beginning from our reality.

Bethberry wrote:

It certainly suggests that The Hobbit and the Legendarium were not initially conceived under the auspices of his thoughts about fairie, and so leads quite directly to consideration of how LotR might differ from those two earlier works.

I'm not so sure. The fact that it was written around 1937-1938 does not necessarily mean that the ideas in it were wholly new to him at that time. I suspect that the view of fairy-stories he presents was long in formation. Is there any evidence that his views had changed significantly prior to OFS?

I also feel I should point out that the Silmarillion cannot be thought of as an "early work" simpliciter (not that you necessarily were suggesting this).

Lalwende wrote:

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.

What is meant by "reflect Faerie"? I think that this is a point worth considering very carefully.

Faerie is, after all, not a real place that can be accurately or inaccurately described (I fear I'm straying in the direction of the dreaded C-thread, but I shall boldly press on). Faerie may, in a sense, be "real" insofar as it refers to a massive complex of cultural and psychological facts; but to speak of representing Faerie itself as distinct from human perception and interpretation thereof (i.e. as something "out of most people's comprehension") seems to me to be meaningless.

Of course, without resorting to talk about Faerie itself, we can ask about amorality in existing fairy-stories. There are two important questions we ought to ask. First, does Tolkien's definition of a 'fairy-story' say anything about amorality? Second, do existing specimens of fairy-story uniformly exhibit amorality?

The answer to the first question is clearly "no". Tolkien doesn't even use the word "amoral" or "amorality" in the essay, and he certainly doesn't posit this as a criterion for fairy-story. Insofar, then, as we are investigating whether Tolkien's fiction conforms to his views on fairy-stories, the matter of amorality is irrelevant.

The second question is more interesting. Certainly there are a great many amoral fairy-stories; and I would agree that Tolkien's work is unusual in this regard. But I think that the amorality of fairy-stories has been somewhat overstated. There are, after all, important examples of fairy stories that are not amoral, and even some that are highly moral. Look at "Beowulf" or, even better, "Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight".

Ungoliant most defintely is ambiguous, check out the evidence in the Spiders thread that Bethberry and myself found.

I must disagree. Ungoliant is evil. One can, of course, play all kinds of games along the lines of "the Silmarillion is a biased account" (though I confess that what it might mean for a fictional story to be fictionalized is unknown to me). But if we are talking about Tolkien's work, you have to accept that Eru is good and Ungoliant is not.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

What is meant by "reflect Faerie"? I think that this is a point worth considering very carefully.

Faerie is, after all, not a real place that can be accurately or inaccurately described (I fear I'm straying in the direction of the dreaded C-thread, but I shall boldly press on). Faerie may, in a sense, be "real" insofar as it refers to a massive complex of cultural and psychological facts; but to speak of representing Faerie itself as distinct from human perception and interpretation thereof (i.e. as something "out of most people's comprehension") seems to me to be meaningless.

It's real alright. That's what I mean by beyond comprehension, as most people don't understand Faerie and how to recognise it, even less how to get there. Tolkien might have been there - there is a tantalising echo in SoWM where Smith sees the warriors step down from their boat that came from somewhere beyond his comprehension. I know where there are slips into Faerie, blurs in time and consciousness, they're all over the place. It's beyond rational thought.

Of course, without resorting to talk about Faerie itself, we can ask about amorality in existing fairy-stories. There are two important questions we ought to ask. First, does Tolkien's definition of a 'fairy-story' say anything about amorality? Second, do existing specimens of fairy-story uniformly exhibit amorality?

The answer to the first question is clearly "no". Tolkien doesn't even use the word "amoral" or "amorality" in the essay, and he certainly doesn't posit this as a criterion for fairy-story. Insofar, then, as we are investigating whether Tolkien's fiction conforms to his views on fairy-stories, the matter of amorality is irrelevant.

The second question is more interesting. Certainly there are a great many amoral fairy-stories; and I would agree that Tolkien's work is unusual in this regard. But I think that the amorality of fairy-stories has been somewhat overstated. There are, after all, important examples of fairy stories that are not amoral, and even some that are highly moral. Look at "Beowulf" or, even better, "Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight".

