[Bêthberry]

This discussion raises several questions about Tolkien's art, which is why, I think, we are generating strong feelings and posts here. I would like to make several observations in the hope of clarifying some definitions. Please bear with me if this seems plodding.

1. To question the existence of eucatastrophe in The Silmarillion is to examine seriously, analytically, critically, a fundamental claim Tolkien makes not only of his art but of all fairy/fantasy. Tolkien states a very profound case for fairy stories in his 1938 lecture which we know as "On Fairy-Stories". He makes the claim there that at the heart of fairy (fantasy) is a profound consolation:

But the 'consolation' of fairy stories has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. ... The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function. (my bolding)

This raises an important issue: if The Silm does not have Eu (no pun meant about Eru), does that mean either that Tolkien was wrong about fairy, or that The Silm is in fact not a fairy tale but something else? For instance, is it more fitting to describe it as myth rather than as fairy? Are the two terms interchangeable?

This should not be regarded as a heretical question, but as an honest matter for discussion.

2. To discuss 'eucatastrophe' means that we must be very precise in our understanding of the term. It is salutary to remember that Tolkien does not mean any happy ending. (In fact, he claims that fairy stories do not have an ending per se). And he does not mean mere delight or simple romance and he distinguishes it from Tragedy in drama. He means something which helps free us from human limitations. And he means something altogether unexpected, unanticipated, even undeserved. The words Tolkien uses suggest the rarity of this effect.

the sudden joyous 'turn' (for their is not true end to any fairy-tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially 'escapist', nor 'fugitive.' In its fairy-tale - or otherworld--setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance: it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

This is something profoundly special and unique. A string of petit morts would seem to lessen its profundity. (Well, maybe not....)

Tolkien also suggests that the experience is very much a readerly experience.

It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher or more complete kind, that owever wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears

Note Tolkien uses the word "effect," a consequence or result rather than "affect," an inward disposition.

Tolkien becomes even more serious in the Epilogue.

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....

I happen to think that here Tolkien provides a justification of his faith through his understanding of fairy ("approaching the Christian Story from this direction") (rather than vice versa, as many others do). However, this is less germane for my purpose here, which is simply to remind us of some particulars. We need to be precise and specific about what we say Tolkien said. And we need to remember that we are not all called in the same way. We might, in fact, reach a better understanding of The Silm if we ask whether Tolkien's ideas about fairy were something he came to after the main body of his Legendarium was written, or if in the writing and reworking he came to understand something which his text initially did not demonstrate.

There! I think that is enough pepper in the pot for one post.