"Genuine fairy-story" ?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveller who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should be shut and the keys be lost.

That's what Faerie is all about. Be afraid...

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Just a small clarification here in case anyone interprets this comment to suggest that Tolkien gives us the One Springle--er, Fairie--Ring. I don't think anyone here has said that Tolkien wrote Chapter and Verse on Fairie or Faerie Tale. We've been considering some of the characteristics he sees in Fairie and applying them to his work and then his work to other works. (Well, really just to generalisations outside of his work, as I don't think anything other than Gawain and Beowufl have yet been tendered, of early Fairie, although Strange and Norrell have also been mentioned and of course Grimm's also, but there's not yet been any substantive discussion of other fairy tales. Links to early fairy tales might be very welcomed!

Good good. We would all be very foolish if we took what Tolkien said on Faerie Tale as The Law, and I'm sure Tolkien, as an academic would also think we were fools if we only followed his rules.

Some sources, AKA more free stuff:

Andrew Lang's Fairy Books here. Tolkien liked these, but he disapproved that they were geared towards kids only and had in some cases been Bowdlerised and had the sinister magic taken out of them.

Joseph Campbells' Popular Tales of the West Highlands here.

Joseph Jacobs' tales here.

Grimm's Tales here. In German and Dutch too.

Norske Folkeeventyr here. Also in Norwegian here.

The Mabinogion, the Eddas, the Kalevala, of course, which should all be on Sacred Texts. There's enough on that site to keep you going for ever. One of the joys of the Net is that finally people can collect together folk lore and tales, without the intervention of the Collectors, who I must now post a health warning - DO put their own spin on things a lot, particularly pre-war ones. One of the things Tolkien railed against was indded the pruging of the 'gross' and difficult elements from what are supposed to simply be 'collections'.

Anyone interested should also look out for collections by Ruth Manning-Sanders, and of course, Angela Carter, an expert on the matter.

Which brings me to:

Originally Posted by lmp

First, regarding the latter (not underlined) part: is this your opinion, or do you have evidence for this that contradicts Tolkien's own statement that fairy stories are, at their highest and best, about redemption and hope and joy? Regardless, it seems reductionist.

Second, regarding the underlined section, I think you are right that Tolkien wrote a moral fairy tale in because he wanted to create a myth that was "purged of the gross"; but why did he want it 'purged of the gross'? To make it moral? That would be circular reasoning, so there has to be a separate reason outside either of them. Is it, perhaps, to have made LotR 'consciously Catholic in the revision'?

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. Like it or not, uncollected and unedited tales are indeed about visceral matters, perilous matters and can be quite disturbing.

What is important to remember about Fairie Tales is that they are not 'owned' nor are they 'fixed'. Likewise they can't be categorised. Some are moral tales, others tell about the natural world, still others are creation myths, some are entertainments. You can subject them to all kinds of interpretation, and Tolkien's is just a tiny fraction (and not really one of the most important ones in the minds of the scholars who go in for folklore) in the huge mass of others.

Fairy Tales indeed can be functional texts - mainly orally based, used to pass on knowledge through cultures through recognisable archetypes, and also instructional in passing on cultural norms and expectations. Peig Sayers says that Fairy Tales are intended as oral tales, as collections of images; they could take weeks to tell and used words to create images in the mind, using them over and over. 'Living shapes that move from mind to mind' as Tolkien says. Think of the Tarot, which works in the same way.

We should not underestimate the importance of Women's role in telling these tales, and some would argue that many are indeed Women's Stories. A feminist critic might argue that Tolkien wished his tales to be free 'of the gross' because he wished to expunge the elements of sex and bodily functions which were a major component of these tales, a way for women to pass on vital knowledge to their daughters about how their bodies worked, and most of all, how to deal with men.