I agree, however, our readings of the Saxon and medieval texts must be tempered by bearing in mind that these may have been transcribed by Christians who obviously wouldn't be amoral! To get to those amoral tales you need to find the tales not sanctioned by the Church, those preserved by the ordinary people. Even Beowulf isn't entirely without the chaos of Faerie. And I have to question if specifically Christian writings (which Beowulf isn't, although written down by someone of the early religion) would really get to what Faerie is - it would be like reading a Hindu tale in order to try and understand the nature of Jesus.

I must disagree. Ungoliant is evil. One can, of course, play all kinds of games along the lines of "the Silmarillion is a biased account" (though I confess that what it might mean for a fictional story to be fictionalized is unknown to me). But if we are talking about Tolkien's work, you have to accept that Eru is good and Ungoliant is not.

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

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

It's real alright. That's what I mean by beyond comprehension, as most people don't understand Faerie and how to recognise it, even less how to get there. Tolkien might have been there - there is a tantalising echo in SoWM where Smith sees the warriors step down from their boat that came from somewhere beyond his comprehension. I know where there are slips into Faerie, blurs in time and consciousness, they're all over the place. It's beyond rational thought.

All right, let's be clear about this. You have a theory that there is a "real" place (or thing?) called Faerie, which is "beyond comprehension" and "beyond rational thought". Fine. But you must accept that, when you evaluate fairy-stories in the context of this theory, your conclusions are contingent upon acceptance of that theory. You can of course apply this belief to existing fairy-stories, but this approach is going to be highly personal, and they will not be relevant to others unless and insofar as those others agree with your theory. And they will be even less relevant if what we are interested in are Tolkien's ideas about Faerie.

I agree, however, our readings of the Saxon and medieval texts must be tempered by bearing in mind that these may have been transcribed by Christians who obviously wouldn't be amoral!

This is undoubtedly true and is a good point. Beowulf is a pagan tale told by a Christian, and Gawaine is a thoroughly Christian story. I don't know enough about myth and folklore to know whether there are examples of moral (i.e. non-amoral) stories outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

But are we to disqualify stories written by Christians from classification as "fairy-stories"? Aren't Beowulf and Gawaine just as valid as such? And, what's more important, didn't Tolkien consider them valid as fairy-story?

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

Okay, sorry if you felt the cold hand of literary oppression from my direction.

I do agree that Ungoliant is a strange and, in many ways, ambiguous character. I just don't agree that she is morally ambiguous. At least, I certainly wouldn't expect Tolkien to agree have agreed that she is.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

All right, let's be clear about this. You have a theory that there is a "real" place (or thing?) called Faerie, which is "beyond comprehension" and "beyond rational thought". Fine. But you must accept that, when you evaluate fairy-stories in the context of this theory, your conclusions are contingent upon acceptance of that theory. You can of course apply this belief to existing fairy-stories, but this approach is going to be highly personal, and they will not be relevant to others unless and insofar as those others agree with your theory. And they will be even less relevant if what we are interested in are Tolkien's ideas about Faerie.

Not a theory, knowledge and experience.

And indeed, a debunking of those who know about Faerie, who have experienced it, applying knowledge to what they read could likewise be applied to those who apply Christianity or other formalised religious beliefs or theories to what they read. Steady.

Now from my own knowledge, of course, I can recognise all the signs in Tolkien's work that he might well have seen Faerie himself. That motif of the Star on Smith's head is an interesting one to me, as it symbolises the 'signs' that we can recognise in others who may have seen Faerie. And remember:

Originally Posted by SoWM essay, new edition

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. Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): esthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.

Interesting that while his interpretation of the human world of Wooton Major is 'allegorical' his interpretation of Faerie is mystical/philosophical. He will not have Faerie 'allegorised' under any circumstances. Faerie must exist in its own right and not be 'put in the service of' any other thing. Faerie as a realm is sacrosanct. Humans may enter there, but human things must not dominate it, or make it serve their own ends - even religious ones.

This is undoubtedly true and is a good point. Beowulf is a pagan tale told by a Christian, and Gawaine is a thoroughly Christian story. I don't know enough about myth and folklore to know whether there are examples of moral (i.e. non-amoral) stories outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

Actually, Gawaine is also a Pagan story that was Christianised.

