Freebie at end of Post! Please skip if you want a gift!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
Call it what you like, I suppose. Perhaps "belief" is a better word? The point is that this is your opinion, not a universally acknowledged truth. So you cannot expect others to accept it as a premise.
In a rational discussion among people who do not necessarily share the same religious/supernatural beliefs, we cannot take any of those beliefs as premises. Christians will read and evaluate Faerie stories in the context of their Christianity. You read and evaluate them in the context of your belief that Faerie is real. There's nothing wrong with that. But unless you are talking to other people who share your beliefs, you cannot expect those beliefs to be taken as given. Of course you can try to convince others that your beliefs are true, but I fear that would take us rather off-topic.
|
I aint going to try and convince anyone that it's true, this isn't the place for that. Believe what you like is what I say,
I'm not Richard Dawkins.
And indeed, its
always worth bearing in mind that not all readers/contributors will accept that personal beliefs are a 'given' for everyone, nor that all will even accept them as valid points of argument. I'm not going to stop you from questioning that approach however and am not offended by you questioning it. Still, I come at Tolkien's works from all kinds of angles, I'm not a stereotyped this that or the other nor am I trying to 'find' anything, as I just want to enjoy his work for what it is and the effect it gives off.
Like I've said earlier, I do find that Tolkien's work lacks an essential of Faerie, the amorality, the chaos. But it
does reflect Tolkien's experience, which he articulated in the light of his earthly world understanding, which included for him Catholicism amongst other things (noting that he did not exist in a Catholic vacuum, he was a
lot of things, like all of us).
OFS in some ways is his attempt to tie up all of the things he was and all the things he had seen; it is not in any way the Law on Faerie. Nor on Faerie Tale.
Quote:
|
Beowulf was made "safe, as if for the nursery"? That's one grim nursery! In any case, Tolkien refers to Beowulf several times in OFS, which at least indicates that he considered it a valid specimen.
|
Haha, but it would certainly be an
interesting nursery? No, I was not meaning quite literally for the nursery, but referring to Bowdlerisation which would render Shakespeare's stories suitable for 'the kiddies'.
Vile idea, and not quite in the same vein as what Christian writers did to tales like Beowulf which was not in
any way wrong, just inevitable!
But in terms of texts like Beowulf, inevitable. Old tales of Faerie were naturally in opposition to the new religion and so were altered, not always drastically so, as indeed shown in Beowulf. Tolkien actually made a good choice in choosing to refer to that text as it retains enough of the 'old ways' while including the modern morality to fit with his theory. Does it fit his idea of 'high, purged of the gross'? It would certainly be an exciting and seemingly true tale for kids (particularly boys, English teachers take note), which is one of the points Tolkien wants Faerie tales to have.
Anyway, has everyone read OFS? 'Cause I think some Downers might be excluded from this by not having the text. If they've not got it, it's available for free on the link on
this thread.. It's an easy read, don't be put off.
