You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[Numenorean]

Greetings Davem, Drigel , Lalwendë et al, sorry to backtrack a wee bit on this fascinating thread of yours, but I’ve also often pondered aspects of Tolkiens Faerie and its reflections/divergences from the Faerie of folklore and tradition.

Davem:

Thinking about it, (& with drigel's earlier mention in mind)I find the Elves of TH quite 'traditional'

Certainly in comparison to the Elves who undertook the Great Journey and received wisdom and strength from Valinor, particularly the Noldo who returned to Middle Earth with their lordly ways and crafts. I find that the Mirkwood Elves- as described in the Hobbit - have a fey quality to them very reminiscent of the Faeries of British tradition, their behaviour can also be seen to reflect this feyness. Firstly they seem to bewitch and tease Bilbo and the starving Dwarves with illusive twinkling lights and tantalising glimpses of a wondrous unattainable woodland feast, then they repeatedly disappear entirely leaving the group in terrible danger near and at the mercy of the large evil spider colony. Furthermore, the Mirkwood Elves also have no hesitation in kidnapping, imprisoning and placing a spell on Thorin, and I find all these incidents to have a strong echo of traditional Faerie shenanighans – let alone the drunkenness and revelry. On P.162 of the Hobbit Tolkien describes them thus:

Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise.

Dangerous indeed. The very gates, the physical manifestation of the Elvenkings inner realm are also notably magical, Thranduil himself says “There is no escape from my magic doors for those who are once brought inside.”

As has already been discussed, the Elves from Valinor are very different and feel more ‘humanized’/Christianised than the Avari and the Faeries of folklore. However, I also perceive a strong seam of what Drigel calls the ‘unhindered, chaotic, wild and untamed aspect’ of Faerie, in at least some of the other Elves of Tolkiens Legendarium. In this regard the first of whom that springs to mind are the Green-elves of Ossiriand:
The Silmarillion.(P171) has these two intriguing passages concerning them and their relationship with Men:

Now the Green-elves of Ossiriand were troubled by the coming of Men, and when they heard that a lord of the Eldar from over the Sea was among them they sent messengers to Felagund.’Lord,’ they said, ‘if you have power over these newcomers, bid them return by the ways that they came, or else to go forward. For we desire no strangers in this land to break the peace in which we live. And these folk are hewers of trees and hunters of beasts; therefore we are their unfriends, and if they will not depart we shall afflict them in all the ways that we can.’

I am particularly drawn to Tolkiens use of the words ‘unfriends’ and ‘afflict’ in that passage, and note that the Green-elves do not confront Men directly here, rather they use a go-between – a ‘humanised’ Elf from Valinor, further distancing themselves from Men folk, humans. Are their words merely threatening with no real intent as it were? I tend to think not, I get the sense that they are genuinely and actively hostile to Men, as the next passage reveals, Silmarillion.(P171):

First came the Haladin; but meeting the unfriendship of the Green-elves they turned north and dwelt in Thargelion, in the country of Caranthir son of Feanor

Given what we know of the deep moral fortitude and grim determination of the Haladin, the unfriendship of the Green-elves must have been considerably fierce to spur them into such a retreat. It may also be worth considering that from the point-of-view of the Haladin folk, the Green-elves most probably never revealed either themselves or their ‘reasons’ for afflicting them, and that feels quite wild and disturbing to me.

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

You mentioned earlier Davem:

they (Faeries) made the natural world a place of terror, a place to be avoided. It was their realm and humans entered at their peril. There is an echo of that in Doriath and Lorien

I would maybe also add Nan Elmoth and Nan Dungortheb, despite the fact that the latter was not an Elven realm as such, it certainly bordered them. This dreadful valley had an atmosphere of enmeshing shadows, fell creatures and poisoned streams, any or all of which could prove utterly perilous to the unwary traveller who tried to cross it. Tolkiens world, or the fear inspiring wildness of traditional Faerie?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Numenorean

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

And interestingly enough, Eol, Maeglin, and Saeros all have Dark Elven roots, as it were, by which I mean non-Calaquendi, and non-Sindarin.

Saeros is very specifically said to have been of the Green Elven people, of the ones who removed to Doriath after Morgoth's return and the death of Denethor. Is his distaste for men connected to that of the other Green Elves you mention?

Eol is not said to be thus in the Silmarillion, but in Tolkien's writings he speculated a great deal about his origin, and one theory, which seems to have had the most weight, is that he was one of the Avari (of Tatyarin (ie. Noldorin) origin), who eventually came west to Beleriand. And even his main alternative origin, as a kinsman of Thingol, makes him sound as much a Green Elf as a Grey...

Maeglin, of course, is connected to the Dark Elves via his father's blood, and his upbringing.

And this is beginning to make me wonder... Did Tolkien envision two "faeries" as it were? Did his Translator's Conceit give him the idea, within Middle-Earth anyway, that the more historical view of a malevolent faerie was a distortion by Men in later times of the "real" faerie (Valinor) and the attitude of those Elves most likely to meet Men (the Avari)? In other words, is an internal (in-story) reconciling of the "real world" conception of Faerie and his own, Valinorean, conception of Faerie made possible by Avarian attitudes mixed with fading knowledge of Valinor?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Did Tolkien envision two "faeries" as it were? Did his Translator's Conceit give him the idea, within Middle-Earth anyway, that the more historical view of a malevolent faerie was a distortion by Men in later times of the "real" faerie (Valinor) and the attitude of those Elves most likely to meet Men (the Avari)? In other words, is an internal (in-story) reconciling of the "real world" conception of Faerie and his own, Valinorean, conception of Faerie made possible by Avarian attitudes mixed with fading knowledge of Valinor?

Its possible. Certainly Tolkien couldn't have ignored the traditional accounts. He was motivated by a desire to 're-create' what had been. So perhaps he included what was the 'original' version of events, from which the traditional stories derived. The only problem with that explanation is that his Elves are not found in the tradition. Also, given the traditional tales (as found in Kirk) depict Elves/Fairies being attracted by beautiful humans. In its own way the tradition is more complex than the one we find among the Avari. It is very much a love-hate relationship, or perhaps desire-hate.

One thing we find as a commonplace in the tradition is accounts of battles between Fairy tribes. This obviously occurs in Tolkien with the Kinslaying, but in the tradtion there is no implication of a 'fall' being involved, no moral judgement at all being passed. Its just what the Fairies do. Kirk also refers to Fairy funerals & the implication there seems to be that they are mortal.

So, I'd agree that Tolkien attempted to acknowledge the tradition, but it seems that for some reason he felt the need to rationalise it to such a degree that it became almost unrecognisable.

Edit. He also reveals techniques for gaining an experience of the Second Sight, so one could actually see Fairies!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And interestingly enough, Eol, Maeglin, and Saeros all have Dark Elven roots, as it were, by which I mean non-Calaquendi, and non-Sindarin.

Originally Posted by Numenorean

It may also be worth considering that from the point-of-view of the Haladin folk, the Green-elves most probably never revealed either themselves or their ‘reasons’ for afflicting them, and that feels quite wild and disturbing to me.

In Beleriand there are also individual Elves who seem to be borderline traditional Faerie if not wholly so. Eol, Maeglin and Saeros all pervade an aura of darkness, a sense of mystery and of unfathomable hostility towards change as it were, and Men folk particularly.

I sometimes get the impression that there are two distinct histories of Elves, one which we can all read, the other never having been written down at all. On the one hand we have the Noldor, and those of the Teleri and Avari who chose (maybe?) to follow them. Then we also have the unwritten history of the Teleri and Avari who remained independent of the Eldar.