Other reasons why Tolkien might have wanted his tales to be 'high' might include for aesthetic reasons. I think he sought in some ways to pull stock figures such as Elves out of Faerie where they are tricksy and make them into noble creatures (though why a King is more noble than a boggart to some, I don't know). And of course the most glaringly obvious answer why is this - he wanted to create an epic on the level of the Kalevala, dealing with momentous events, the movements of the Gods, a big broad swoop rather than intimate details of how individuals should live their lives. Style and feel rather than message.

[littlemanpoet]

I am reminded that Tolkien and his fellow Inklings were trying to do something with the vast leaf-mould of folk tale, legend, and myth that was fundamentally at odds with two separate branches of naturalistic interpretations. The two branches are, on one hand, a modernist and 'chronologically snobbish' rejection of the old tales, legends, and myths precisely because of their connection with the numinous; and on the other hand, an embracing of the earthy aspects of the tales while rejecting (or at least skeptically questioning) the numinous.

I think that Tolkien's response to such a feminist critique as you describe would be not unlike his remark regarding Edmund Wilson's review to LotR back from the '50s. He would say, based on that comment, that an emphasis on sex and bodily fluids is essentially adolescent. Our own culture's current obsession with such things bespeaks a cultural degradation that is not celebratory.

Tolkien is not 'the Law' on Fairy stories, but what he says needs to be dealt with seriously rather than merely dismissed as 'just one perspective', precisely because LotR has been so influential amongst publishers and readers since its publishing. This is even more the case because he and his fellow Inklings were attempting something unique.

I feel at a loss, frankly, to adequately describe what it is I'm trying to say, but it is momentous and important, and I feel that we are in danger of missing it by concentrating on aspects of folk tale that Tolkien himself set aside.

[Lalwendë]

Now, that's a bit naughty because those who write about folklore and indeed know quite a lot about it, are not polarised in that way. Not at all. Indeed in OFS you will find that Tolkien himself dislikes Bowdlerisation, and would rather they stayed in their true 'adult' form. He did not set the aspects some readers are uncomfortable with 'aside' from his view of Fairy Tales.

In fact, and this has been asked before, was LotR and The Sil (the Hobbit is excluded from this) Faerie Tale at all? Was it not something different, i.e. myth? If indeed it was, then being 'high, purged of the gross' would fit perfectly.

On the point of 'cultural degradation' arising from concern with bodily matters, ahem, I'm going to resist giving you a lecture on how the culture of ordinary people, particularly women, has always included lots of this, as far back as we can identify 'culture'. It might be distasteful to some men (and women), and indeed we might ask if it was distasteful to Tolkien (and it's a fair question, and if indeed it was, then I am not saying if this is right or wrong). By the by, Tolkien's work might not have that much sex in it, but it is certainly there (in extreme forms such as incest) and he does not shy away from the Gothic and horror.

Oh, and another good writer on Fairy Tales - Maria Tatar. They had a book with an intro by her lying around in one of our art galleries today and it was very interesting stuff.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Now, that's a bit naughty because those who write about folklore and indeed know quite a lot about it, are not polarised in that way. Not at all. Indeed in OFS you will find that Tolkien himself dislikes Bowdlerisation, and would rather they stayed in their true 'adult' form. He did not set the aspects some readers are uncomfortable with 'aside' from his view of Fairy Tales.

It seems to me that there are two quite distinct issues here:

1. "Bowdlerization"; making stories "safe" for children - i.e. removing or avoiding anything too frightening, too serious, or too grim.

2. Rejecting the "amorality" and the focus on, as Lalwende puts it, "bodily fluids" commonly found in many folk tales.

Tolkien did not make his stories safe for children by avoiding grim or frightening material, and this is not what he meant when he said "purged of the gross". A work in which there are evil characters is not amoral - on the contrary, the amoral sort of fairy story generally does not include clearly evil characters any more than it includes clearly good ones. In fact, it seems to me that the amoral fairy story and the "bodily fluid" obsessed fairy story are nearly always less serious, less grim, and less frightening. If any kind of fairy story ought to be called puerile or adolescent, it is this kind. Or am I alone in finding Beowulf and Gawaine far more serious and 'adult' than, say, the Kalevala?