There are lots of 'moral' tales from all around the world. One of the several functions of folktale and fairy tale is to 'teach' - you will read many moral tales from the African tradition for example, you might not agree with the morals therein, but they are morals nevertheless.

But are we to disqualify stories written by Christians from classification as "fairy-stories"? Aren't Beowulf and Gawaine just as valid as such? And, what's more important, didn't Tolkien consider them valid as fairy-story?

No, but are they stories about Faerie, as it is? Or are they tales made safe, as if for the nursery?

I do agree that Ungoliant is a strange and, in many ways, ambiguous character. I just don't agree that she is morally ambiguous. At least, I certainly wouldn't expect Tolkien to agree have agreed that she is.

Nor would I, that's what's so surprising about the evidence.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Not a theory, knowledge and experience.

Call it what you like, I suppose. Perhaps "belief" is a better word? The point is that this is your opinion, not a universally acknowledged truth. So you cannot expect others to accept it as a premise.

And indeed, a debunking of those who know about Faerie, who have experienced it, applying knowledge to what they read could likewise be applied to those who apply Christianity or other formalised religious beliefs or theories to what they read. Steady.

Yes.

In a rational discussion among people who do not necessarily share the same religious/supernatural beliefs, we cannot take any of those beliefs as premises. Christians will read and evaluate Faerie stories in the context of their Christianity. You read and evaluate them in the context of your belief that Faerie is real. There's nothing wrong with that. But unless you are talking to other people who share your beliefs, you cannot expect those beliefs to be taken as given. Of course you can try to convince others that your beliefs are true, but I fear that would take us rather off-topic.

Which I seem to be accomplishing anyway . . .

No, but are they stories about Faerie, as it is? Or are they tales made safe, as if for the nursery?

Beowulf was made "safe, as if for the nursery"? That's one grim nursery! In any case, Tolkien refers to Beowulf several times in OFS, which at least indicates that he considered it a valid specimen.

[Lalwendë]

Freebie at end of Post! Please skip if you want a gift!

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Call it what you like, I suppose. Perhaps "belief" is a better word? The point is that this is your opinion, not a universally acknowledged truth. So you cannot expect others to accept it as a premise.

In a rational discussion among people who do not necessarily share the same religious/supernatural beliefs, we cannot take any of those beliefs as premises. Christians will read and evaluate Faerie stories in the context of their Christianity. You read and evaluate them in the context of your belief that Faerie is real. There's nothing wrong with that. But unless you are talking to other people who share your beliefs, you cannot expect those beliefs to be taken as given. Of course you can try to convince others that your beliefs are true, but I fear that would take us rather off-topic.

I aint going to try and convince anyone that it's true, this isn't the place for that. Believe what you like is what I say, I'm not Richard Dawkins. And indeed, its always worth bearing in mind that not all readers/contributors will accept that personal beliefs are a 'given' for everyone, nor that all will even accept them as valid points of argument. I'm not going to stop you from questioning that approach however and am not offended by you questioning it. Still, I come at Tolkien's works from all kinds of angles, I'm not a stereotyped this that or the other nor am I trying to 'find' anything, as I just want to enjoy his work for what it is and the effect it gives off.

Like I've said earlier, I do find that Tolkien's work lacks an essential of Faerie, the amorality, the chaos. But it does reflect Tolkien's experience, which he articulated in the light of his earthly world understanding, which included for him Catholicism amongst other things (noting that he did not exist in a Catholic vacuum, he was a lot of things, like all of us).

OFS in some ways is his attempt to tie up all of the things he was and all the things he had seen; it is not in any way the Law on Faerie. Nor on Faerie Tale.

Beowulf was made "safe, as if for the nursery"? That's one grim nursery! In any case, Tolkien refers to Beowulf several times in OFS, which at least indicates that he considered it a valid specimen.

Haha, but it would certainly be an interesting nursery? No, I was not meaning quite literally for the nursery, but referring to Bowdlerisation which would render Shakespeare's stories suitable for 'the kiddies'. Vile idea, and not quite in the same vein as what Christian writers did to tales like Beowulf which was not in any way wrong, just inevitable!