The Silmarillion could be said to be written from the point of view of the Noldor. The story of Eol is a case in point; it is debatable whether he did wrong in marrying Aredhel, but the treatment he received when he went to Gondolin often seems harsh. Gondolin was a 'protected' city, but Eol was also an independent Elf, who was prevented from leaving; his anger was extreme but his freedom was at stake. The story casts no judgement on the actions of the Elves of Gondolin for the events. I wonder how it might have been told differently by other Elves?

Right up to the War of the Ring, the Eldar are still dominant in Middle-earth, despite being depleted in number. If the Elves are a part of Faerie, then we are seeing only one view of it. Thinking of the translation conceit, The Silmarillion is translated from papers in Elrond's library, and LotR is translated from other papers. The Hobbit on the other hand is Bilbo's personal tale, and it is here that we see the Elves of Mirkwood acting in a sinister fashion, and the Elves of Rivendell having fun; maybe The Hobbit is the most 'unbiased' view of Elves that we have, being written by a Hobbit with no 'agenda'?

Originally Posted by davem

This obviously occurs in Tolkien with the Kinslaying, but in the tradtion there is no implication of a 'fall' being involved, no moral judgement at all being passed. Its just what the Fairies do.

Tolkien's Elves as far as we are allowed to see them, have clear concepts of right and wrong, which is the opposite to Faerie, where the two concepts are irrelevant. I wonder whether Tolkien had to 'build in' such strong ideas of right and wrong in order to make a story like LotR work? It is a story which involves much killing of the opposing forces, and we might easily question whether that is the correct thing to do if we are not drilled in the 'fact' that they are most definitely 'bad guys'? So therefore the story must have strongly stated opposing forces, and we must be made to see just how bad these bad guys are?

Throughout LotR there are moments where moral grey areas seem about ready to burst forth, but they are kept controlled; I mean those moments when we see Orcs conversing of 'retirement', or Gandalf refusing to be morally didactic about Gollum. LotR lacks any kind of 'seductive' bad guy who might make doing the wrong thing look to be quite attractive; his Orcs are all ugly, Mordor is vile, no bad guy ever seems to benefit from what they do.

Perhaps in the case of LotR it is that the story cannot allow any room for traditional Faerie, it cannot allow for amoral behaviour?

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

The Silmarillion could be said to be written from the point of view of the Noldor. The story of Eol is a case in point; it is debatable whether he did wrong in marrying Aredhel, but the treatment he received when he went to Gondolin often seems harsh.

Really? If the facts reported in the Silmarillion are to be trusted, Eol kept Aredhel in Nan Elmoth against her will and forcibly married her.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's a difference between thinking that the Silmarillion is biased and thinking that it's false. But unless it is, in certain respects, false, the room for it to be biased is rather limited.

There's also the question of what it means to wonder whether a fictional story is "true" - what we mean to ask, of course, is not whether it's literally true but whether it's true or false within a supposed fictional world. But what defines that world if not the narrative whose veracity we're doubting?

[drigel]

But what defines that world if not the narrative whose veracity we're doubting?

This does bring me back to my original inclination to force both Faeries together. It is translators conciet I admit, but the perspective of the narrator in LOTR and Silm should be taken into account. Whats hinted at in LOTR (but not the Silm) are the cultural apprehension towards elves in general. It bespeaks of the waning of the men/elf relationships. I think of Bormir's fear of entering Lorien when I consider this, as an example.

Admittedly, it does touch on the waning theme, and the general ignorance of men (hobbits, et al), and their wariness of "magic". But could the old tales (or old wives tales ) not also have roots (going all the way back to the 1st age) of people's direct interaction with the more "wild" elves? Not even the Ossiriand Green Elves - where there was at least a structure of leadership, and a civilization of sorts, which (to me) implies a rule/law/code of behavior set of "rules" to live by sort of thing, but elves who answered to no lord. Eol does come to mind, but even he seemed to be on a level higher (skillsets, taste in women) than the rustic, naturally free elves that the traditional model references. It goes back to the question of ommision. They arent part of any story in the works, but those old tales of caution are.

Or is that too much of a leap?

[davem]

drigel

That works in terms of the Legendarium, but it doesn't account for Tolkien's unique creation of the Elves, which don't correspond to anything in the traditional accounts of Fairies. It may be that Tolkien has allowed the traditional version in to his mythology in the way you suggest, but only as a misinterpretation by later peoples. He's basicaloly saying the traditions are wrong - which kind of implies that he didn't value them all that highly. But that goes against his praise of fairystories in OFS.

[drigel]

so my leap is executed, but falls short

aarrrgh
it hurts us, yes it hurtss

So.... ,

The transition to and from, and realization of faerie that seems to be part of the foundation of the theme of the works, does seem (from a human's POV) to be (in part) the study of human nature, and how it relates with mortality. And your premise is that this theme could not be fully reached without a more "noble" form of fairy, (i.e. - one that really didnt exist)? Or, in other words, can one from faerie experience eucatastrophe? The author could not figure out how to describe this without having to invent a new fairie, eh wot?

edit:
Or was it simply that he thought no one would take the stories/legendarium seriously if he used the traditional model - a known commodity?

btw - thanks for the links! interesting stuff

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

And your premise is that this theme could not be fully reached without a more "noble" form of fairy, (i.e. - one that really didnt exist)? Or, in other words, can one from faerie experience eucatastrophe? The author could not figure out how to describe this without having to invent a new fairie, eh wot?

The interesting question is, while he did create a mythology in the Legendarium, can we say he wrote a 'fairy story'. A few people have referred to OFS as his creative manifesto, his laying out of the rules & the groundwork for true fairy stories. But is the Legendarium as a whole & LotR in particular, actually a Fairy story. Well, it obeys the 'law' in that it contains Eucatastrophe. But is that Eucatastrophe a Fairy tale one or something more, something deeper & more profound. It may well be that the type of Eucatastrophe he wished to depict required the kind of Faerie he created.

The Eucatastrophe we find in fairy stories is of an altogether simpler, more human & earthly kind - as in the story of The Black Bull of Norroway which he cites in the essay. But the kind of Eucatastrophe Tolkien was interested in (which could rghtly be called 'Evangelium') was far from that. It was the kind of Eucatastrophe to be found in his 'True Myth' (ie the Gospel) that he was concerned with. No fairy story that I know of reaches those kinds of 'heights'.

So, what do we actually have? Tolkien wishing to 'subcreate' a world where the equivalent kind & degree of Eucatastrophe found in the Gospels could occur. That could not happen in a tale of traditional Faerie, so he had to invent a new kind of Faerie where it could.

But I still have to ask, if that was his intention, why go to such lengths to involve traditional Faerie at all? Why not just do a 'Milton'? I suppose that he wanted to include Faerie because he loved it, to 'redeem' it. Yet in the very act of saving it he changed it beyond recognition.

In Smith he seems almost to be going back to traditional Faerie - almost, but not quite - after all, there is no real going back....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Really? If the facts reported in the Silmarillion are to be trusted, Eol kept Aredhel in Nan Elmoth against her will and forcibly married her.

I've posted on this on a dedicated thread before, which I ought find, but in order to get to the point:

Very fair she seemed to him, and he desired her; and he set his enchantments about her so that she could not find the ways out, but drew ever nearer to his dwelling in the depths of the wood. ... when Aredhel, weary with wandering, came at last to his doors, he revealed himself; and he welcomed her, and led her into his house. And there she remained; for Eol took her to wife, and it was long ere any of her kin heard of her again.

It is not said that Aredhel was wholly unwilling, nor that her life in Nan Elmoth was hateful to her for many years.

