You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Let us distinguish with care: Tolkien is saying that Faery does not equal Imagination, but represents it. Is this nevertheless a modern notion? Surely the ancients thought Faery to be real rather than imagined, but is that saying something different? Nevertheless, how does Faery represent Imagination? According to the paragraph I've quoted first, Imagination (as represented by Faery) is the one thing in our (modern) lives that cannot be known, possessed, controlled. While all else can be enslaved, human imagination remains free. And this is what Tolkien seems to be saying is Imagination without which humans cannot survive.

Who's imagination, though? Is this Faerie as the human imagination, or as the Imagination of the Deity? Maybe even the imagination of the earth itself (why not - if Tom can be the spirit of the countryside?) Faerie as the imagination of the earth strikes me as a distinct possibility, if Men are turning away from the earth & towards technology. Faeries would be the spirits of the earth attempting to awaken Men from their mechanistic 'dream' to reality once more. But I think this asks deeper questions about our relationship with the earth itself. If the Fairies of tradition are antagonistic to Men have we given them reason. Was there a time when we were in harmony with the earth - or sufficiently so that the Faeries more like Tolkien's Elves (or like some of them at least)? If so, then SoWM might represent the 'middle' period, when Faeries sought to bring us back to that harmonious relationship, & the traditional accounts our current state - we have rejected them with contempt, they respond in kind.

I see why you say this, but in your revisionistic zeal I think you may be overlooking what Tolkien faced in the construction of his own Legendarium, for admittedly he DOES hit upon love of humans as the Fairy motivation, and it does carry through his entire ouvre. I submit that Tolkien's thesis, if you will, was (in part at least) that human myths have lost all memory of a former race of being that were Fairy, namely the highest of them, because these very beings have departed from the shores of our middle earth. Therefore, I submit to you that Tolkien was consciously writing a corrective to what he saw as a lack, and thus I find it ironic that here we are these many decades later claiming that Tolkien got it wrong because the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them.

Well, Tolkien invented this concept of Faeries having left these shores & their true nature having been forgotten. If there is such a 'lack' it is a consequence of his own belief/theory/invention. My question is, why invent such a thing? Is this 'lack' universally felt, or was it only felt by Tolkien himself? Well, no longer. We all feel that 'lack' (those of us who respond to his works, that is) but would we have felt it if he hadn't written his Legendarium? Has he actually made us feel the lack of something which we wouldn't have missed otherwise? My point is that we don't find Faeries/Faerie represented/representing in that way prior to him, but he claims in OFS that we did. The whole point is that ' the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

So I ask: is Tolkien's corrective (as I claim) worth consideration as such? Is it a valid addition to Faeriana?

Is Faerie a 'real' place. or simply a construct of the Human imagination. If it is the former, then one cannot simply 'add' things to it which become accepted on equal terms with what already exists there. One can only so that if it is 'merely' a human construct. If we could add things to it it would be our subject to manipulate & control, to use as we will.

On 'Allegory'

My hunch would be that, given all the backstory, he was aware of how the Great Hall replaced the Church in his village, from early on though not before he started it.

The reason I think his acceptance of 'allegory' in Smith is interesting is that every single time an allegorical interpretation of any of Tolkien's works is brought up those lones from the Introduction to LotR are brought up. I know very well that if I, or anyone else, had suggested that the Great Hall in SoWM was an allegory of the Church, the response would have been one of absolute rejection of the idea, because 'Tolkien disliked alllegory'.

But if Tolkien could write Smith as a 'Fairy story' & later 'discover' an allegorical dimension to it (after dismissing other people's allegorical interpretations: cf his appreciation of Roger Lancelyn Green's statement that to look for an allegorical meaning in Smith was like cutting open the ball to look for its 'bounce') then can we so easily rule out allegory in his other works? Whatever the answer to that question we now have to accept that Tolkien didn't find allegory as distasteful as he makes out in the LotR Foreword.

[littlemanpoet]

Um, you do really believe there are Faeries, I take it.

Okay.

I admit to having played with the notion in days gone by, but never gave it actual credence, as such.

Such a belief most definitely will affect how one views Tolkien's work. It would, I suppose, be on a par with, in my case, someone, say, a J.R.R. Van Essendelft, writing an entire Legendarium that adds to the New Testament in ways that are not exactly according to accepted doctrine, but actually beautifies it in profound (and therefore) troubling ways. Is this how you see Tolkien?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

The reason I think his acceptance of 'allegory' in Smith is interesting is that every single time an allegorical interpretation of any of Tolkien's works is brought up those lones from the Introduction to LotR are brought up. I know very well that if I, or anyone else, had suggested that the Great Hall in SoWM was an allegory of the Church, the response would have been one of absolute rejection of the idea, because 'Tolkien disliked alllegory'.

But if Tolkien could write Smith as a 'Fairy story' & later 'discover' an allegorical dimension to it (after dismissing other people's allegorical interpretations: cf his appreciation of Roger Lancelyn Green's statement that to look for an allegorical meaning in Smith was like cutting open the ball to look for its 'bounce') then can we so easily rule out allegory in his other works? Whatever the answer to that question we now have to accept that Tolkien didn't find allegory as distasteful as he makes out in the LotR Foreword.[/quote]

Perhaps it would be better to leave the LotR Foreword to the LotR. Whether or not Tolkien disliked allegory is up for debate, but disliking something does not automatically mean that one will not write it.

