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

[littlemanpoet]

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

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

First, some obvious differences:

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

Second, some basic similarities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

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

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

She does it just because ... love.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

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

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

Terror is right.

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

[littlemanpoet]

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

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

[mark12_30]

...and if you put it into .lit format using a Word plugin, then you can have the computer read it to you while you drive. Bwah ha haha.

The Microsoft Reader voice is flat and emotionless and yet the story STILL is gripping.

Using this technique, Anodos (and I) are now past the Alder woman (eeeeewwww el mucho creeepio) and into the house at the edge of the wood.

Sometimes I think the Ash tree is a rotten Ent. Only it can't be, because the Ash tree itself isn't walking; the spirit of the Ash tree is. So it's a sort of dryad? A male, eeeevil dryad.

Singing out of prison and into life. Me likey. Shades of, well, lots of things.

ps elempi, I like the new addition to your sig.

[mark12_30]

Anodos in the Faery palace

.....has his own room, in which he is served by invisible hands. There is also a set of clothes laid out for him that are Just RIght for him. (Frodo wakening in Rivendell to find a set of green clothes that fitted him excellently.)

When Anodos goes swimming in the palace, he can see forms that he had not seen before.

GM does this sometimes-- Golden Key, for one. But with Tolkien, how often does this happen? I remember only Frodo, especially after Weathertop, but generally because of the Ring.

It doesn't ring a bell with Smith of Wootton Major. lmp? I've only just begun with Smith again.

Anodos in the Faery Library reading books-- Story (after Story) within a story-- doesn't happen much in Smith, does it? Happens aplenty in LOTR, although with a different flavor, mostly in song rather than in books. If we extend the metaphor that Faery Palace is akin to Rivendell, then for Frodo it's the songs rather than the books, and they have a similar effect.

Enchantment comes to Frodo through song-- echoed by Anodos' enchantment in the Faery 'bath'. I wonder whether Bolco's love of Evendim was affected by Anodos's Faery bath. Definitely by the various baths in Golden Key.

Anodos says that, while reading a story in the Faery Library, he becomes the story, and then is startled by his environment when he gets to the end of the faery-book.

Whereas Sam & Frodo realise they are IN a story, for real. Different than becoming it as you read it only to be rudely awakened at the end.

Smith is too fuzzy in my memory...

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks on the sig.

I see the Smith's star and Anodos' shadow as opposites in effect, though not exactly. Whereas Smith's star allows him entry, Anodos' shadow does not take away entry, but it ruins his ability to perceive Fairy.

Which makes Anodos' shadow more comparable to the Ring, especially as Frodo gets closer to Mordor. Both are meant to be undersgood as maleficent entities with their own wills. The Ring so overwhelms Frodo's perceptions that he is blinded (as if by the sun) to everything else. The shadow merely takes away Anodo's ability to see what's really there.

The palace invisibles are also comparable to the Elves passing through the Shire. In the first section of Shadows of the Past, there is a rather important exchange between Samwise Gamgee and Ted Sandyman in which Ted doubts that Elves pass through the Shire at all, and elsewhere Tolkien describes their passage (near the end of LotR) as like shadows beneath the moonbeam, or something like that. The upshot is that those whose sight is compromised by guilt (in the case of Anodos) or disbelief (in the case of Ted Sandyman), can't see what's really there.

[Folwren]

Interesting topic, Elempi. I have very little to say because I read both those stories some time ago and don't remember either of them very well.

However, my opinion on this:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

Pop and my older sister have both read Phantastes and both like it and I am pretty sure that they both saw some sort of allegory in it, but I have to admit that it escapes me. However, I will say that I can't imagine MacDonald writing anything without some allegorical meaning to it.

Have you read Lilith, Elempi? I think Pop and my sister liked that one even better than Phantastes.

As for me, I prefer SoWM to Phantastes, so far as I recall.

Do you think that Tolkien, as well as Lewis, learned from and used some of MacDonald's writings and teachings and lessons?

-- Folwren

[Lalwendë]

Meant to post this a while back, after lmp asked me what I meant in another post!