It is indeed not clear exactly what happened, but one thing is clear, that she was not 'wholly unwilling' - this much the 'writer' of the text will allow. It does not state that he forced her to marry him; he makes it impossible for her to leave the woods until she has met him, but force is not mentioned.

Now, back to Faerie, looking at this tale again with this topic in mind has made me think twice about some of the images therein. The story of Eol is directly drawn from Faerie!

there Eol would meet the Naugrim and hold converse with them. And as their friendship grew he would at times go and dwell as guest in the deep mansions of Nogrod or Belegost. He devised a metal as hard as the steel of the Dwarves, but so malleable that he could make it thin and supple; and yet it remained resistant to all blades and darts. He named it galvorn, for it was black and shining like jet, and he was clad in it whenever he went abroad.

Wayland and Eol both possess remarkable skills as Smiths, and both make armour, their skills having been learned from Dwarves. In addition, Wayland and Eol both 'seduce' important or high-ranking female figures.

The Saxon figure of Wayland is associated with Wayland's Smithy, which was built by a much older culture and had a pre-existing story about a Smith associated with it (leave a horse with a silver coin by the tomb and it will be shod in the morning). The tomb is traditionally seen as an entrance to the Underworld or Otherworld; Eol makes these very same journeys when he chooses to go to the Dwarf cities of Nogrod and Belegost. Furthermore, he has learned much more than smithing:

his eyes could see deep into shadows and dark places.

This is clearly a very different kind of Elf. The story hints that he has been 'elsewhere'. He lives away from other Elves, possibly as he yearns for the time before the Noldor came back to Middle-earth:

He shunned the Noldor, holding them to blame for the return of Morgoth, to trouble the quiet of Beleriand; but for the Dwarves he had more liking than any other of the Elvenfolk of old.

What does this signify? The Noldor have been to Valinor and lived in the Light of the Trees, yet here is an Elf who chooses to shun them and mix with the Dwarves under the earth. It is almost as though Eol is pagan man, shunning the new Christians, and preferring to mingle with and learn from the Faerie folk. When he refuses to stay in Gondolin, or to 'convert', he is provoked to madness.

There are also echoes of the ballad of Tam Lin in the 'escape' of Maeglin with Aredhel, and in the enchantment which Aredhel falls under when she first enters Nan Elmoth. And another link springs to mind with the folk tale of the last two Picts to possess the secret of Heather Ale, a father and son; the father asks for the son to be thrown from the cliffs after which he will tell the secret but then throws himself off. The Pictish men are thrown off by near kin, the Scots from Ulster.

Hmm, these are slightly mad thoughts, but now I'm writing about it, I can see something in it... Maybe Faerie does exist in Middle-earth, just not in the Eldar?

[drigel]

Hmm, these are slightly mad thoughts,

quite
welcome to my world thank Davem for me

Maybe Faerie does exist in Middle-earth, just not in the Eldar?

but it hurtsesss

Omission can be interpreted in any way, I suppose. Inclusion is really the meat of analysis because - well - omission is omission.

Considering the body of work (Legendarium, OFS, SoWM, LOTR, Silm, et al), I can find different aspects of:
1: how a traditional fairy tale aught to be
2: how a fairy tale could and should be
3: what a fairy tale really is, once you strip it down to it's essence. No cultural stigmata, no yarn-spinning - just the original tale, as told by the players.

[Numenorean]

Lalwendë

I sometimes get the impression that there are two distinct histories of Elves, one which we can all read, the other never having been written down at all. On the one hand we have the Noldor, and those of the Teleri and Avari who chose (maybe?) to follow them. Then we also have the unwritten history of the Teleri and Avari who remained independent of the Eldar.

and

The Hobbit on the other hand is Bilbo's personal tale, and it is here that we see the Elves of Mirkwood acting in a sinister fashion, and the Elves of Rivendell having fun; maybe The Hobbit is the most 'unbiased' view of Elves that we have, being written by a Hobbit with no 'agenda'?

I really like those theories Lal, and to me at any rate they go a long way to explaining the differing realities and perceptions of Faerie that saturate through the Legendarium, or as Drigel succinctly states:

Considering the body of work (Legendarium, OFS, SoWM, LOTR, Silm, et al), I can find different aspects of:
1: how a traditional fairy tale aught to be
2: how a fairy tale could and should be
3: what a fairy tale really is, once you strip it down to it's essence. No cultural stigmata, no yarn-spinning - just the original tale, as told by the players.

Lalwendë

Perhaps in the case of LotR it is that the story cannot allow any room for traditional Faerie, it cannot allow for amoral behaviour?

Maybe because it deals with – amongst other themes - the ascendance of Mans Dominion over Arda? Moral ambiguity in the LoTR seems to be evident only when we are hearing of someone or something second or even thirdhand, notably the Rohirrims warped and superstitious viewpoint of Galadriel. They are deemed to be an honourable and ‘good hearted’ race, yet their fear and lack of comprehension as to what Galadriel is actually about is perhaps indicative of humankinds fading respect and understanding of Faerie as a whole.

On a bit(!) of a tangent:-
Davem

In Smith he seems almost to be going back to traditional Faerie - almost, but not quite ...*The chronology Tolkien constructed for the story has Smith born in the year 1063, discovering the Star in 1073, marrying Nell in 1091 & making his last journey into Faerie in 1120 - making him about 57. 'His long journeys in Faerie probably were undertaken mostly in the years between 1098 & 1108, & 1115-20

Davem, when I saw the above chronology I was struck by the curious and maybe deliberate coincidence of the Smith storyline intersecting with the arrival and ascendancy of the Normans in Britain from 1066 onwards. Was this a conscious motivation for Tolkien?
History records that their policies were harsh and oppressive upon the native Anglo-Saxons and Brits, and heralded the commencement of the grim ‘modernising’ feudal era. The Norman invasion and subsequent proliferation of their culture across the land can also be seen as a time when traditional Faerie waned. The mystery of the land was greatly lessened via Norman military conquests, power motivated projects such as Domesday and as a result of local administrative centres based in castles.
In short, the erosion of traditional Faerie was vast and in most places irredeemable, and where it even survived at all Faerie was pushed back to the deepest corners and forests of the land. JRRT was probably acutely aware of the crushing impact of Normanisation upon the previously rich tapestry of native British myths, legends and lore, and that leads me to believe that the Smith timeline is no mere coincidence, or perhaps it was…

[drigel]

JRRT was probably acutely aware of the crushing impact of Normanisation upon the previously rich tapestry of native British myths, legends and lore, and that leads me to believe that the Smith timeline is no mere coincidence, or perhaps it was…

Nice thoughts about folding in historical influences, Numeronean!

I think about macro timelines as well esp when considering the Catholic/Christian POV, and how it relates to the Great Defeat as well. How the view of our history being a "downhill slide" since Eden. That is pronounced esp when looking at Legendarium elvish history, although being apart from Ea, there is a high-to-low progression. Contrast that to standard scientific view of "its all uphill" since we arose from the slime....

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

Nice thoughts about folding in historical influences, Numeronean!

I think about macro timelines as well esp when considering the Catholic/Christian POV, and how it relates to the Great Defeat as well. How the view of our history being a "downhill slide" since Eden. That is pronounced esp when looking at Legendarium elvish history, although being apart from Ea, there is a high-to-low progression. Contrast that to standard scientific view of "its all uphill" since we arose from the slime....

