You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

if there are indeed faeries, what is their place in the whole structure of creation?

That assumes they must have a 'place' in some kind of 'hierarchy'. Tolkien clearly sees some such role for them, some part to play in the 'saving' of Humanity - if not from 'Hell' at least from the Machine - & in awakening us to seeing the world as we were meant to see it. But did our ancestors see that as their role & purpose? They were just there, like trees, stars & sunsets - & one could ask what are the 'roles' of those things?

How do you know this? I realize that you have seen Faeries, and that what you read in SoWM somehow differs from that. But how do you know that what Tolkien wrote IS NOT what Faerie is like? Can you really say this with confidence?

I'm comparing Tolkien's Faery with the folklore accounts. And this is is maybe the central issue. Is Tolkien referring to some objectively existing realm or state, or the world of story (specifically fairy story - or if you like the human imagination? You say:

If I may make so bold as to answer this question for Tolkien, I would say that he meant human imagination. Did he believe in faeiries the way davem does? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would guess that he wished they were real, wistfully. But of course I don't really know.

The problem is he speaks of from this pov. It doesn't deal with Faery as a real place (though he does talk about pitfalls for the unwary & dungeons for the overbold) but as a particular 'province' of the imagination. In the Smith essay, though, he speaks of it as if it has an objective existence as well as being the imagination. If the 'Faery' he is talking about is 'merely' a product of the imagination, how can it & its inhabitants feel 'love' for humanity? But that brings us back to my point - if it is an objectively real place/state/dimension (even if one accessed by travelling within rather than without) can anyone 'add' to it or change it? Of course, one could tell lies about it, or misrepresent it to promote one's agenda

Its not that I'm 'offended' by what Tolkien did - I find his work inspiring & beautiful - but its not what we find in traditional lore yet as I say he draws on this traditional lore to back up his arguments.

One final point, which may or may not be worth considering regarding the 'reality' of Faery.

In OFS he cites the ballad of Thomas the Rhymer, with the vision of three roads, etc. This ballad could be seen as belonging to the Faery of the imagination, but it is based on actual events - Thomas of Eceldoune was a real person who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce & William Wallace, & who, as a result of an encounter/initiation by the Fairy Queen, became a prophet (or, poetically, was given by Her the gift of The Tongue that Cannot Lie). Many of his predictions came true & its said that he didn't die but passed into Faery & lives there to this day.

In Thomas' story Faery as imagination & Faery as reality blur - as they seem to in Tolkien's mind. The point is that, while in many ways the story of Thomas is similar to that of Smith, in Thomas Faery is depicted in traditional form, in Smith it is different. Thomas' Faery is essentially the Pagan one, while in Smith Faery has been 'baptized' into the Church (the Elves have crossed the Sea to Valinor). If anything, Tolkien has 'saved' Faery.

Maybe the Faeries in Smith are returning the favour......