You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[davem]

Faery might be said indeed to represent Imagination (without definition because taking in all the definitions of this word): esthetic: exploratory and receptive; and artistic; inventive, dynamic, (sub)creative. This compound - of awareness of a limitless world outside our domestic parish; a love (in ruth and admiration) for the things in it; and a desire for wonder, marvels, both perceived and conceived -this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life: sunlight as distinguished from the soil, say, though it in fact permeates and modifies even that.

Its interesting that he distinguishes 'this' 'Faery' in the way he does - because this distinction implies that there is another Faery - perhaps the Faery of tradition. What's also interesting is that he seems to be saying that it is his Faery which is 'necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life' as opposed to the Faerie of tradition - which he perhaps considered to be unnecessary - or perhaps even worse than unnecessary: truly 'dangerous' in a spiritual way? Who knows?

Whatever, in this essay he is clearly saying that his Faery: ie what he defines in this essay, is necessary but he says nothing about traditional Faery being necessary. We have to remember that for many of our ancestors Faery was a real place (& still is for some people even today). Tolkien seems to be saying that his Faery is vital - but this is Faerie as 'metaphor', as symbol - not Faery as a real place & not the Faery of tradition.

I just wonder why, given that Tolkien is usually percieved to be the great champion of Faerie, celebrating it, declaring it to be valuable, even vital, to our spiritual well-being, he would feel the need to define it so narrowly & then proceed to declare that it is his own, narrow definition of 'Faerie' that contains that virtue - almost dismissing everything else. Is the 'darkness' found in traditional Faerie simply to be thrown out? Should we now see the Fairy Stories essay (& this one on Smith) not as essays on Fairie as such, but on his Faery alone - even as his artistic (& moral) 'manifesto'.