[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

All right, let's be clear about this. You have a theory that there is a "real" place (or thing?) called Faerie, which is "beyond comprehension" and "beyond rational thought". Fine. But you must accept that, when you evaluate fairy-stories in the context of this theory, your conclusions are contingent upon acceptance of that theory. You can of course apply this belief to existing fairy-stories, but this approach is going to be highly personal, and they will not be relevant to others unless and insofar as those others agree with your theory. And they will be even less relevant if what we are interested in are Tolkien's ideas about Faerie.

Not a theory, knowledge and experience.

And indeed, a debunking of those who know about Faerie, who have experienced it, applying knowledge to what they read could likewise be applied to those who apply Christianity or other formalised religious beliefs or theories to what they read. Steady.

Now from my own knowledge, of course, I can recognise all the signs in Tolkien's work that he might well have seen Faerie himself. That motif of the Star on Smith's head is an interesting one to me, as it symbolises the 'signs' that we can recognise in others who may have seen Faerie. And remember:

Originally Posted by SoWM essay, new edition

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. 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 - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived - this 'Faery' 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.

Interesting that while his interpretation of the human world of Wooton Major is 'allegorical' his interpretation of Faerie is mystical/philosophical. He will not have Faerie 'allegorised' under any circumstances. Faerie must exist in its own right and not be 'put in the service of' any other thing. Faerie as a realm is sacrosanct. Humans may enter there, but human things must not dominate it, or make it serve their own ends - even religious ones.

This is undoubtedly true and is a good point. Beowulf is a pagan tale told by a Christian, and Gawaine is a thoroughly Christian story. I don't know enough about myth and folklore to know whether there are examples of moral (i.e. non-amoral) stories outside of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.

Actually, Gawaine is also a Pagan story that was Christianised.

There are lots of 'moral' tales from all around the world. One of the several functions of folktale and fairy tale is to 'teach' - you will read many moral tales from the African tradition for example, you might not agree with the morals therein, but they are morals nevertheless.

But are we to disqualify stories written by Christians from classification as "fairy-stories"? Aren't Beowulf and Gawaine just as valid as such? And, what's more important, didn't Tolkien consider them valid as fairy-story?

No, but are they stories about Faerie, as it is? Or are they tales made safe, as if for the nursery?

I do agree that Ungoliant is a strange and, in many ways, ambiguous character. I just don't agree that she is morally ambiguous. At least, I certainly wouldn't expect Tolkien to agree have agreed that she is.

Nor would I, that's what's so surprising about the evidence.