"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

What is important to remember about Fairie Tales is that they are not 'owned' nor are they 'fixed'.

Wouldn't this statement suggest that even those expurgaters were merely involved in the (not so fluid ) fluid retelling of fairy tales, retelling them in ways they saw fit for their culture and society? If, after all, fairy tales did function in the very sociological manner you describe (being warning messages from mums to daughter, to children about strangers, explanations of creation), why cannot later redactors see fit to tell their versions.

After all, it is notoriously difficult to find 'ur' texts or original versions of fairy tales. The structuralists tried to do that eighty years ago and failed. There just ain't no original version of Cinderalla recoverable--no "One Cinder" to rule them all--but lots of very unique versions.

Originally Posted by Lal

No, it's not my opinion but current thought on fairy tale and folklore, gained from the simple evidence that the tale puts before us, in particular from going direct to the most untainted fairy tales we can find, usually those told by women in remote locations.

It's not so much that I disagree with you in principle as that, when I see you use words such as untainted, I see a particular value judgement shaping the discussion. I know we all of us here think we have the correct opinion on most things, but if my years reading literature and literary interpretation have taught me anything, it's that there is no "progress" to true understanding, but cyclical journeys to different perspectives. I guess what I am saying here is similar to Aiwendil's point earlier about belief in Fairy. To use the connotation of "untainted" suggests a premise based on value judgement rather than objective discussion.

Also, to dismiss Tolkien's essay because it may be largely ignored in the world of fairy tale scholarship is not an analysis of his ideas, but rejection by reputation. After all, his literary work was largely ridiculed and ignored for decades by the literary academics, so it wouldn't surprise me if his other work has also been ignored. That doesn't mean he does not have something to offer, it merely means that current scholars are going off on other directions. Which they have a right to do. But it isn't necessarily grounds for rejecting Tolkien's ideas out of hand.

I think Tolkien's interest in exploring the Old English word fey in early stories is interesting for the light it sheds on how he thought as well as on what could be a legitimate characteristic of the stories he names. Yes, he excludes some stories, but so do all interpreters.

After all, he is one scholar who championed story as story. He did not 'defend' fairy tales as history or myth or taboo. He championed narrative as an essential element in human imagination and that's very worthy of discussion.

I do hope this doesn't turn into that banana peel he was talking about though.