Yes, Phantastes is sometimes said to be an allegorical work about the need for the human to shrug off the carnal and accept the spiritual. However I've heard otherwise (e.g. the stories are quite Jungian), and apparently MacDonald wasn't happy with those who simply said "this book is an allegory" as he claimed it was much more complex than that. Of course, MacDonald had some individualistic ideas about God and Christ, so it would not be easy to pinpoint the allegorical elements unless you knew MacDonald's philosophies (broadly, he disliked Calvinism, and predestination). I'll have to ask davem to dig it out for me and have another look.

I don't know about SoWM being allegorical. It all seems too familiar and real to me to be allegory.

[littlemanpoet]

I've read Lilith. I think I like Phantastes better though. It seems that maybe I got the two stories confused, and my current rereading of Phantastes is un-confusing them. Not done, so this could take time.

I too prefer SWoM to Phantastes. I don't know exactly why. I'll have to reread SWoM after rereading Phantastes to try and take a stab at it. I think Lal's sense of reality in SWoM is what I like so much, and I do find it difficult to allow for allegory there too. Force domination of the author? I don't think so. Applications? Aplenty I'm sure.

I think that Lal is correct as to the "allegory" people write of. I've also heard of Phantastes being interpreted after Freud, which is actually possible but diminishing. I'm not sure it is quite accurate to call spiritual maturation allegory, however. Bilbo matures morally in The Hobbit but nobody calls that an allegory.

[littlemanpoet]

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

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

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

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

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

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

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

[Lalwendë]

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

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

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

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

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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


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

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

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

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

Meh.

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

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

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Those humans foolish enough to go into Fairy and then put themselves in danger of death, die in Fairyland, and do not return to Earthly life; it's just not the way it works. So the upshot is that the book is either supremely dissatisfying, or must be rejected (or at least criticized) as portraying a falsehood as to what Fairy is.

Spoken with the certainty of experience.

So Faery can have neither "waterboarding" nor "near-death experiences" or "out-of-body-experiences" for any reason whatsoever-- even if you are sent there (instead of stumbling there) to learn a specific set of lessons for a specific set of reasons?

I thought the original Faery Grandmother/ Godmother/ Lady Of The Desk had more of a doom/destiny/purifying air about her. IMO, Anodos was in for it, from day one.

Smith had a different reason for going.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

So Faery can have neither "waterboarding" nor "near-death experiences" or "out-of-body-experiences" for any reason whatsoever-- even if you are sent there (instead of stumbling there) to learn a specific set of lessons for a specific set of reasons?

I thought the original Faery Grandmother/ Godmother/ Lady Of The Desk had more of a doom/destiny/purifying air about her. IMO, Anodos was in for it, from day one.

Okay, perhaps I was splitting hairs. The problem, then, is that he both dies and returns. That, I guess, is what I really find to be the failure in the book. You can't have it both ways in Faery, right?

[mark12_30]

So are you saying that you can't both die and return in Rhode Island? What is it about Faerie that rules out returning from the dead? And if you've returned from the dead, why can't you return from Faerie? I don't understand your objection.

To me your argument-- if you die in Faerie you can't come back-- puts Faerie in charge of your mortality. Which would be like saying, if Frodo goes to the undying lands, he has to live forever. No; he's mortal; he's bound by Eru's plan for him.

So if Lazarus had died in Faerie, no raising allowed?

[littlemanpoet]

You're trying to conclude a general principle out of something I've said about the particular work known as Phantastes. I'm not willing to make a general principle out of it.

And I'm not entirely sure why it doesn't work that Anodos dies in Fairy and comes to life in "real life". Dreams do work that way, except that in a dream, the moment you die, not knowing what it's like on the other side, you immediately wake up. In contrast, Anodos actually experiences being dead, making the death state a part of his imagined reality, making death a part of Faery. The reader is left wondering if he really died. We are, as readers, expected to accept Anodos' words at face value, that he actually died in Faery and came to life, and that he can actually remember what he experienced in his Faery-death. Okay, maybe that's okay in this story. But I am still left dissatisfied. I'm not sure why. I'll have to think about this some more.

[littlemanpoet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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