In the Smith essay Tolkien refers to a 'reformation':

The Great Hall is evidently in a way an 'allegory' of the village church; the Master Cook with his house adjacent, and his office that is not hereditary, provides for its own instruction and succession but is not one of the 'secular' or profitable crafts, and yet is supported financially by the village, is plainly the Parson and the priesthood. 'Cooking' is a domestic affair practised by men and women: personal religion and prayer. The Master Cook presides over and provides for all the religious festivals of the year, and also for all the religious occasions that are not universal: births, marriages, and deaths. The Great Hall is however no longer painted or decorated. If antique carvings, whether grotesques like gargoyles, or beautiful and of religious import, are preserved at all it is by mere custom. The Hall is kept rainproof, weatherproof and warm: that is the prime object of any care spent on it. Festivals are mere public assemblies, for talk assisted by eating and drinking: there are no longer songs, music, or dances. The church has been 'reformed'. Memory survives of 'merrier' days, but most of the village would not approve of any revival of them. That a MC (Master Cook) should himself sing is regarded as out of accord with his office.

Perhaps Tolkien was not thinking so much of the Norman invasion as of the English Reformation & the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII. Under ther Protestant Reformers (& later under Cromwell & the Commonwealth) there were, to a great extent, 'no longer songs, music, or dances' - it was (as Flieger noted when she read the essay out at Birmingham) the end of 'Merrie England' - as much of a fantasy as that may have been.

In fact, this whole passage is clearly (if only on one level) an 'allegory' of the Reformation & the rise of Protestant England. That being the case, what are the 'Faeries' in Smith - not 'Angels or Messengers of God' says Tolkien, but it seems they may have had Catholic sympathies!

[littlemanpoet]

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 [=Imagination](lmp's italics)-of [1]awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; [2]a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and [3]a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' [as it represents Imagination]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.

I have bolded and italicized portions of this paragraph to highlight what I take to be the core meaning Tolkien is expressing, which seems to have been missed so far in the discussion.

Originally Posted by davem

It's interesting that he distinguishes 'this' 'Faery' in the way he does - because this distinction implies that there is another Faery - perhaps the Faery of tradition. What's also interesting is that he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life' as opposed to the Faerie of tradition - which he perhaps considered to be unnecessary - or perhaps even worse than unnecessary: truly 'dangerous' in a spiritual way? Who knows?

Let us distinguish with care: Tolkien is saying that Faery does not equal Imagination, but represents it. Is this nevertheless a modern notion? Surely the ancients thought Faery to be real rather than imagined, but is that saying something different? Nevertheless, how does Faery represent Imagination? According to the paragraph I've quoted first, Imagination (as represented by Faery) is the one thing in our (modern) lives that cannot be known, possessed, controlled. While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.

Originally Posted by davem

I think what particularly interests me is that Tolkien set SoWM in a very 'medieval' world, & in that period of our history Faeries/Fairies were generally feared & seen as malicious & dangerous...

Perhaps this has to do in part with Tolkien's claim in On Faery Stories that desirability is the key ingredient: I (personally) desire dragons (and faery) with a deep desire. That Tolkien set SoWM in a medieval Wootton may derive from that which his mental life was most taken up with. His linguistic studies were all pre-Renaissance, so maybe he was writing what he knew (and desired); I find it also interesting that a medieval village was his entry point to a fairy story rather than 1960's Oxford. I think it's important to reckon with Tolkien's insistence upon the Forest as opposed to the Chthonic Underground as his entrypoint into Fairy itself.

We do well to remember also that Tolkien is fleshing out the rationale for THIS particular story. The plot-problem he settles on is the growing vulgarization of Wootton Major, and the plot-solution is the help of Faery. Thus he has presented himself with a rationale problem: why would Faery bother to help Wootton Major out of its vulgarization? What possible answers avail themselves to this question? Tolkien hits upon love and self-interest, which two he sees as not mutually exclusive. I also note that Tolkien suggests to himself that there may have been relations between Elves and humans, resulting in certain unnamed "sanctions".

So here's a question with which we may attempt to second-guess Tolkien: what possible answers avail themselves to the question Tolkien found himself facing: What would motivate Faery to help Wootton Major out of its vulgarization, if not those which Tolkien hits upon?

Originally Posted by davem

*The chronology Tolkien constructed for the story has Smith born in the year 1063, discovering the Star in 1073, marrying Nell in 1091 & making his last journey into Faerie in 1120 - making him about 57. 'His long journeys in Faerie probably were undertaken mostly in the years between 1098 & 1108, & 1115-20.' ie he would have been 35-45 & 52-57 - coincidentally the ages Tolkien was when he did most of his major work on The Sil & LotR....

I also find it interesting how these dates correspond to the Norman Conquest. This is a tangent, but Tolkien could not have used these dates without an awareness of their import upon the three imaginary villages of the story. It could be said that his story had nothing to do with that conquest, but I find the dates peculiar nonetheless. Perhaps he found them necessary because of the state of technology he has set up. But I tend to agree that he is doing this on purpose as a conscious statement (at least to himself) in regard to the Normanization of England.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories) condemned the 'Flower Fairies' imagery for its falseness & 'Pigwiggenry', yet his own 'Elves' are just as 'false' a creation & no closer to genuine Elves & Fairies.

Hold on just a minute. I see why you say this, but in your revisionistic zeal I think you may be overlooking what Tolkien faced in the construction of his own Legendarium, for admittedly he DOES hit upon love of humans as the Fairy motivation, and it does carry through his entire ouvre. I submit that Tolkien's thesis, if you will, was (in part at least) that human myths have lost all memory of a former race of being that were Fairy, namely the highest of them, because these very beings have departed from the shores of our middle earth. Therefore, I submit to you that Tolkien was consciously writing a corrective to what he saw as a lack, and thus I find it ironic that here we are these many decades later claiming that Tolkien got it wrong because the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them. Additionally, I don't see that it's really necessary to presuppose a necessarily Catholic (let alone Christian) view in order to see this submitted thesis through. I'm thinking about Tolkien's motivation for writing, as presented in the Carpenter Biography and his Letters. He and his three friends were bound by a common love for things Northern, and for things Saxon (pre-Norman), and for Myth (what a powerful combination!). Add his love of Welsh (thus Celtic roots) to this, and his Atlantis dream, and there is plenty to work with absent any religious directedness other than theism.

If you don't accept that submission, perhaps you may accept that such beneficent Elves & Faeries were required for the stories he had chosen to write. As was his right. I think he would be surprised that his version of the beings would come to be thought of as "received doctrine". Be that as it may, Tolkien did set a paradigm; he also awakened interest and knowledge, such that we know the differences between fairies of antiquity (whether Alfar or Sidhe or yet another group), those of Victoriana, and Tolkien's. So I ask: is Tolkien's corrective (as I claim) worth consideration as such? Is it a valid addition to Faeriana? Tolkien's own answer to this question is clear enough, as one or more of you have reminded us from LotR, such as the Rohirrim attitude toward Galadriel.

Originally Posted by davem

maybe the exploration of death overrode everything else for Tolkien, to the extent that he was required to re-create the Elves in his own image, put them in the service of his story, effectively make them into 'symbols', even 'emasculate' them.

Perhaps the questions posed by Tolkien in the essay presented at T2005, were posed specifically about SoWM, but perhaps not. However, whereas death is clearly important to Tolkien, this Beneficent High Faery seems to be really rather important to him in its own right.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Maybe we ought not to look at Tolkien's Elves at all if we want to find any reflection of 'our' Faerie. They are altogether too perfect to be a representation of Faeries, too controlled and moral. Tolkien's Elves are more like Men, or rather, like idealised Men.