But in terms of texts like Beowulf, inevitable. Old tales of Faerie were naturally in opposition to the new religion and so were altered, not always drastically so, as indeed shown in Beowulf. Tolkien actually made a good choice in choosing to refer to that text as it retains enough of the 'old ways' while including the modern morality to fit with his theory. Does it fit his idea of 'high, purged of the gross'? It would certainly be an exciting and seemingly true tale for kids (particularly boys, English teachers take note), which is one of the points Tolkien wants Faerie tales to have.

Anyway, has everyone read OFS? 'Cause I think some Downers might be excluded from this by not having the text. If they've not got it, it's available for free on the link on this thread.. It's an easy read, don't be put off.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Freebie at end of Post! Please skip if you want a gift!

Thanks for reposting that link, Lal. It would be great to have other Downers read OFS and contribute their thoughts here.

Originally Posted by Lal

OFS in some ways is his attempt to tie up all of the things he was and all the things he had seen; it is not in any way the Law on Faerie. Nor on Faerie Tale.

Just a small clarification here in case anyone interprets this comment to suggest that Tolkien gives us the One Springle--er, Fairie--Ring. I don't think anyone here has said that Tolkien wrote Chapter and Verse on Fairie or Faerie Tale. We've been considering some of the characteristics he sees in Fairie and applying them to his work and then his work to other works. (Well, really just to generalisations outside of his work, as I don't think anything other than Gawain and Beowufl have yet been tendered, of early Fairie, although Strange and Norrell have also been mentioned and of course Grimm's also, but there's not yet been any substantive discussion of other fairy tales. Links to early fairy tales might be very welcomed!

I also hasten to point out that the thread title is offered in quotation marks as befits its genesis as a phrase used by Tolkien. The question mark is wholly mine, though, and as such it does provide a prophylactic against automatic acceptance of Tolkien's ideas--an invitation to consider them if you will.

As an aside, would anyone have any links to some authentic online versions of the Beowulf tale before it became codified in the Old English poem? I'm not aware of any myself.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

There is not just unexpected deliverance in Tolkien’s theory, but an accompanying recognition of imperfection of the world, of evil, of doom. Frodo accepts his defeat before Gollem becomes the agent of the deliverance, just as Gawin submits to his fate, not expecting reprieve at the hands of the Green Knight. 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.

So the hero must utterly fail and recognize his/her failure in order for the 'sudden turn' to be the eucatastrophe as described by Tolkien. I think you are right. This definitely clarifies the concept, and limits its application to LotR as well as other fairy tales/myths. Are there other myths/fairy tales that exhibit eucatastrophe, whether ancient (Beowulf, Gawain) or modern (Out of the Silent Planet, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.)?

Originally Posted by Lal

...the tale Tolkien created was not an amoral one, and it is possibly due to his wish to create a myth that was "purged of the gross", as to be honest, Faerie Tale is not about redemption or hope or joy or any of those things, its about danger, wicked fun, dreams, bodily fluids and death.

First, regarding the latter (not underlined) part: is this your opinion, or do you have evidence for this that contradicts Tolkien's own statement that fairy stories are, at their highest and best, about redemption and hope and joy? Regardless, it seems reductionist.

Second, regarding the underlined section, I think you are right that Tolkien wrote a moral fairy tale in because he wanted to create a myth that was "purged of the gross"; but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

Originally Posted by Lal

Ungoliant most defintely is ambiguous...

But not morally so. By the way, I've read the Spider thread and the theory built thereon such that Ungoliant cannot be a Maia, and may in fact be co-eval with Iluvatar, seems extremely weak.

[Aiwendil]

LMP wrote:

but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

I do not think that religion is the only viable explanation. Above, Bethberry posited an interesting alternative in philology.