In fact, and this has been asked before, was LotR and The Sil (the Hobbit is excluded from this) Faerie Tale at all? Was it not something different, i.e. myth?

Again I must question the distinction between myth and fairy tale, particularly in the context of Tolkien's views on the subject. In OFS, it seems clear that he considers Beowulf a fairy-story, for example.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

A work in which there are evil characters is not amoral - on the contrary, the amoral sort of fairy story generally does not include clearly evil characters any more than it includes clearly good ones. In fact, it seems to me that the amoral fairy story and the "bodily fluid" obsessed fairy story are nearly always less serious, less grim, and less frightening. If any kind of fairy story ought to be called puerile or adolescent, it is this kind. Or am I alone in finding Beowulf and Gawaine far more serious and 'adult' than, say, the Kalevala?

'Evil' characters may not necessarily be shown in a 'moral' way. In some tales we might see a character doing horrible things but who is the hero. In modern terms, an anti-hero.

What though, could be more serious than life and death? I actually find the amoral tale more perilous but at once more comforting than the moral tale (of any culture) which has a 'message'. Probably why I love LotR, as it has little obvious message. It is enigmatic like the most twisty, tricksy of fairy tales. And in that respect, Tolkien hit paydirt in terms of what he wanted in OFS:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveller who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should be shut and the keys be lost.

Don't ask too many questions, or you'll get locked out of Faerie.

Finding Beowulf more adult than the Kalevala (I presume you mean mature and the Kalevala is juvenile?) is a matter of taste. To a Finnish reader nothing could be more serious than the Kalevala. Tolkien didn't make such distinctions between them. Fair enough if its just your taste.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

'Evil' characters may not necessarily be shown in a 'moral' way. In some tales we might see a character doing horrible things but who is the hero.

Yes, I very much agree. In fact, this is the chief characteristic of the 'amoral fairy story'. But I don't know if I'd call these characters 'evil' - for in the amoral fairy story there is really no such thing as good or evil.

In any case, the point I was trying to make here was that a story can include scores of frightening, wicked characters and still be 'moral' - as indeed Tolkien's stories do.

What though, could be more serious than life and death?

Life and death were not the 'gross' elements that Tolkien wished to purge. On the contrary, he claimed that LotR was about death. It was, rather, the amorality and, as you put it, 'bodily fluids' that he (apparently) did not enjoy, and consequently left out of his own work. And it is these elements that, in my experience, tend to render a story less serious.

I actually find the amoral tale more perilous but at once more comforting than the moral tale (of any culture) which has a 'message'.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. By 'moral' tale I don't mean one that 'has a moral' or message. I mean one in which there are moral characters and, at least implicitly, some moral system. I don't think that Tolkien's work has a message, but it is very clearly moral.

Finding Beowulf more adult than the Kalevala (I presume you mean mature and the Kalevala is juvenile?) is a matter of taste. To a Finnish reader nothing could be more serious than the Kalevala. Tolkien didn't make such distinctions between them. Fair enough if its just your taste.

The Kalevala was probably a bad example - though it is to some extent amoral (Vainamoinen and the rest do some things that one could not imagine a good character from Middle-earth doing) it is not the best example of the 'amoral fairy story'.

But my point was this: a work that is not about amoral characters and bodily fluids is quite capable of being serious; Beowulf, Gawaine, and the Silmarillion are prime examples.

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Beth

These comments must, I think, relate to what Tolkien suggests is the essential nature of fairie, not magic, nor elves, nor darkness nor travel, nor wild imagining, but “Recovery, Escape, and Consolation” .

I think that on the one hand magic represents a/the fundamental element of Fairy Stories, while recovery is an important effect of them on the reader (therefore we don't have a dilema):

Originally Posted by OFS

Faerie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic—but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician

The essential face of Faerie is the middle one, the Magical [towards Nature].