The thing here is that people seem to think that what allies to the LotR applies to SoWM- which is not necessarily the case. For all that Tolkien was renowned for his literary works getting sucked into the Legendarium, that does not mean that this is necessarily the case. In particular, I am thinking with regards to allegory. Allegory is a good deal easier to insert into a story without a ruining it when the story is short, because a short story is a good deal simpler than a complex, longer one. If allegory is purposefully inserted into a grand epic, it twists the epic and does not allow for the complex story to take its course and become a STORY, first and foremost. On the other hand, a short story can be entirely based around an allegorical idea while NOT ruining the experience as a story. Or so I view.

My point, distilled, is that there is no reason on earth that Tolkien's statement in the Foreword to the Lord of the Rings should be taken as applicable to Smith of Wooton Major. There is no obvious, overt, link other than the author, and that does not necessitate the transferral of the Foreword's statements.

[littlemanpoet]

...and to the Imagination, for which it stands.

...to bowdlerize a certain dearly loved (by some) bit of verbage...

It would seem that belief-set does after all underlie our discussion (now that I am over the initial shock of discovering what seems to be the truly held belief of some BDrs). I think that Tolkien wished that Faery was real, but believed that it was at least true (this is also my own belief). My sense from OFS and the essay you so kindly passed on, davem, is that Tolkien believed in the power of the Imagination.

If there have ever been spirits or beings associated with lakes, hillocks, streams, woods, copses, mountains and the like, for someone with my personal belief-set (and I am with Tolkien here), these beings must and will stand in some sort of relationship with the First Cause, Who (in the belief-set I share with Tolkien) is a Person. According to this belief-set, this Person created an Eden in which all creation was at one harmony; that is to say, if there was a Faery, it had its place in Eden, and it was the onset of Evil in Eden that splintered the unities into all their fractious parts. I can see how Tolkien, loving Faery and Myth, allegiant to one particular Myth that he believed to be True, would see a lack, and needed to write about it. That's the way it looks to me.

Perhaps Tolkien found himself in a strange half-belief that I often find myself in. I wish that Faery was real, and at least want it to be, and sometimes I half-believe that it is. Then my belief-set re-establishes itself, and I wonder what I do really believe about Faery, and how it might fit into my belief-set, if that's possible. Hmmmm.....

Originally Posted by davem

My point is that we don't find Faeries/Faerie represented/representing in that way prior to him, but he claims in OFS that we did. The whole point is that ' the human record of the old myths do not contain the very thing he sought to correct in them' as you say. But in OFS he is claiming that they did/do contain that 'very thing'.

I apologize for my denseness, but could you kindly provide the quote you are referring to? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Um, you do really believe there are Faeries, I take it.

I've met some.

I apologize for my denseness, but could you kindly provide the quote you are referring to? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

I was generalising based on the essay as a whole. Tolkien, in my reading, was attempting to show that fairystory works on us in the same way as the Christian story - but not to the same depth or extent - sorry I'm struggling here to say what I want to. Tolkien states in OFS that fairystory provides, at its best a glimpse beyond the walls of the world, of Evangelium. Tolkien implies that is, if not its purpose, then certianly its effect.

I don't think this is the case in traditional fairystories - what they actually do is give us a glimpse of the world as it is - which is something Tolkien also says is the purpose of fairystories - but that, for me, is as far as it goes - a glimpse beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief? I can't think of one that does that - not even the Black Bull of Norroway, which Tolkien cites as evidence of his theory.

Now, Tolkien's Legendarium (LotR in particular) does provide that glimpse beyond the walls of the world. Smith does not. SoWM is a story set firmly within the circles of the natural world - Heaven doesn't come into it.

Certainly fairystories provide a glimpse of something beyond the man-made, & maybe that's what Tolkien meant, but I think not, because he brings in Christianity, & the existence of a 'World' beyond this world. In SoWM Faery & the Human world co-exist within the circles of the world & there is not a trace of Evangelium.

What Tolkien has done in OFS is to 'Christianise' fairystory & then claim it was 'Christian' all along. Smith is a step away from that, back to what Faery had been, but the Faery of Smith is still not the Fairie of tradition, & my question is why did he want to convince us it was?

You see, I'm not criticising what Tolkien actually produced, or the value of his theories, only asking about his reasons for setting himself up as a 'champion of Faery' when he was really only championing his own take on it?

[drigel]

What Tolkien has done in OFS is to 'Christianise' fairystory & then claim it was 'Christian' all along. Smith is a step away from that, back to what Faery had been, but the Faery of Smith is still not the Fairie of tradition, & my question is why did he want to convince us it was?

Was it to convince us, or to show us an example of an historical authenticity? I lean towards the former... but why?

edit:

I've met some.

come on Davem - give

[davem]

come on Davem - give

One was about five feet tall & stepped out (literally) of a silver birch, the other was about six feet tall, dressed in black & silver-grey carrying a longbow. I was sitting in a copse of trees & my sense was that he was a 'guardian' or protector of the place.

And while some may think I was hallucinating (or drunk) you'll find this kind of experience regularly reported in many parts of the world.

And I don't care if anyone believes me or not

[drigel]

not once but twice
outstanding!

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

One was about five feet tall & stepped out (literally) of a silver birch, the other was about six feet tall, dressed in black & silver-grey carrying a longbow. I was sitting in a copse of trees & my sense was that he was a 'guardian' or protector of the place.

Do you think.......were they the 'spirits' of the tree(s) they came out of? Or were the trees 'gateways' into Faery? Or is Faery not a different dimension, it's just that we mostly can't see it?

Also, is there good and evil in Faery, or is that something human story-telling brought into it that doesn't belong? Corollary: are there dragons, trolls, goblins, and other such in Faery, or is that something from Nordic myth that doesn't belong?

How did Feary get all wound up with Myth? Or are they one and the same.

I s'pose we can't be as scientific about this as these questions sound, but the questions are in my head, so why not ask 'em here? I can't think of a better place.