At first I agreed with this until I allowed myself to think that perhaps we need to pay attention to Tolkien's point, if it is indeed accurate as I have submitted it. Consider that Tolkien wished his critics, as regards to sex in his works, would "grow up". Tolkien's Elves are super-human; the successful marriage of earth and spirit, and thus attempting to attain unto something utterly foreign to the Sidhe, Alfar, or other such beings.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Tom Bombadil and Goldberry would be more appropriate as the King and Queen of Faerie than any Elf; they remain slightly enigmatic yet familiar, otherworldly, and unpredictable.

Yes. Tom and Goldberry always seemed like they belonged in Middle Earth more than the Elves could.
Which now seems interesting in terms of my little submitted thesis. Should I start a new thread?

Originally Posted by davem

Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants? For all our discussions here, I don't think we've yet got the heart of the matter - why did he change the traditional Elves & Fairies to the extent that he did & more importantly perhaps why did he make out that he hadn't changed them at all?

I hope I've helped to approach the heart of the matter. Let me know what you think.

It seems that we are treating the Legendarium and the essays, as the "Gospel of Faery According to Tolkien", as it were. Granted, the "On Fairy Stories" and other essays do lend persuasiveness to do so, but maybe we would do well to back off of that and remember that these are Tolkien's fallible views, and his works fallible works. Perhaps that goes without saying, but there does seem to be an underlying need to "dethrone the author from his high place", which wouldn't seem so needful if we hadn't mistakenly (and unintentionally) put him there in the first place; I doubt he wanted or sought it.

Originally Posted by davem

Hmm... Well, to some people - the rural Irish (up to & including in this century) they were real beings - a 'real & present danger'. As they were (& still are) to some Icelanders. And to rural peoples everywhere.

Except in in the U.S., where the new bugaboo in rural areas appears to be Harry Potter books and the like; but that's fodder for another thread.

Originally Posted by davem

We seem to see in Tolkien a conflicted artist - 'torn in two'. Part of him is pulled towards the traditional Faery, part towards his religion & its requirements & values.

I don't see it this way now that I've thought about it. I think that he wanted to correct some misconceptions abour Faery as he saw them, and loved that which is contained by Faery as well. Faery is a big place, and I don't see such a thesis/antithesis problem in this.

Originally Posted by davem

My point here being, it seems that in TH, which was originally not meant to be part of the Legendarium Tolkien felt able to set the Fairies free to be themselves. It was only the Legendarium Elves that were required to 'work for a living' & earn their bread.....

This is one way in which I like TH better than LotR, treasonous as that may be. The Legendarium is thus a two-edged sword, used by Tolkien to carry his theme of the existence of the forgotten High Elves. Tolkien's Elves are a very refined type of being, whereas the Fairies of SoWM are not so minutely defined; and remain mysterious. I was going to say that this is part of why SoWM has a greater appeal to me than anything else Tolkien wrote, but I think it may have more to do with Tolkien being at his maturest and ablest in storytelling by this point in his life. That Wootton is medieval also adds to that appeal, for me, although Tolkien apparently chose that particular date-set for reasons having directly to do with the story he wished to tell. (In that regard, the pictures by Pauline Baynes, which accompanied the original publication, have a striking resemblance to the stained glass windows in York Minster; I was stunned by the similarity, as if she had sat in the pews in the nave and copied the style from some of the stained glass in the southern aisle of the nave. Sorry about the tangent) That there is a whole backstory shows how Tolkien's practice at writing had matured him into a full-fledged writer/artist by the 60s. Backstories are the kind of thing writers do in order to make their story more real to themselves. It's tough work. Here he is doing it, and still making the story itself exquisite in its seeming simplicity.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that the Faerie of SoWM quite literally is Tolkien's Faerie, but that's because Tolkien seems to have had a particular notion of what faerie was/is. I think that his Faerie, rather than being an Otherworld place was in fact the imagination, the realm within people. The star in SoWM could represent the imagination and the passing on of this could represent the encouragement of further generations to explore the Faerie within.

This seems to run slightly counter to Tolkien's statement:

The King ... devised the token or insigne of the silver star, devised it or revived it. His own insigne was a brilliant star upon the forehead. The token was a very small representation of this. Those who wore it were thus accredited (as if they were stamped with a crown and OHMS!) and received the guidance and guard of all Elvenfolk, as being in the King's service or in his favour. But it remained the King's property, and was not transferable, nor heritable

Thus the star Smith wore on his forehead was a symbol of the authority of the King of Faery within Faery, a passport as it were.

I don't know that Faerie itself would have no respect for such a notion as Art. Much of the point of SoWM seems to be that Faery does indeed care deeply about human Art. But of course now we run into the issue of "your Faery or my Faery?" Still, if we're discussing Tolkien's conception of Faery, we ought to at least give it its head insofar as it's Tolkien's story and theme, and see if his point is not valid.


On Other stuff from the essay:

Also he intended to make a very long stay in Wootton including in his plans the making of at least two Great Cakes, which would be memorable, and leaving behind a tradition of a long 'reign' of light colour and mirth, as well as culinary excellence, together with the rumour that this was due to a beneficent intrusion from Faery. It was therefore necessary to allow time for him to appear to age in human fashion at an at least credible rate.

This seems odd to me. There was in fact little hint of a rumour, except perhaps in the family of Smith. So rather than allowing for a rumour, it seems that Alf's slow aging was meant to quiet any rumour of help from Faery. Or am I missing something?

Another question I have that didn't seem to bother Tolkien was, why is Ned dependent upon his father? Why can he not go to Outer Faery? He is, after all, descended from Rider, and from Rose of Walton. How is he "one precisely of the practical and plain normal men and workers whose enlightenment and vivification was one of the objects of the King's plan"?

[HerenIstarion]

Perhaps I'll be giving discussion turn off the main course, but since we do not have other active threads on Smith going right now, I feel the turn may be justified

In the text itself (not an essay), there are two types of Evil in the Faery itself - Greater Evil (or Evils) and Lesser Evil. The latter is defied by the Star, and from the Greater Smith is guarded (by the Queen?)

It is not explained what are those Evils. Now, vague impression I have that Lesser is Vanity, and gifted person is rarely vain, but the Greater should be Pride/Arrogance, and here gifted person is in greater peril. Yes? No?

I'm not going to elaborate further, at the very least bacause I'm not sure what else may I add. Imagine me standing by the pot and adding just another spice to the 'boiling soup' of your debate here.

[littlemanpoet]

Huh. I had always thought of those lesser and greater evils as, say, hobgoblins and dragons, respectively. But you may have something there. Hmm....

[davem]

I want to reply to LMP properly later, but just for now

Originally Posted by H-I

It is not explained what are those Evils. Now, vague impression I have that Lesser is Vanity, and gifted person is rarely vain, but the Greater should be Pride/Arrogance, and here gifted person is in greater peril. Yes? No?

What interested me in this comment was that it interprets the evils allegorically - which, given Tolkien's clear statement in the LotR foreword, Tolkien 'cordially disliked'. But in the Smith essay he writes:

The Great Hall is evidently in a way an 'allegory' of the village church;

So he acknowledges that allegory may well be present. So, did he consciously write it as an allegory, or did he only realise he'd written an allegory 'after the fact'?

[littlemanpoet]

My hunch would be that, given all the backstory, he was aware of how the Great Hall replaced the Church in his village, from early on though not before he started it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Let us distinguish with care: Tolkien is saying that Faery does not equal Imagination, but represents it. Is this nevertheless a modern notion? Surely the ancients thought Faery to be real rather than imagined, but is that saying something different? Nevertheless, how does Faery represent Imagination? According to the paragraph I've quoted first, Imagination (as represented by Faery) is the one thing in our (modern) lives that cannot be known, possessed, controlled. While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.