But fairy-stories offer also, in a peculiar degree or mode, these things: Fantasy, Recovery, Escape, Consolation, all things of which children have, as a rule, less need than older people.

Originally Posted by Beth

It is not simply that something redeems the sorry or perilous state of the hero, but that the hero must come to accept his final defeat, this tragedy or catastrophe, before he will be for the time being delivered from it.

Hm, I don't think Tolkien shared this idea - after all, he expected the most thorough observance of moral standards on behalf of his heroes. Frodo did not accept his fate on Mount Doom, he was forced into submission by a higher force than he (and with the rarest of exceptions, anyone) could handle.

Originally Posted by Beth

Some time ago I posted on the Downs that a later reading of LotR made me see that the quest is about Death.

I agree, he stated so in at least two letters:

Originally Posted by Letter #186

I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.

Originally Posted by Letter #203

That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. And since I have not made the struggle wholly unequivocal: sloth and stupidity among hobbits, pride and [illegible] among Elves, grudge and greed in Dwarf-hearts, and folly and wickedness among the 'Kings of Men', and treachery and power-lust even among the 'Wizards', there is I suppose applicability in my story to present times. But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!

Originally Posted by TSoAR

If the deludinccccnot in some way involved in Tolkien's vision of evil I should be extremely surprised. Morgoth and Sauron both share qualities with the Great Adversary, who is the inevitable model for evil in the Christian mind. Lucifer was once the brightest of angels, and in at least one Anglo-Saxon poem both he and his rebel angels are portrayed as retaining the ability to appear in the angelic form that once they possessed. In fact this is central to the temptation of Eve in Genesis B, a poem both several hundred years older and quite a lot better than Paradise Lost. For Tolkien not to be influenced by an element of his own religion's philosophy which he would encounter regularly in his philological studies he would need to be more difficult to influence than even C.S. Lewis thought. I suspect that the same motif had influenced medieval fantastic fiction, whence come many of Tolkien's theories about fairy-stories.

I agree

Originally Posted by Melkor/Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

As a shadow Melkor did not then conceive himself. For in his beginning he loved and desired light, and the form that he took was exceedingly bright

Originally Posted by Atrabeth

Then one [Melkor] appeared among us, in our own form visible, but greater and more beautiful; and he said that he had come out of pity.

Originally Posted by Of the rings of power and the third age, Silmarillion

Men [Sauron] found the easiest to sway of all the peoples of the Earth; but long he sought to persuade the Elves to his service, for he knew that the Firstborn had the greater power; and he went far and wide among them, and his hue was still that of one both fair and wise.

Originally Posted by Lal

Well if we hope in any way to reflect Faerie then yes, a tale does have to reflect the amorality of Faerie, as that's the nature of the place/concept - its somewhere outside the rules, beyond the law and out of most people's comprehension. If humans are inescapably moral (and some might argue we are at root simply apes with the evolutionary benefits of walking upright, having opposable thumbs and having a varied diet) then the writers of Faery tales might put a moral 'spin' on them. In fact its probably right that there are moral spins on all Faery tales written by humans as we only have our own understanding of the world on which to base our writings of encounters with Faerie. Therefore if we take a particular moral stance then we might put that spin on our stories to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't think that Fairy is in any way more amoral than our world is; in some cases, some characters do behave amorally, or the story we know presents them so. But I don't think that we should derive from this an absolute axiom; for one thing, most of the romanian oral tradition of fairy tales is deeply moral in nature.

Originally Posted by Lal

Hey, what about Reader Response? I can think of Eru as evil if I want!

Err, that reminds me of what I thought about critics in highschool

Originally Posted by Lal

Anyway, just check out some of the text that we found as it at the very least suggests that Tolkien began with a distinctly amoral character for Ungoliant. Note also that she is exploited by Melkor, and Tolkien states that nobody knew where she came from, not the Elves nor Melkor; she came from The Void, she was not an Ainur nor was she an animal, she just was.

