[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

At this point it's almost a philosophical debate. What were they (Faerie) to us really? One needs to answer this question first before attempting to describe the intent of the author.
Were they representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?
Were they representing actual gods and goddesses that have fallen (both physically and in regards cultural spiritualism) from importance?
Were they real agents of transition between the physical and spiritual?

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. As to them being 'representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?' I suppose that would be a result of 'civilisation'. Originally they were not that at all. As beings in their own right they had their own mores & motives.

I suppose that they were available to Tolkien to make his own use of, in whatever way he wanted. But he doesn't say he's doing that - he claims he's giving them back to us as they 'really' are - or were. In this he's somewhat in the position of Jung as regards Alchemy.

This is where I get confused. All descriptions of Valinor (especially post Numenor) seem paradise-esque. But, as the essay says, Faery is Faery. Period. Hard to wrap the head around. Perhaps Faerie resides somewhere in the suburbs of Paradise?

Valinor, I suppose, is Middle-earth's 'Earthly Paradise' - yet there is no actual 'Paradise' in the Legendarium, only references to 'something' beyond the circles of the world. Faerie is used, in the early writings (& in TH & Roverandom) interchangeably with Valinor. I wonder about the connection between Niggle's Parish & the Halls of Mandos in Valinor. Both are equivalent to Purgatory - a middle ground, neither earth/hell or heaven. Faerie & its inhabitants are also 'betwixt & between'.

1: Perhaps my grounding in Catholicism inadvertantly changed my motivation in dealing with fairie in the Legendarium.

2: It is a study of death and immortality. In my work, we have the Unfallen living alongside the Fallen. Adam and Eve living with Cain and Able. Or, (plug in any religion here Lif and Lifthrasir living with Sigmund and Borghild. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.

2: My faerie IS faerie. But, so is the traditional faerie. Truth is truth, morals are morals, dont confuse religion with that idea. I do not expect you to think I have changed Faery to suit my own needs, just as I do not expect you to think I have changed history to suit my own needs.

Any of the above - & other possibilities, as you say. But I still wonder if there is any common ground between Tolkien's Faerie & traditional Fairie, between his Elves & traditional Elves. Can we say Tolkien's Elves are simply a variation on an existing theme, or are they wholly 'other'. In Appendix F he says he has used the name Elves as the nearest current equivalent for his Eldar. Fine - except that in his essays he stakes his claim to Faery.

And so we have Smith, in itself & particularly in the Smith essay. This particular 'Secondary World' & its inhabitants is another 'betwixt & between' realm, but this time it stands 'betwixt & between' the 'High', 'Christian' Faerie of the Legendarium & the simple 'rural' Faery of tradition. Yet even so it is closer to Middle-earth than to the 'Fair Elfland' of True Thomas. Perhaps if he had lived he would have moved even closer to the traditional Faery.

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. At Birmingham Ronald Hutton gave a talk on 'Tolkien the Pagan', examining this question. It seems Tolkien was never able to give Faerie its head - he had to make it 'safe' - though maybe he had no choice in that. One gets glimpses, as I said, of traditional Faerie in his writings, but he never seems to feel it is entirely 'safe'. His mentions of 'pitfalls' & 'Dungeons' awaiting the overbold strayer into Faery seems as much a warning to himself as to his readers.

Yet maybe there was more going on. If the glimpse of the little Fairy Queen doll on the cake was better than no glimpse of Faery at all, & provided for some - both Smith himself &, according to the essay, his wife (who is named a 'walker in outer Faery in the essay) the entrance into it, maybe Tolkien intended his Legendarium to be a similar glimpse & means of ingress into traditional, 'real' Faerie? Maybe he gave us the Faery that we were capable of taking in at the time & offering us the chance of going on.

I don't know. I'm increasingly confused by the question. All I have is Tolkien's claim that he is telling 'what really happened' set against the fact that his Faerie is nothing like the Faerie we find in traditional tales & accounts, yet he tells me that it is the same 'place'.

Edit.

Thinking about it, (& with drigel's earlier mention in mind)I find the Elves of TH quite 'traditional' - even with their 'Tra-la-la-lally's - or maybe even because of them. In traditional Fairystories the inhabitants of Faery often behave in 'mad' or childish ways. There seems no contradiction between the behaviour of those Rivendell Elves & the Wood Elves encountered later, with their short tempers, self-importance, greed & drunkeness.

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.....