Who's imagination, though? Is this Faerie as the human imagination, or as the Imagination of the Deity? Maybe even the imagination of the earth itself (why not - if Tom can be the spirit of the countryside?) Faerie as the imagination of the earth strikes me as a distinct possibility, if Men are turning away from the earth & towards technology. Faeries would be the spirits of the earth attempting to awaken Men from their mechanistic 'dream' to reality once more. But I think this asks deeper questions about our relationship with the earth itself. If the Fairies of tradition are antagonistic to Men have we given them reason. Was there a time when we were in harmony with the earth - or sufficiently so that the Faeries more like Tolkien's Elves (or like some of them at least)? If so, then SoWM might represent the 'middle' period, when Faeries sought to bring us back to that harmonious relationship, & the traditional accounts our current state - we have rejected them with contempt, they respond in kind.

I see why you say this, but in your revisionistic zeal I think you may be overlooking what Tolkien faced in the construction of his own Legendarium, for admittedly he DOES hit upon love of humans as the Fairy motivation, and it does carry through his entire ouvre. I submit that Tolkien's thesis, if you will, was (in part at least) that human myths have lost all memory of a former race of being that were Fairy, namely the highest of them, because these very beings have departed from the shores of our middle earth. Therefore, I submit to you that Tolkien was consciously writing a corrective to what he saw as a lack, and thus I find it ironic that here we are these many decades later claiming that Tolkien got it wrong because the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them.

Well, Tolkien invented this concept of Faeries having left these shores & their true nature having been forgotten. If there is such a 'lack' it is a consequence of his own belief/theory/invention. My question is, why invent such a thing? Is this 'lack' universally felt, or was it only felt by Tolkien himself? Well, no longer. We all feel that 'lack' (those of us who respond to his works, that is) but would we have felt it if he hadn't written his Legendarium? Has he actually made us feel the lack of something which we wouldn't have missed otherwise? My point is that we don't find Faeries/Faerie represented/representing in that way prior to him, but he claims in OFS that we did. The whole point is that ' the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

So I ask: is Tolkien's corrective (as I claim) worth consideration as such? Is it a valid addition to Faeriana?

Is Faerie a 'real' place. or simply a construct of the Human imagination. If it is the former, then one cannot simply 'add' things to it which become accepted on equal terms with what already exists there. One can only so that if it is 'merely' a human construct. If we could add things to it it would be our subject to manipulate & control, to use as we will.

On 'Allegory'

My hunch would be that, given all the backstory, he was aware of how the Great Hall replaced the Church in his village, from early on though not before he started it.

The reason I think his acceptance of 'allegory' in Smith is interesting is that every single time an allegorical interpretation of any of Tolkien's works is brought up those lones from the Introduction to LotR are brought up. I know very well that if I, or anyone else, had suggested that the Great Hall in SoWM was an allegory of the Church, the response would have been one of absolute rejection of the idea, because 'Tolkien disliked alllegory'.

But if Tolkien could write Smith as a 'Fairy story' & later 'discover' an allegorical dimension to it (after dismissing other people's allegorical interpretations: cf his appreciation of Roger Lancelyn Green's statement that to look for an allegorical meaning in Smith was like cutting open the ball to look for its 'bounce') then can we so easily rule out allegory in his other works? Whatever the answer to that question we now have to accept that Tolkien didn't find allegory as distasteful as he makes out in the LotR Foreword.

[littlemanpoet]

Um, you do really believe there are Faeries, I take it.

Okay.

I admit to having played with the notion in days gone by, but never gave it actual credence, as such.

Such a belief most definitely will affect how one views Tolkien's work. It would, I suppose, be on a par with, in my case, someone, say, a J.R.R. Van Essendelft, writing an entire Legendarium that adds to the New Testament in ways that are not exactly according to accepted doctrine, but actually beautifies it in profound (and therefore) troubling ways. Is this how you see Tolkien?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

The reason I think his acceptance of 'allegory' in Smith is interesting is that every single time an allegorical interpretation of any of Tolkien's works is brought up those lones from the Introduction to LotR are brought up. I know very well that if I, or anyone else, had suggested that the Great Hall in SoWM was an allegory of the Church, the response would have been one of absolute rejection of the idea, because 'Tolkien disliked alllegory'.

But if Tolkien could write Smith as a 'Fairy story' & later 'discover' an allegorical dimension to it (after dismissing other people's allegorical interpretations: cf his appreciation of Roger Lancelyn Green's statement that to look for an allegorical meaning in Smith was like cutting open the ball to look for its 'bounce') then can we so easily rule out allegory in his other works? Whatever the answer to that question we now have to accept that Tolkien didn't find allegory as distasteful as he makes out in the LotR Foreword.[/quote]

Perhaps it would be better to leave the LotR Foreword to the LotR. Whether or not Tolkien disliked allegory is up for debate, but disliking something does not automatically mean that one will not write it.

The thing here is that people seem to think that what allies to the LotR applies to SoWM- which is not necessarily the case. For all that Tolkien was renowned for his literary works getting sucked into the Legendarium, that does not mean that this is necessarily the case. In particular, I am thinking with regards to allegory. Allegory is a good deal easier to insert into a story without a ruining it when the story is short, because a short story is a good deal simpler than a complex, longer one. If allegory is purposefully inserted into a grand epic, it twists the epic and does not allow for the complex story to take its course and become a STORY, first and foremost. On the other hand, a short story can be entirely based around an allegorical idea while NOT ruining the experience as a story. Or so I view.

My point, distilled, is that there is no reason on earth that Tolkien's statement in the Foreword to the Lord of the Rings should be taken as applicable to Smith of Wooton Major. There is no obvious, overt, link other than the author, and that does not necessitate the transferral of the Foreword's statements.

[littlemanpoet]

...and to the Imagination, for which it stands.

...to bowdlerize a certain dearly loved (by some) bit of verbage...

It would seem that belief-set does after all underlie our discussion (now that I am over the initial shock of discovering what seems to be the truly held belief of some BDrs). I think that Tolkien wished that Faery was real, but believed that it was at least true (this is also my own belief). My sense from OFS and the essay you so kindly passed on, davem, is that Tolkien believed in the power of the Imagination.

If there have ever been spirits or beings associated with lakes, hillocks, streams, woods, copses, mountains and the like, for someone with my personal belief-set (and I am with Tolkien here), these beings must and will stand in some sort of relationship with the First Cause, Who (in the belief-set I share with Tolkien) is a Person. According to this belief-set, this Person created an Eden in which all creation was at one harmony; that is to say, if there was a Faery, it had its place in Eden, and it was the onset of Evil in Eden that splintered the unities into all their fractious parts. I can see how Tolkien, loving Faery and Myth, allegiant to one particular Myth that he believed to be True, would see a lack, and needed to write about it. That's the way it looks to me.

Perhaps Tolkien found himself in a strange half-belief that I often find myself in. I wish that Faery was real, and at least want it to be, and sometimes I half-believe that it is. Then my belief-set re-establishes itself, and I wonder what I do really believe about Faery, and how it might fit into my belief-set, if that's possible. Hmmmm.....

Originally Posted by davem

My point is that we don't find Faeries/Faerie represented/representing in that way prior to him, but he claims in OFS that we did. The whole point is that ' the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

I apologize for my denseness, but could you kindly provide the quote you are referring to? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Um, you do really believe there are Faeries, I take it.

I've met some.