I might propose another alternative, though it's one that certain literary critics wouldn't react well with: the work of art is better that way. Perhaps a less controversial way of putting it would be to say that Tolkien liked it better that way (so do I, as it happens, and I imagine so do a great many others). If Tolkien found certain elements of many fairy-stories distasteful or uninteresting, why shouldn't he write stories purged of such elements? We need not follow the likes of Edwin Muir and Edmund Wilson in claiming that any story that isn't about sex is juvenile.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I do not think that religion is the only viable explanation. Above, Bethberry posited an interesting alternative in philology. ... Perhaps a less controversial way of putting it would be to say that Tolkien liked it better that way (so do I, as it happens, and I imagine so do a great many others). If Tolkien found certain elements of many fairy-stories distasteful or uninteresting, why shouldn't he write stories purged of such elements? We need not follow the likes of Edwin Muir and Edmund Wilson in claiming that any story that isn't about sex is juvenile.

Your suggestion is based in aesthetics. I have no disagreement with it. Regarding philology, whereas it is true that Tolkien's entire Legendarium used philology as a generative strategy, I don't see how it affects the issue of "purging of the gross". Care to elucidate?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. 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.

That's what Faerie is all about. Be afraid...

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Just a small clarification here in case anyone interprets this comment to suggest that Tolkien gives us the One Springle--er, Fairie--Ring. I don't think anyone here has said that Tolkien wrote Chapter and Verse on Fairie or Faerie Tale. We've been considering some of the characteristics he sees in Fairie and applying them to his work and then his work to other works. (Well, really just to generalisations outside of his work, as I don't think anything other than Gawain and Beowufl have yet been tendered, of early Fairie, although Strange and Norrell have also been mentioned and of course Grimm's also, but there's not yet been any substantive discussion of other fairy tales. Links to early fairy tales might be very welcomed!

Good good. We would all be very foolish if we took what Tolkien said on Faerie Tale as The Law, and I'm sure Tolkien, as an academic would also think we were fools if we only followed his rules.

Some sources, AKA more free stuff:

Andrew Lang's Fairy Books here. Tolkien liked these, but he disapproved that they were geared towards kids only and had in some cases been Bowdlerised and had the sinister magic taken out of them.

Joseph Campbells' Popular Tales of the West Highlands here.

Joseph Jacobs' tales here.

Grimm's Tales here. In German and Dutch too.

Norske Folkeeventyr here. Also in Norwegian here.

The Mabinogion, the Eddas, the Kalevala, of course, which should all be on Sacred Texts. There's enough on that site to keep you going for ever. One of the joys of the Net is that finally people can collect together folk lore and tales, without the intervention of the Collectors, who I must now post a health warning - DO put their own spin on things a lot, particularly pre-war ones. One of the things Tolkien railed against was indded the pruging of the 'gross' and difficult elements from what are supposed to simply be 'collections'.

Anyone interested should also look out for collections by Ruth Manning-Sanders, and of course, Angela Carter, an expert on the matter.

Which brings me to:

Originally Posted by lmp

First, regarding the latter (not underlined) part: is this your opinion, or do you have evidence for this that contradicts Tolkien's own statement that fairy stories are, at their highest and best, about redemption and hope and joy? Regardless, it seems reductionist.

Second, regarding the underlined section, I think you are right that Tolkien wrote a moral fairy tale in because he wanted to create a myth that was "purged of the gross"; but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

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. Like it or not, uncollected and unedited tales are indeed about visceral matters, perilous matters and can be quite disturbing.

What is important to remember about Fairie Tales is that they are not 'owned' nor are they 'fixed'. Likewise they can't be categorised. Some are moral tales, others tell about the natural world, still others are creation myths, some are entertainments. You can subject them to all kinds of interpretation, and Tolkien's is just a tiny fraction (and not really one of the most important ones in the minds of the scholars who go in for folklore) in the huge mass of others.

Fairy Tales indeed can be functional texts - mainly orally based, used to pass on knowledge through cultures through recognisable archetypes, and also instructional in passing on cultural norms and expectations. Peig Sayers says that Fairy Tales are intended as oral tales, as collections of images; they could take weeks to tell and used words to create images in the mind, using them over and over. 'Living shapes that move from mind to mind' as Tolkien says. Think of the Tarot, which works in the same way.

We should not underestimate the importance of Women's role in telling these tales, and some would argue that many are indeed Women's Stories. A feminist critic might argue that Tolkien wished his tales to be free 'of the gross' because he wished to expunge the elements of sex and bodily functions which were a major component of these tales, a way for women to pass on vital knowledge to their daughters about how their bodies worked, and most of all, how to deal with men.