Bringing the "she was" argument does not have that much of a weight in giving a character a godly status. He rejected a similar interpretation in the case of Tom:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

[(Peter Hastings) also cited the description of Bombadil by Goldberry: 'He is.' Hastings said that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God.]

As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator). You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday's Epistle – inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names.

Moreover, Ungoliant: "was one of those that he corrupted to his service
"(Of the darkening of Valinor; if we compare this with:

Originally Posted by Of the enemies, Valaquenta, Silmarillion

For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts.

then it implies rather clearly her origin; Chris' comentaries too on the fourth section of the Annals of Aman accept this.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bb

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.

Well let's be honest and a bit blunt - many of these modern versions weren't adapted to 'fit', they were simply Bowdlerised, as Tolkien himself points out, reduced to mere nursery tales.

The point that's being missed is that Fairy Tales are not literature, as in books wot we study in skool, they are oral tales. And oral tales, like oral language, belong to the Speople who tell 'em, not to the clever folk who come with them sinister pens 'n' paper 'n' write 'em down. We know its not possible to find ur-texts as how could we if they're oral tales? Tolkien says so too.

Originally Posted by Bb

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.

His work hasn't been largely ridiculed, in fact there's a huge industry now of criticising Tolkien to varying degrees of usefulness. And I don't dismiss OFS, just pointing out that its not commonly used.

Originally Posted by Bb

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.

Agree with that. After all the hot air we blow, the most crucial element is story.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for quoting those Letters, Raynor.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I think that on the one hand magic represents a/the fundamental element of Fairy Stories, while recovery is an important effect of them on the reader (therefore we don't have a dilema)

Thanks also for providing this clarification. I had been referring to that other form of magic Tolkien references, the one he calls mere mechanical magic and should have made that distinction clear.

Originally Posted by myself

It is not simply that something redeems the sorry or perilous state of the hero, but that the hero must come to accept his final defeat, this tragedy or catastrophe, before he will be for the time being delivered from it.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Hm, I don't think Tolkien shared this idea - after all, he expected the most thorough observance of moral standards on behalf of his heroes. Frodo did not accept his fate on Mount Doom, he was forced into submission by a higher force than he (and with the rarest of exceptions, anyone) could handle.

Other than cringing at my phrasing, there, I would say there are two ways that your concerns here can be addressed. First of all, it is I would say a matter of interpretation whether Frodo failed or not. That is, fans and scholars would not have been able to expend all the ink they do in discussing this point had it been crystal clear. I personally accept Tolkien's explanation that all that was required of Frodo was that he expend himself to the utmost to allow conditions to enable the destruction of the Ring. (Now, how's that for a convoluted grammar?) There is, to me, no failure in that.

Other than this recourse to the inevitable differences of opinion, however, is the significance of this idea of eucatastrophe. If any good happenstance or reversal of fortune is taken to be Eru's silent hand (not to be confused with Adam Smith's), then that to my mind cheapens Tolkien's idea of facing one's doom. It distorts them away from the most powerful expression of Hope which resides in his idea. There are two passages in the Orodruin chapter which reflect what I had meant to express.

Originally Posted by Frodo, Mount Doom

'I am naked in the dark, Sam,' and there is not veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades.

This is before the Ring overwhelms Frodo's will. Even more to my point is a following passage.

Originally Posted by passage on Sam and Frodo, Mount Doom

With a gasp Frodo cast himself on the ground. Sam sat by him. To his surprise he felt tired but lighter, and his head seemed clear again. No more debates disturbed his mind. He knew all the arguments of despair and would not listen to them. His will was set, and only death would break it. He knew that all the hazards and perils were now drawing together to a point: the next day would be a day of doom, the day of final effort or disaster, the last gasp.

This was the point of final acceptance of fate which I meant and it is fascinating in that the grammar of the pronoun 'he' is not expressly clear. It is not a failure by any means or a loss of moral standards but the point of ultimate understanding that the journey has come to its last stand.