I apologize for my denseness, but could you kindly provide the quote you are referring to? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

I was generalising based on the essay as a whole. Tolkien, in my reading, was attempting to show that fairystory works on us in the same way as the Christian story - but not to the same depth or extent - sorry I'm struggling here to say what I want to. Tolkien states in OFS that fairystory provides, at its best a glimpse beyond the walls of the world, of Evangelium. Tolkien implies that is, if not its purpose, then certianly its effect.

I don't think this is the case in traditional fairystories - what they actually do is give us a glimpse of the world as it is - which is something Tolkien also says is the purpose of fairystories - but that, for me, is as far as it goes - a glimpse beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief? I can't think of one that does that - not even the Black Bull of Norroway, which Tolkien cites as evidence of his theory.

Now, Tolkien's Legendarium (LotR in particular) does provide that glimpse beyond the walls of the world. Smith does not. SoWM is a story set firmly within the circles of the natural world - Heaven doesn't come into it.

Certainly fairystories provide a glimpse of something beyond the man-made, & maybe that's what Tolkien meant, but I think not, because he brings in Christianity, & the existence of a 'World' beyond this world. In SoWM Faery & the Human world co-exist within the circles of the world & there is not a trace of Evangelium.

What Tolkien has done in OFS is to 'Christianise' fairystory & then claim it was 'Christian' all along. Smith is a step away from that, back to what Faery had been, but the Faery of Smith is still not the Fairie of tradition, & my question is why did he want to convince us it was?

You see, I'm not criticising what Tolkien actually produced, or the value of his theories, only asking about his reasons for setting himself up as a 'champion of Faery' when he was really only championing his own take on it?

[drigel]

What Tolkien has done in OFS is to 'Christianise' fairystory & then claim it was 'Christian' all along. Smith is a step away from that, back to what Faery had been, but the Faery of Smith is still not the Fairie of tradition, & my question is why did he want to convince us it was?

Was it to convince us, or to show us an example of an historical authenticity? I lean towards the former... but why?

edit:

I've met some.

come on Davem - give

[davem]

come on Davem - give

One was about five feet tall & stepped out (literally) of a silver birch, the other was about six feet tall, dressed in black & silver-grey carrying a longbow. I was sitting in a copse of trees & my sense was that he was a 'guardian' or protector of the place.

And while some may think I was hallucinating (or drunk) you'll find this kind of experience regularly reported in many parts of the world.

And I don't care if anyone believes me or not

[drigel]

not once but twice
outstanding!

[littlemanpoet]

Sets my skin a-tingling.

[littlemanpoet]

davem, this discussion has been on my mind since the last post was placed here. Your basic question seems to still have been unanswered to your satisfaction. I'm not sure that it can be.

I personally do not doubt the veracity of your experience. You see, I don't want to. Which leads me to the inevitable (for me) question that must plague the mind of someone who is a modern Christian (not post-modern, an orthodox believer): if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

How does one come to perceive them? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life...

Originally Posted by davem

...he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary...

I wonder if he meant that it was necessary to him? Though I must admit that it's necessary to me; it certainly seems that way.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all.

How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

Originally Posted by LMP

While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.

Originally Posted by davem

Who's imagination, though? Is this Faerie as the human imagination, or as the Imagination of the Deity? Maybe even the imagination of the earth itself (why not - if Tom can be the spirit of the countryside?)

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

Originally Posted by davem

Was there a time when we were in harmony with the earth - or sufficiently so that the Faeries more like Tolkien's Elves (or like some of them at least)? If so, then SoWM might represent the 'middle' period, when Faeries sought to bring us back to that harmonious relationship, & the traditional accounts our current state - we have rejected them with contempt, they respond in kind.

This seems as right and true as we can possibly hope to be.

Originally Posted by davem

My question is, why invent such a thing? Is this 'lack' universally felt, or was it only felt by Tolkien himself? Well, no longer. We all feel that 'lack' (those of us who respond to his works, that is) but would we have felt it if he hadn't written his Legendarium? Has he actually made us feel the lack of something which we wouldn't have missed otherwise?

An orthodox Christian who loves faery would say that this lack is real, and that even if it isn't felt, it should be. This is because we were closer to, and are now disconnected from, nature (you know, I dislike that word as a too handy catch-all that loses much in the short-hand).

Originally Posted by davem

The whole point is that 'the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

If by 'very thing' we're talking about the presence of beneficent Elves in Tolkien's Legendarium, where in OFS does Tolkien say that? Isn't Tolkien saying that the seminal difference in fairy-story is eucatastrohpe, rather than the presence of high elves?

Originally Posted by davem

Is Faerie a 'real' place. or simply a construct of the Human imagination. If it is the former, then one cannot simply 'add' things to it which become accepted on equal terms with what already exists there. One can only so that if it is 'merely' a human construct.

Using this argument, we may not write historical novels either. Wouldn't you say that the literature about something, as opposed to the reality of it, is by necessity two different things, especially in terms of those things that remain most steeped in mystery? Also, what do you make of Tolkien 'finding out' what happened? From what did this inspiration derive? Was it his own imaginative power alone? Or was he receiving inspiration from outside himself? In the end, he didn't think it all came from within his own head. Where then?

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.

The underlined bolded text appears to me to be what, to Tolkien, Faery represents, whether Faery is real or not. Its reality appears to be of secondary importance to him, at least in terms of the story he is writing. If that is offensive to you, or at least objectionable, that's understandable. However, taken on its own terms, for the sake of the story, it seems to achieve the author's desired ends. Thus Tolkien's elves (in SoWM) must be definition love humans unpossessively, because they are other, just as are all creatures.

Lastly (long post again, sorry), I'm not really trying to give what I consider final answers because, obviously, I don't know them. It's all mystery. Who can know what Faery really is, without having been there? Who can know what Tolkien really thought without being Tolkien (or God)? I'm interested in a continued discussion, more to search things out than to arrive at any definites, which I think is frankly impossible.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'. Tolkien clearly sees some such role for them, some part to play in the 'saving' of Humanity - if not from 'Hell' at least from the Machine - & in awakening us to seeing the world as we were meant to see it. But did our ancestors see that as their role & purpose? They were just there, like trees, stars & sunsets - & one could ask what are the 'roles' of those things?

How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story - or if you like the human imagination? You say:

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments.

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - Thomas of Eceldoune was a real person who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce & William Wallace, & who, as a result of an encounter/initiation by the Fairy Queen, became a prophet (or, poetically, was given by Her the gift of The Tongue that Cannot Lie). Many of his predictions came true & its said that he didn't die but passed into Faery & lives there to this day.

In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour......

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'.

No, but bear with me: by 'place' within creation I'm speaking as one who believes that there is an entity that did create all there is; to assume that faery has to have a place in human salvific history is presumptuous, as if all creation has to be involved in that particularly human story.

On the other hand, since (at least to Christians) the salvific story is the all important human story, and human story written about faery will probably (not inevitably I suppose) have that element in it, because (as Tolkien says) human faery stories are about humans in faery. I hope that made sense.

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story) - or if you like the human imagination? . . . The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda

Again, I think that he did not believe faery to be objectively real (i.e., primary belief). However, he achieved secondary belief in faery for the sake of his story so that he could write it in such a way that others could do the same.

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments.

I guess the phrase I meant, and could not think of at the time of writing, was "take exception to".

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - ... In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Into the church? Yes, I guess that's possible. But now I'm intrigued with the notion that there could be a faery that, its story/history not being human, the salvific story has nothing to do with faery, nor faery with it. Which reminds me of C.S. Lewis's idea that there are many Edens in the universe; but that's not a direct parallel, because the idea of Eden seems to necessitate a story of a temptation if not a fall. Being the believer I am, however, I can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour......