Other reasons why Tolkien might have wanted his tales to be 'high' might include for aesthetic reasons. I think he sought in some ways to pull stock figures such as Elves out of Faerie where they are tricksy and make them into noble creatures (though why a King is more noble than a boggart to some, I don't know). And of course the most glaringly obvious answer why is this - he wanted to create an epic on the level of the Kalevala, dealing with momentous events, the movements of the Gods, a big broad swoop rather than intimate details of how individuals should live their lives. Style and feel rather than message.

[littlemanpoet]

I am reminded that Tolkien and his fellow Inklings were trying to do something with the vast leaf-mould of folk tale, legend, and myth that was fundamentally at odds with two separate branches of naturalistic interpretations. The two branches are, on one hand, a modernist and 'chronologically snobbish' rejection of the old tales, legends, and myths precisely because of their connection with the numinous; and on the other hand, an embracing of the earthy aspects of the tales while rejecting (or at least skeptically questioning) the numinous.

I think that Tolkien's response to such a feminist critique as you describe would be not unlike his remark regarding Edmund Wilson's review to LotR back from the '50s. He would say, based on that comment, that an emphasis on sex and bodily fluids is essentially adolescent. Our own culture's current obsession with such things bespeaks a cultural degradation that is not celebratory.

Tolkien is not 'the Law' on Fairy stories, but what he says needs to be dealt with seriously rather than merely dismissed as 'just one perspective', precisely because LotR has been so influential amongst publishers and readers since its publishing. This is even more the case because he and his fellow Inklings were attempting something unique.

I feel at a loss, frankly, to adequately describe what it is I'm trying to say, but it is momentous and important, and I feel that we are in danger of missing it by concentrating on aspects of folk tale that Tolkien himself set aside.

[Lalwendë]

Now, that's a bit naughty because those who write about folklore and indeed know quite a lot about it, are not polarised in that way. Not at all. Indeed in OFS you will find that Tolkien himself dislikes Bowdlerisation, and would rather they stayed in their true 'adult' form. He did not set the aspects some readers are uncomfortable with 'aside' from his view of Fairy Tales.

In fact, and this has been asked before, was LotR and The Sil (the Hobbit is excluded from this) Faerie Tale at all? Was it not something different, i.e. myth? If indeed it was, then being 'high, purged of the gross' would fit perfectly.

On the point of 'cultural degradation' arising from concern with bodily matters, ahem, I'm going to resist giving you a lecture on how the culture of ordinary people, particularly women, has always included lots of this, as far back as we can identify 'culture'. It might be distasteful to some men (and women), and indeed we might ask if it was distasteful to Tolkien (and it's a fair question, and if indeed it was, then I am not saying if this is right or wrong). By the by, Tolkien's work might not have that much sex in it, but it is certainly there (in extreme forms such as incest) and he does not shy away from the Gothic and horror.

Oh, and another good writer on Fairy Tales - Maria Tatar. They had a book with an intro by her lying around in one of our art galleries today and it was very interesting stuff.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Now, that's a bit naughty because those who write about folklore and indeed know quite a lot about it, are not polarised in that way. Not at all. Indeed in OFS you will find that Tolkien himself dislikes Bowdlerisation, and would rather they stayed in their true 'adult' form. He did not set the aspects some readers are uncomfortable with 'aside' from his view of Fairy Tales.

It seems to me that there are two quite distinct issues here:

1. "Bowdlerization"; making stories "safe" for children - i.e. removing or avoiding anything too frightening, too serious, or too grim.

2. Rejecting the "amorality" and the focus on, as Lalwende puts it, "bodily fluids" commonly found in many folk tales.

Tolkien did not make his stories safe for children by avoiding grim or frightening material, and this is not what he meant when he said "purged of the gross". 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?

In fact, and this has been asked before, was LotR and The Sil (the Hobbit is excluded from this) Faerie Tale at all? Was it not something different, i.e. myth?

Again I must question the distinction between myth and fairy tale, particularly in the context of Tolkien's views on the subject. In OFS, it seems clear that he considers Beowulf a fairy-story, for example.

[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?

[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 . . . .