[davem]

Aiwendil

I don't think we can ask 'how much longer could Smith be before it became dreadfully boring?'

Because SoWM is complete as it is. It isn't an edited down version of a longer story. Its rather like asking how much bigger a canvas could Leonardo have used for the Mona Lisa, how much more of the landscape could he have painted before the central figure lost its impact?

The objective existence in some form of Faerie is the issue at the heart of this discussion in some ways. What do we mean by 'objective' in this sense. Faerie is not a 'place' with a geographical location, or even a definite psychological one.

In the Beowulf essay Tolkien gives his reason for Beowulf's last fight being with a Dragon, not a human foe. The Dragon in the story is both a 'real' physical threat, & a 'symbol' of something else - of 'Death'. Its supernatural or mythical nature means it is more than a physical enemy. So, it represents the threat of death & the idea, the 'archetype' of Death. So the poet is presenting us with an old man going to face his own death in battle with a physical threat, & at the same time, with 'Man' facing the inevitability of 'Death'. One overlays or underlies the other. But they are two things - subjective, Beowulf confronts the Dragon, & objective, 'Man' confronts 'Death'.

In The Fall of Gondolin Tolkien is doing the same thing. Subjectively it is the Somme, Objectively it is 'War'. The battle of Beowulf with the Dragon allows the poet to explore the 'Archetypal' confrontation with Death. FoG allows Tolkien to explore the Archetype of War. Yet once he begins this 'exploration' he crosses over into 'Faerie' & possibly finds more than he was looking for. Through the horrors of the Somme he finds a way into Faerie, & he provides a way for us to follow.

So these 'Archetypal' (not used in the strictly Jungian sense) realities are 'facts' of human experience - as are birth, love, sacrifice, etc. Tolkien sees the Somme through 'enchanted eyes', & is able to see into the underlying reality of Human existence. We could argue that the 'general' in this sense is 'truer' than the specific - because the fight with the Dragon is only one way to present the confrontation with Death, but we will all face Death. And we will have to face it in our own way.

The secondary world, of story, myth - Faerie - goes on forever, & obeys its own laws, has its own meaning, which affects us, but is not 'for' us. We experience these underlying facts through 'story', by entering into the secondary world, but the story, the underlying facts of human life carries on, whether we know the story or not. So Faerie is 'objectively' real. The individual stories are not literally true - Middle Earth exists only in our imaginations, but what it refers to, wat it points us towards, is an objective 'reality', which was around before we appeared on this planet, & will be around long after we 'pass beyond the circles of the world'.

This in no way requires us to believe in God, an afterlife, or anything at all 'supernatural'. We will die in the end, whether we go on to anything else or not. But Faerie is more 'real' than we are, because it is the Human story, which will go on as long as there are humans, while we are only around temporarily - in this world at least.

When you say 'The primary purpose of fantasy is not to provide a window to Faerie; rather, the purpose of Faerie is to provide a kind of power to fantasy.'

I'm not sure. Faerie has no 'purpose' at all - if by that you mean that its simply 'for' us, to provide raw material for the primary world enterprise of making up stories. We can, of course, tell stories about Faerie, but to say that's all its for is like saying that Death only exists to provide us with dramatic incidents for our fictional dramas. For me it would seem to be the other way around. Death is an inescapable 'fact', & that's why we include it in our stories.

So, (quote) 'And how many works like Smith could one tolerate before one hungered for a book in which something actually happens?

To be honest, while I did enjoy Smith, it is far from my favorite work by Tolkien. I much prefer Giles. To me, the chief value of Smith seemed to lie in its consideration of Faerie as such, sort of as a meta-fantasy or disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.'

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith - which is not to say those happenings are 'for' anything - not in the primary world, but they don't have to be - why should they be. Faery doesn't exist only for Smith, or the inhabitants of Wooton Major, or even for ourselves reading the story. They simply 'happen', & we are told about them, & we can apply what we learn from thinking about them, if we choose to thiink about them, or desire to 'learn' anything - which is far from the point of Faerie, which doesn't exist to 'teach' us anything.

To call it 'a disguised piece of literary theory more than as a work of fiction in its own right.' is to miss the point - what is Tolkien the 'literary theorist' telling us through the events Smith witnesses - The Birch, the arrival of the Elven Mariners, the Faery Queen dancing with her maidens? I'm the exact opposite as regards Smith - from the first time I read it I was deeply moved - especially as I read an edition which included Pauline Baynes's illustrations. I've only been as powerfully struck by the evocation of Faerie twice - when I first read The Hobbit, & when I read the Cottage of Lost Play.