Serves us right, eh?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Again, I think that he did not believe faery to be objectively real (i.e., primary belief). However, he achieved secondary belief in faery for the sake of his story so that he could write it in such a way that others could do the same.

Being the believer I am, however, I can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.

Spot the difference? You say Tolkien didn't believe Faery to be objectively real - you, however, 'can't (and don't want to) get away from the idea that even faeries have at least the relation to a Creator of having been, well, created.' You seem to suggest that Tolkien saw Faery as another term for the human imagination & didn't believe it to have any existence beyond that - hence Faeries are created by humans & have only 'secondary' existence. You, however, want to think of Faeries as being created by God & therefore as having 'primary' existence.

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

Thanks heaps for the next conundrum. I'll have to think on this.

I'm still hoping for at least an attempt at an answer to my battery of questions:

Originally Posted by me

How does one come to perceive faeries? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

How does one come to perceive faeries? Does one need to believe, first? Does one need to want them to be real in order to perceive them? Does one have to be born on English soil in order to perceive English faeries? Does one have to be relatively close to nature; that is, having a nature loving mindset as opposed to utilitarian? Does oen need to have Celtic blood flowing through one's veins? And finally, did Tolkien ask these questions?

While I'm not going to try and write "Faerie spotting for dummies" - I can tell you that your questions kind of answer themselves in the main. I think that you would stand more chance of seeing some if you wanted to see some, and you would have to possess the right kind of mindset, i.e. it might be more difficult if you wree a dyed-in-the-wool cynic! But you would not have to be either in England or to be English or British to see them; faeries are found in many cultures, they just go by different names.

I am sure many see them and do not know what they have seen. I happen to think that alien sightings are more likely to be sightings of faeries; our culture has replaced tales of faerie abductions with tales of alien abductions as we have moved out of our rural lifestyles and into the world of possibility that the space age offers. I also think, in regard to aliens, that if there were any then they would have been here by now and taken us over (who knows, maybe they have, I might be in the Matrix or something now ) - history shows that more 'advanced' cultures are never kind to the cultures they 'discover'. Those little green men are more likely to be faeries. So, knowing what you might see when you leave yourself open to Faerie is always helpful.

I have a boggart in the house - though many might not know what they had seen. When I saw a little wizened figure crouching near the ceiling before dropping down and scuttling away I knew what he was because we had them about when I was a child. Now I've seen him a few times around the house.

I wish I could explain ghosts so easily.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

One was about five feet tall & stepped out (literally) of a silver birch, the other was about six feet tall, dressed in black & silver-grey carrying a longbow. I was sitting in a copse of trees & my sense was that he was a 'guardian' or protector of the place.

Do you think.......were they the 'spirits' of the tree(s) they came out of? Or were the trees 'gateways' into Faery? Or is Faery not a different dimension, it's just that we mostly can't see it?

Also, is there good and evil in Faery, or is that something human story-telling brought into it that doesn't belong? Corollary: are there dragons, trolls, goblins, and other such in Faery, or is that something from Nordic myth that doesn't belong?

How did Feary get all wound up with Myth? Or are they one and the same.

I s'pose we can't be as scientific about this as these questions sound, but the questions are in my head, so why not ask 'em here? I can't think of a better place.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Do you think.......were they the 'spirits' of the tree(s) they came out of? Or were the trees 'gateways' into Faery? Or is Faery not a different dimension, it's just that we mostly can't see it?

Also, is there good and evil in Faery, or is that something human story-telling brought into it that doesn't belong? Corollary: are there dragons, trolls, goblins, and other such in Faery, or is that something from Nordic myth that doesn't belong?

How did Feary get all wound up with Myth? Or are they one and the same.

I s'pose we can't be as scientific about this as these questions sound, but the questions are in my head, so why not ask 'em here? I can't think of a better place.

In short, I don't know.I go with the 'gateways' theory myself. Faery, for me, 'underlies' the world we experience with our physical senses, it is the 'archetype', the perfect 'unfallen' world from which this one devolved. I often sense myself surrounded by trees - even in cities - for instance.

Faery is the realm of the imagination - but not the human imagination.

But this is straying off topic.....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

But this is straying off topic....

Since when has that stopped you?

Originally Posted by davem

The question, perhaps, is which did Tolkien set out to do - 'baptise' Faery, or 'baptise' the human imagination?

(Oh, of course, the other question is, did he succeed in whichever he set out to do?)

I think, the human imagination. How could he do that to Faery? He only was a type of Smith, just like the rest of us, and made beautiful things in his smithy, greatly influenced by Faery.

Originally Posted by davem

Faery, for me, 'underlies' the world we experience with our physical senses, it is the 'archetype', the perfect 'unfallen' world from which this one devolved.

That makes it synonymous with Eden for me, but I suppose that's just one of many myths with a once-upon-a-time unfallenness. But your view of Faery seems a tad idealized to me.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

In short, I don't know.I go with the 'gateways' theory myself. Faery, for me, 'underlies' the world we experience with our physical senses, it is the 'archetype', the perfect 'unfallen' world from which this one devolved. . . .

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That makes it synonymous with Eden for me, but I suppose that's just one of many myths with a once-upon-a-time unfallenness. But your view of Faery seems a tad idealized to me.

So it seems to me also, lmp, very idealised. However, I would ask davem just what he means by "perfect 'unfallen' world". As he has pointed out, many of the original 'fairies' are contemptuous, cruel and malicious and it is Tolkien who sanitizes them. (See his first post in this thread.) Perhaps davem could clarify what he means by this unfallenness.

[davem]

That makes it synonymous with Eden for me, but I suppose that's just one of many myths with a once-upon-a-time unfallenness. But your view of Faery seems a tad idealized to me.

Originally Posted by Bb

So it seems to me also, lmp, very idealised. However, I would ask davem just what he means by "perfect 'unfallen' world". As he has pointed out, many of the original 'fairies' are contemptuous, cruel and malicious and it is Tolkien who sanitizes them. (See his first post in this thread.) Perhaps davem could clarify what he means by this unfallenness.

'Fallen' away from its archetypal state. My problem is that you're both asking me to explain my experiences - I can't - I can only theorise about them & my theories may be wrong.

I feel that Faeries are 'children' of the earth & that Faery is not the human imagination but the imagination of the earth itself. I also feel that Tolkien spoke quite literally when he stated that the 'Secret Fire' was sent to dwell at the heart of the world, & that this is a 'spiritual' (ie conscious) fire & is the life & soul of the earth itself. If it has life & soul it seems reasonable to conjecture that it has imagination as well.

As for the traditional antagonism of the Fairy races to the human, I suspect that can be accounted for by our own antagonism towards the earth. As the 'primary' races of the Archetypal (Fairies) & devolved (Human) worlds, our task is perhaps to find a way to re-establish the harmony that once existed - perhaps that original harmony was what Tolkien was describing in his mythology. The two worlds are 'out of synch' & that may be the explanation for the disharmony.

Or I could be completely wrong - as I say, I'm attempting to construct an explanation for something that happened to me.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I feel that Faeries are 'children' of the earth & that Faery is not the human imagination but the imagination of the earth itself. I also feel that Tolkien spoke quite literally when he stated that the 'Secret Fire' was sent to dwell at the heart of the world, & that this is a 'spiritual' (ie conscious) fire & is the life & soul of the earth itself. If it has life & soul it seems reasonable to conjecture that it has imagination as well.

I resonate with this more than you might expect. It falls in line with something I mentioned earlier on another thread: "mountains aren't rock, that's just what they're made of"; just so, the earth may be more than its inanimate elements. There's so much we don't perceive; a blind man can't prove the existence of green.