[HerenIstarion]

Absolute Truth re:

Mere logic. Suppose I present you with two statements:

1. To rob is good
2. To rob is bad

How do you judge the truth of each statement? You may say you measure it against the public consensus on the subject. But that is halfway only – where did such a consensus came from? It may be argued that it originated back in prehistorical time as thing good for society and coming from herd instinct. But why each individual robber should prefer good of society over his personal good he may obtain by robbing some other member of said society? In case the latter originates from instinct of self-preservation? When judging to rob or not to rob, even if both originate from instincts, the person making the choice is appying some standard, against which he measures the 'rightness', or 'truthfulness' of his immediate action. But the thing against which some other thing is measured, is bound to be something else. Further it may be argued, since the differences of such a standard are very minor from society to society, it is universal. I profess I hold it comes from God, and is Absolute Truth but I do not object to it being called Primeval Archetype too. But now I seemingly start to pass beyond Tolkien discussion.

Now, being non-religious, I obviously disagree with both of these claims.

My apologies for sounding like forcing religion on you. I did not intend to preach. And thanks Lord of Angmar for washing me clean of inquisitor's name . This being Tolkien discussion thread, I'd rather come back and stay inside boundaries of Eruism indeed, whatever my personal views on the subject.

1. the "Faerie" element that we detect in fantasy is in fact a reflection or image of God/heaven/"Truth" or 2. the first claim is true and, additionally, to achieve such an image is the primary purpose of fantasy.

Clause 1 re: Both yes and no, it depends (I will explain myself below)
Clause 2 re: Both yes and no - the primary purpose is the imitation of the Creator and application of one's inherent, innate subcreative ability, i.e. applying one's likeness as well. Reflecting of an Image may be the purpose only conciously - i.e. when the author intends to do so. Otherwise glimpses are accidental.

But, unless I sound preaching on you again, I would make a reservation pointing out that here (I believe) I'm more or less recounting Tolkien's beliefs and intentions (thus bringing us back to canonicity of the intentions vs published text issue). So:

On Fairy Stories

Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: “inner consistency of reality,” it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the ”joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a “consolation” for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, “Is it true?” The answer to this question that I gave at first was (quite rightly): “If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.” That is enough for the artist (or the artist part of the artist). But in the “eucatastrophe” we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater—it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world The use of this word gives a hint of my epilogue. It is a serious and dangerous matter. It is presumptuous of me to touch upon such a theme; but if by grace what I say has in any respect any validity, it is, of course, only one facet of a truth incalculably rich: finite only because the capacity of Man for whom this was done is finite.
I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.

[italic emphasis Tolkien's, bold emphasis mine]

and

Mythopoeia


The heart of man is not compound of lies,
but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,
and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,
man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.
Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,
and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned,
his world-dominion by creative act:
not his to worship the great Artefact.
man, sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which were made

* * *

In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day-illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All.

emphases mine

So, the fairy element may be well reflection, and may be not, it depends on authors intentions. But even if authors intentions were far from reflecting anything, it may nevertheless reflect something accidentaly. That's were interpretations come in. But, though I agree with:

If the story cannot stand on its own to uphold the values that the author tried to imbue it with, then it should be open to any interpretation the reader reasonably sees in the course of his/her private reading

I'm inclined to hold that, once author's intentions are known, it is not good to stick to differing interpretation. If Gandalf said he has forgot, and Tolkien explicitly backed him up in his letters, why do not believe him, indeed?