![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
H-I
If we take this underlying 'true' level of reality to exist we can say it is the 'Archetype' from which this reality takes its form. Or that this reality is an imperfect image of that reality. So we can bring in Christianity - 'Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven' - so we pray that this reality will be brought in to line with the divine, perfect reality. Or we could bring in the Hermeticists, with their dictum of 'As Above, So Below'. There is a theory that the positioning of the three pyramids at Gizeh was intened to 'reflect' the stars in the belt of Orion. So there is a sense that this world is not 'perfect' yet & has to be brought into line with some 'ideal'. The question then arises as to whether Faerie could be said to be some kind of underlying 'blueprint', between the Archetype itself, & this world. So, when we enter Faerie we move a step closer to the 'primary' world - which in this case would not be this world. The 'divine' world would be the 'primary' world, Faerie the 'secondary' world, & this world, the physical, would be the third in the sequence. Which would make the 'secondary' world 'truer' than this one, being 'closer' to the 'primary', Archtypal reality. So the sequence could be expressed theologically as this world = the body, Faerie = the Soul, & the Archetypal world = the Spirit. Of course, we could put a different case - this world is closest to the Archetypal, ideal, world, & Faerie is a distortion of this world, in which case it would have to be brought into being as close a 'reflection' of this world as possible. The problem with this alternative is that Faerie deals in absolutes, or 'archetypes' - Death, Love, Beauty, Ugliness, etc, which in this world are never experienced in their 'pure' forms. So, Faerie must be closer to Ideal reality, than this world. And we're back 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ![]() So, when Aiwendil states that a fantasy which showed us only a sequence of images of Faerie would be boring, he is saying that that 'closer' we approach this Ideal, the more bored we will become ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
davem wrote:
Quote:
Considering your list, I'd suggest an alternative view: body is analogous to the physical realm the spirit is analagous to the Truth and the soul is analogous to our concepts-- which include archetypes, Faerie stories and Myth, and parables, and every other way in which we imperfect beings try to grasp (or grasp at?) the Spirit, the Truth.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Davem wrote:
Quote:
The claim I was trying to make by asking how much longer Smith could be without becoming boring was that Smith is a special case. Yes, pure Faerie without adventure is enough to sustain a short work like Smith that is, as much as anything else, a meditation upon fantasy and Faerie. But in general, for longer works or for works that are not primarily concerned with the art of fantasy, plot and adventure are needed (I would say, in fact, that they are the most important aspect). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I agree that Smith is not plotless. But it is a kind of minimalist plot, so I was willing to accept it as, approximately, an example of pure Faerie without incident. Quote:
I happen to think it's rather good literary theory, if it comes to that. My point was that it is not very typical of fantasy literature, nor even of Tolkien's work. I'll grant that Smith may be more or less a "window to Faerie" - but I think that it is the exception. HerenIstarion wrote: Quote:
Obviously, this is not the way in which it is being employed here. What, then, is it supposed to mean? I suppose it may mean God, or heaven, or something like that. If that is indeed the case, I think it would be much more clear simply to say so. If, then, I understand this correctly, the claim at hand is either that 1. the "Faerie" element that we detect in fantasy is in fact a reflection or image of God/heaven/"Truth" or 2. the first claim is true and, additionally, to achieve such an image is the primary purpose of fantasy. Now, being non-religious, I obviously disagree with both of these claims. The trouble is that there's not much more to say than that. I do not think that I fail to fully appreciate Tolkien's work because I don't subscribe to this notion of "Truth". Nor do I think that my appreciation of it is due, unbeknownst to me, to some subconscious acceptance of this "Truth". And I think that the whole conjecture of "Truth" as the real identity of "Faerie" must be left at that, unless one whishes to enter into a debate on theological claims (which presumably one does not). Last edited by Aiwendil; 12-15-2005 at 12:12 PM. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
It was precisely this concern which led me to question Helen's division of the thread between those who believe in "absolute Truth" and those who do not. Because every person is the product of different upbringings, social and cultural influences, experiences etc, every person's beliefs will vary to one degree or other. Certainly amongst those of different faiths and those who have little or no religious beliefs, but also the values of those who share a faith can vary quite considerably from one person to another. So I cannot accept that any one person is able to say that their a belief in an "absolute Truth" is any more "right" than another person's belief in the same concept, or indeed than the values of someone who does not strive for this "absolute Truth". And so, while I would agree that there are "wrong" interpretations of Tolkien's works (judged by societal norms, although those will vary from one society to another), I would maintain that (apart from the negative counterparts of such "wrong" interpretations), there is no obectively measurable "right" way of interpreting them. Certainly, I cannot agree with H-I's proposition that: Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||
Tyrannus Incorporalis
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: the North
Posts: 833
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
This all ties back in with the question of, "Should the author's intention factor into our reading experience and individual interpretion?", but I haven't the time to give any real (or original) input on the subject.
__________________
...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence. Last edited by Lord of Angmar; 05-03-2004 at 07:17 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]()
I apologise, H-I, if I mischaracterised what you were saying.
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Tyrannus Incorporalis
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: the North
Posts: 833
![]() |
Quote:
Sorry for the awkward wording and, perhaps, nonsensicality of this post; just my one and a half cents on the subject. -Angmar
__________________
...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |