You say 'Faeries' & I say 'Fairies'

[davem]

Firstly, I want to apologise for including two long quotes - though the second may be of interest to Downers, as it is from an essay by Tolkien on Smith of Wooton Major, which has just been published for the first time in a new edition of Smith edited by Verlyn Flieger.

The first quote is from ‘Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell’ by Susanna Clarke:

The camp was a dreary, silent place. A thick snow was falling and the strange soldiers lay, wrapped in their black cloaks, upon the snowy ground. At first the young women thought the soldiers must be dead - an impression which was strengthened by the great multitude of ravens and other black birds which had settled over the camp, and indeed upon the prostrate forms of the soldiers themselves - yet the soldiers were not dead; from time to time one would stir himself and go attend to his horse, or brush a bird away if it tried to peck at his face.
At the approach of the young women a soldier got to his feet. One of the women shook off her fears and went up to him and kissed him on the mouth.
His skin was very pale (it shone like moonlight) and entirely without blemish. His hair was long and straight like a fall of dark brown water. The bones of his face were unnaturally fine and strong. The expression of the face was solemn. His blue eyes were long and slanting and his brows were as fine and dark as pen strokes with a curious flourish at the end. None of this worried the girl in the least. For all she knew every Dane, Scot and Frenchman ever born is eerily beautiful.
He took well enough to the kiss and allowed her to kiss him again. Then he paid her back in kind. Another soldier rose from the ground and opened his mouth. Out of it came a sad, wailing sort ofrnusic. The first soldier- the one the girl had kissed - began to coax her to dance with him, pushing her this way and that with his long white fingers until she was dancing in a fashion to suit him.
This went on for some time until she became heated with the dance and paused for a moment to take off her cloak. Then her companions saw that drops of blood, like beads of sweat, were forming on her arms, face and legs, and falling on to the snow. This sight terrified them and so they ran away. The strange army never entered Allendale. It rode on in the night towards Carlisle. The next day the townspeople went cautiously up to the fields where the army had camped. There they found the girl, her body entirely white and drained of blood while the snow around her was stained bright red.
By these signs they recognised the Daoine Sidhe - the Fairy Host.

These are the Fairies of ‘British’ Tradition - English, Welsh, Scottish & Irish. These Fairies are dangerous, contemptuous of Man. They are called the ‘Good People’ in Ireland, not because they are good, but in order to placate them.

In ballads like Tam Lin a human is captured by the Fairies & made to serve them. Tam Lin is rescued by his love, the Fair Janet, & when the Fairy Queen discovers this she spits out angrily that if she had known of the lovers’ plan she would have removed Tam Lin’s eyes & heart & replaced them with stones.

In another Ballad, Thomas the Rhymer, Thomas is taken to Elfland by the Queen, where he serves her for seven years & is rewarded with a coat of velvet green & the gift of the ‘Tongue that cannot lie’ (ie prophecy). Interestingly this ballad is based on an actual Scottish prophet, Thomas of Erceldoune, who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce & William Wallace, & to whom are attributed many genuine prophecies. Thomas comes off well in comparison to Tam Lin, retaining access to Faerie - indeed it is said that he didn’t die, but passed into Faerie & dwells there still. Another example of such a real person who passed into Faerie rather than dying & still dwells there is the 17th century Reverend Robert Kirk, author of ‘The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns & Fairies’, a major work of fairy lore. Celtic myth & English folklore is replete with tales of dangerous Fairies, who threaten humans - even killing them with ‘elf-shot’. A few people are taken in by Fairies, but the majority of ordinary people kept a safe distance - if they could.

Now to Tolkien. As I said, this quote is from the Smith Essay:

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them. avert evil from them and have relations with them, especially through certain men and women whom they find suitable. They, the Elvenfolk, are thus 'beneficent' with regard to Men, and are not wholly alien, though many things and creatures in Faery itself are alien to Men and even actively hostile. Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships betWeen the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies e spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive. The Apprentice relation in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of faery himself COmes and serves as an apprentice in the village...

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct). The tale does not deal with religion itself. The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton. The Cooking allegory would not be suitable to any such import. Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.

Of course, Tolkien stated (in ‘On Fairy Stories’) that Faerie is a perilous realm, with ‘dungeons for the overbold’. Yet, even in Smith, which the story of his most concerned with traditional Faerie & its inhabitants, there is none of the Fairy cruelty & malice which we see in the traditional tales (or in Clarke’s story). Tolkien’s Faeries in SoWM are compassionate beings concerned with human welfare, & who are willing to make sacrifices to aid humans. They are motivated by love & desire to liberate Men from ‘the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered ’. In short, Tolkien’s faeries are (just as his Elves) a unique creation. Of course, the Legendarium Elves are dangerous, but not in the traditional way. Tolkien stated in one of the Letters that they area an aspect of the ‘human’. They are dangerous in the way that human beings may be dangerous - proud, violent, conceited - but in a human way, not a traditional fairy way. They are human beings depicted in sharp relief, with human failings writ large. None of the Legendarium Elves would (or could) do what Clarke’s Fairies did.

That is not to say that the Faeries Smith meets are all ‘sweetness & light’ - the Elven mariners are terrifying figures who leave Smith cowering - but they are not malicious - malice is not part of their nature. They are either unconcerned with humanity or they are on the side of Man. In short, traditional Fairies are incapable of human emotions like love while Tolkien’s faeries are motivated by that emotion than any other.

Tolkien’s Faeries desire to awaken Men to the beauty & strangeness of the natural world (without, as Tolkien says, having any ‘religious’ motives - ‘The Elves are not busy with a plan to reawake religious devotion in Wootton.’ they are not ‘angels or emissaries of God’.

So, while Tolkien’s Faeries wish to re-awaken a love of, & sense of oneness with, the natural world, traditional Fairies are a manifestation of its wildness, terror & fearsomeness - they make the natural world a place of fear & are a constant threat to humans who stray there, & a terror to humans who go in fear of their intrusion. We may dream of meeting one of Tolkien’s Faeries in the woods, but meeting one of Clarke’s traditional Fairies is more the stuff of nightmare.

So, what was behind Tolkien’s changing of these traditional creatures from malicious to beneficent beings? SoWM was the last story Tolkien published, & I can’t help wondering about the evolution of Galadriel here - she became increasingly ‘sanctified’, increasingly ‘purged of the gross’ in the post LotR writings. Why? Why take traditional beings & alter them so radically? In Appendix F to LotR Tolkien states that he chose the traditional word ‘Elves’ to refer to his Eldar, as that was the closest word he could find in modern usage. He could not really claim this about his use of ‘Faeries’ in SoWM. Here he takes figures from legend & changes them totally.

Was he simply playing fast & loose with tradition, or was there more to it?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Excellent topic for discussion, davem! Tolkien did change the Elves from what they were in folk tradition, but I think that is something that frequently happens in literature. Literature is the product of its author, so s/he is entitled to make changes to influences that have been adapted, in order to fulfil the author's purpose in the story.

There are numerous examples of that in connection with fairies: the Grimm brothers did not only collect fairy tales, they changed them in the process, doing more than simply recording their findings. Whether that resulted in enrichment or loss (probably some of both) is a matter of opinion, of course.

Worse in my eyes is the popular transformation of fairies to diminutive flower spirits, with no power and little or no influence on humans. I cringe when I see those little winged sprites in decoration shops - cute, but stripped of all meaning. However, like Nokes' Fairy Queen on the Great Cake,

Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all. For some the only glimpse. For some the awaking.

Another literary version occurs to me, written by another Oxford professor many years earlier - Sylvie and Bruno. Tolkien read and admired Lewis Carroll's story of fairy children (though I must admit I much prefer the Alice stories, which Tolkien didn't like much). These fairies are benevolent - Bruno may be mischievous, but never malicious, and it's all in a spirit of childlike innocence. Sylvie is positively angelic, though not in a lofty sense, but also with innocence. If Tolkien used the Elves to illustrate a side of humanity, Carroll showed the childlike side that exists even in grownup humans. (By the way, his comments in the preface to Sylvie and Bruno show how strong the Christian influence was for him as well.)

It's all in the leafmould, as Tolkien himself once suggested. The influences are seen and felt, fertilizing and enriching the author's work. But that does not mean that the ensuing plant must be the same kind of leaf - it will grow to be something completely new.

Whether the changes Tolkien made to the Elves, especially Galadriel, would be considered "sanctified" to a Christian or spoiled to a fan of the folk tales is a matter of interpretation - unless, of course, we want to start arguing about the canonicity of traditional fairy stories!

[HerenIstarion]

The change in perception of 'fairies' must have something to do with the change in general outlook [of Western society] - whatever his tastes, Tolkien was the son of his time, and general 'fear of the unknown' of the previous centuries was largely replaced by 'curiosity of the unknown' in XIX and XX centuries (we are talking Europe and the West in general here, and especially as a hangover of WWI and WWII in the intelligentsia, not politicians). I don't intend to say the phenomenon of 'fear' is eliminated - War of the Worlds type of stories and general mode of depicting 'aliens' since Wells say otherwise, but it is undeniable that 'scientific' interest as a phenomenon of two previous centuries must have played its role too.

What do I ramble about is not yet finally clear to myself, but vaguely, some idea of 'broadened horizons' and 'embracing diversity' (In spite and even 'thanks to' two world wars Tolkien was a witness of) hovers by the back of my head. 'See a stranger - fear a stranger - hate a stranger' sequence is a natural human reaction, but in last two centuries it was paralleled by the uprise of 'see a stranger - are curious about a stranger - start to learn stranger - know stranger - love stranger' sequence.

During much of 20th century, and much of Tolkien's lifetime (especially during the period of his 'late writings') the main characteristic of the whole world's life was opposition of two 'superpowers', divided mainly by ideological, but economically so, considerations. It was perceivable (and was thus perceived) that 'morally' liberalism and marxsism are not far apart (indeed, being products of the same culture).

With the break up of Soviet Union, new division of the world by 'cultural characteristics' is bound to strengthen 'fear the stranger' sequence (Indeed, it has already done so)

What follows is my assumption that likelihood of [Western] writers taking hostile creatures of the folklore and making them friendly is less likely now than it was in the period after WWII, when differences in culture were not counted as much as differences in [largely economic] ideologies were. [but are now to far greater extent]

I know the whole issue is round-about way to come to the haven, but it seems to me every aspect of our life affects us and how we perceive things.

I consciously abstain from mentioning Tolkien's faith here - indeed, people who in previous centuries depicted 'fairies' as malicious beings were, presumably, no less devout Christians than Tolkien was.

[davem]

I think what partiularly interests me is that Tolkien set SoWM in a very 'medieval' world, & in that period of our history Faeries/Fairies were generally feared & seen as malicious & dangerous - they stole humans to serve as slaves - yet they would also bestow 'powers' on chosen humans. There is a whole tradition of human-Fairy marriages & of human magicians taking fairy 'allies' (see Kirk).

The point is that Tolkien's Fairies/Elves are totally unlike traditional Fairies/Elves - there is no traditional 'backing' for his representation. Yet in the Smith essay he writes as though his depiction is correct & traditional. The essay reads oddly - at some points he is clearly speaking only of the 'Faerie' of his invented world, at other points it seems like he is speaking of the Faerie of tradition & legend while at other points still it is as if (as in the last part of the quote I gave) he is using 'Faerie'/Faeries' as a 'philosophical' metaphor.

Sorry -too rushed & I don't have the essay with me. Will come back to this later.

[Lalwendë]

I think where the difference lies as a whole is that Tolkien's Elves are not fairies, faeries, elves or pixies. They are Elves and are drawn from Scandinavian myth. As such, they are similar to humans, but are somehow superhuman, almost a representation of perfection. They are drawn from an idea that Elves are noble beings, beautiful and even take an interest in humans.

Faeries are different. The idea of a Faery/Fairy as a sinister and untrustworthy being comes from a different root; they are linked to the idea of boggarts, leprechauns and sprites and are a staple of British folklore.

At some point, perceptions of the two (drawn from different cultures) became combined, possibly when Shakespeare created his Fairies which seem to have characteristics of both ideas - and this was further embedded with the Victorian interchangeability between Elf and Fairy (and Pixie and Sprite...). When Tolkien (and I have to note he was not alone in doing this) 'reclaimed' Elves and made them noble beings once again he made them different to Fairies once again. And they've remained much that way ever since, with Tolkien style Elves seemingly a 'staple' in fantasy literature. I see that what Susanna Clarke has done is a similar thing for Fairies, 'restoring' them back to their more sinister origins.

Where Tolkien uses Faeries in SOWM he is using figures very like his own Elves, but the tale is written as though it is a remnant from our own world - maybe this is why he uses the word 'Faeries'? To try to link the tale to our own world? Or is he trying to distance the story of SOWM from the stories of Arda?

His Elves are clearly his own interpretation of what beings from the Otherworld might be like, developed from his own ideals of Faerie and his readings of Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon mythology and literature. His creations are so powerful that many readers will now also perceive Faerie to be similar to his vision. Others may not share this however; I know that I perceive Faerie/The Otherworld to be quite distinct from Tolkien’s creations.

What interests me is why Fairies were ever perceived as dangerous. The natural world at one time presented greater dangers than it does today; it still does present great dangers but we have distanced ourselves from it. In order to keep children from the very real dangers of Wolves, Boars and strangers in the woods, it would be wise to prevent them from wanting to go there. With the coming of organised religion it would also be in the interests of those in power to make people even more afraid of The Otherworld. Coupled with a close relationship with the capricious natural world stories of sinister Fairies might be entirely natural to us as humans.

Yet Fairies are also enticing creatures. I think this might be due to the need to believe that as humans we are not alone. We also have Angels who fulfil this need, and in the modern age, Aliens, who are sometimes kindly, sometimes sinister. All these creatures, including Tolkien’s Elves share characteristics. They are all either unnaturally tall or diminutive, they are depicted with large, luminous eyes, either great beauty or ugliness, and they have either qualities of light or darkness.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

I think where the difference lies as a whole is that Tolkien's Elves are not fairies, faeries, elves or pixies. They are Elves and are drawn from Scandinavian myth. As such, they are similar to humans, but are somehow superhuman, almost a representation of perfection. They are drawn from an idea that Elves are noble beings, beautiful and even take an interest in humans.

I'm not sure that the Norse Alfar were percieved as 'noble' - any more than the Celtic Sidhe. They were (or could appear) beautiful, but they were indifferent, at best, to human moral codes & values - which is not to say they didn't have a moral value system of their own.

Where Tolkien uses Faeries in SOWM he is using figures very like his own Elves, but the tale is written as though it is a remnant from our own world - maybe this is why he uses the word 'Faeries'? To try to link the tale to our own world? Or is he trying to distance the story of SOWM from the stories of Arda?

This is waht puzzled me - if he was trying to tie the world of SoWM into our own world - which I think he was, but in a particular way - then why present us with such non-traditional creatures? Its possible that he was using Faerie/Faeries as metaphors for nature, for Art, for natural religion, or some such- yet that would make them exactly the kind of 'allegory' which Tolkien denies them to be: he will allow an 'allegorical' interpretation of the human world of SoWM, but not of the Faerie world. In this context there is the very interesting statement:

The Apprentice relation in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of faery himself COmes and serves as an apprentice in the village...

In other words, Tolkien seems to be saying that Men should be in the subservient position with regard to Elves/Faeries - they should be the 'apprentices'. This implies a kin of 'hierarchy' where Men come below Elves/Faeries. Not only does this go against the traditional ideas of the Faerie's lack of human emotions like love, compassion & empathy it also sits ill with the Christian belief that (redeemed) Men stand even above the angels.

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct).... Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk.

This relationship of Men & Faeries is odd. In the Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer Thomas is brought by the fFairy Queen to Three Roads - one leads to Heaven, one to Hell & one to 'Fair Elfland'. In other words, Faerie is neither Heaven, hell nor earth, but a fourth place/state. Faeries are not (as Tolkien states in the essay) neither angels nor emissaries of God. They are not demons (their motivation is love - of Men & of the natural, God- created, world. Obviously, they are not humans, either - yet humans should be subject to them, be their 'apprentices'. This may be similar to the situation in the Legendarium, where Men, the 'Followers' are in a similar position as regards the Eldar, who they will eventually replace, but it is odd that Tolkien seeks to bring this idea into the world of SoWM - a world, as Lalwende states, is so very similar to our own world of the medieval period.

Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships betWeen the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies the spirit of possession and domination......Faery represents at its weakest a breaking out (at least in mind) from the iron ring of the familiar, stilI more from the adamantine ring of belief that it is known, possessed, controlled, and so (ultimately) all that is worth being considered - a constant awareness of a world beyond these rings. More strongly it represents love: that is, a love and respect for all things, 'inanimate' and 'animate', an unposessing love of them as 'other'. This 'love' will produce both ruth and delight. Things seen in its light will be respected, and they will also appear delightful, beautiful, wonderful - even glorious.

These beings are not part of Christian doctrine, & fit nowhere into the Christian cosmology/cosmography. The role they seem to play is not that attributed to either angels or saints in Christianity. Their role seems to be to teach (or rea-awaken) a love for & sense of kinship with the natural world, but at the same time to liberate us from any feelings of 'familiarity' (breeder of contempt) as regards nature. Their task is to awaken us to the otherness of nature, to its beauty & peril & most importantly to its strangeness. It is a place of mystery, yet it is on the doorstep - Wooton Major stands at the edge of the forest & Tolkien suggests that Smith's wife & daughter were both elf-friends & wanderers in 'outer-Faerie'.

All those things the Fairies of tradition may have done - but along with them they did something else - they made the natural world a place of terror, a place to be avoided. It was their realm & humans entered at their peril. There is an echo of that in Doriath & Lorien, but the 'Elven inhabitants of those realms were effectively beautiful, noble, immortal humans, not beings who were wholly 'other' as were the Fairies of tradition.

Don't know where I'm going with this, but the more I consider it the more interesting Tolkien's 'Faeries' become...

[drigel]

I always am facinated by this topic! IMO it's a study of time and perception, and how it effects both mortals and immortals. It's also a study of Bliss without religion.

They are Elves and are drawn from Scandinavian myth. As such, they are similar to humans, but are somehow superhuman, almost a representation of perfection. They are drawn from an idea that Elves are noble beings, beautiful and even take an interest in humans

The author clearly used a broad palatte to draw from. I usually think of it as an evolutionary process. But, I think in my mind, I try too often to draw up a "unifying priciple" when it comes to this subject. Clearly, as their involvement in the physical world diminished, the desire, or the recognition of love from men towards fairy, became less pronounced. Or more rare, shall we say. And, of course, as history shows, what we dont understand or cant comprehend we often refer to the sword and flame to solve our problem (burned at the stake or drowned - problem solved).
But couldn't the Fairy and the Faerie bet one in the same? For example, as with humans - we are the same men as those who walked ME in the 1st age, but there were clearly differences. They lived for hundreds of years, and had prowess in both mind and body. We may still have those characteristics, but they have been forgotten over time and are unused..?..? Regardless, we were a younger race living in an age barely touched upon by Tolkien, and mostly undreamed of in a practical, scientific sense. But elves were younger then too. I would say Faerie turned to fairy when cities and kindoms diminshed to wood and cave. The Peril remains the same, but the stakes were raised - and the players most definately had changed. Same critter, different stage of evolution.

The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies the spirit of possession and domination......

Understandable concept, from a humans point of view. But what is Love, which (at it's most basic concept) is a Truth, from an Elf/Fairy POV? They are undying, yes. But they are subject (at least in the Tolkienian universe) to fading, or withering, per say. So, does that truth change after 1, 2, 5, or 10 thousand years?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Drigel

Clearly, as their involvement in the physical world diminished, the desire, or the recognition of love from men towards fairy, became less pronounced. Or more rare, shall we say...I would say Faerie turned to fairy when cities and kindoms diminshed to wood and cave. The Peril remains the same, but the stakes were raised - and the players most definately had changed. Same critter, different stage of evolution.

Of course, its maybe dangerous to assume that Tolkien intended the Faeries of SoWM to be the same as the Eldar of the Legendarium (Yet in an earlier draft of SoWM Smith's 'Faerie' name is 'Gilthir' (Quenya? for 'Starbrow')). The problem is that if we take the Fairies of tradition to be the remnants of the Eldar who remained in M-e then we have to account for the changes not just in nature but in 'powers'.

Tolkien seems to have ignored the vengeful, cruel & malicious aspect of Fairies - in a word their 'in(un)humanity'. He seems to have 'Christianised' them - giving them individual souls & making them share our moral values (cf Aragorn's words to Eomer about morality not being one thing among Elves & Dwarves & another among Men). Even as late as the pseudo-'medieval'* period in which SoWM is set Tolkien has his Faeries motivated by love for humanity. It would seem that for Tolkien the inhabitants of Faerie may have been 'dangerous', the place itself full of 'pitfalls for the unwary', but that they always were (& perhaps still are) concerned for us.

Another interesting passage in the essay:

While Nell (Smith's wife) & Nan his daughter were probably themselves Elf-Friends & even walkers in Outer Faery, Ned (his son) was dependent on his father: he could recieve 'Faery' only through the lore & companionship of the older Smith.

This seems to imply that access to Faery was not restricted to the bearer of the Star - indeed, Smith's grandfather, Rider, who brought back Alf (not knowing he was the king of Faery) found his way there without it. Its interesting that it is the two women in Smith's family who have access to Outer Faery in their own right, while his son depends on Smith for knowledge of the place.

*The chronology Tolkien constructed for the story has Smith born in the year 1063, discovering the Star in 1073, marrying Nell in 1091 & making his last journey into Faerie in 1120 - making him about 57. 'His long journeys in Faerie probably were undertaken mostly in the years between 1098 & 1108, & 1115-20.' ie he would have been 35-45 & 52-57 - coincidentally the ages Tolkien was when he did most of his major work on The Sil & LotR....

[drigel]

most excellent points

The problem is that if we take the Fairies of tradition to be the remnants of the Eldar who remained in M-e then we have to account for the changes not just in nature but in 'powers'.

I would conjecture that most (if not all) Eldar, and quite possibly most of the Sindar would have heeded the call, and taken to the seas by the end of the 4th age.. leaving primarily Avari to do as they will in ME. Over aeons, even those held mighty among them would have faded, both in corpeal and non-corpeal aspects. Conjecture of course!

Tolkien seems to have ignored the vengeful, cruel & malicious aspect of Fairies

Quite true. His works involve early ages though, when both races were at a higher state of "natural grace". That's what I tried to speak of when I said the Peril being the same as it was at the beginning, except the stakes were higher. Contact w/fairie was much more dire after so many years of separation or ignorance (even in pre-Roman times). One would have to be truly fated or blessed to survive - most didnt apparantly. Or at least they never "returned". I dont know why I am defending this weak point - hehe fun

He seems to have 'Christianised' them - giving them individual souls & making them share our moral values

What about the opposite? Could Christendom given them the stigma of the vengeful. cruel, and otherwise evil characteristics, as they did with most all the other aspects of "pagan" life? Wasnt all this (fairy, gnomes, trolls et al) lumped under the devil's machinations? It seems they were protrayed generally as perilous, but not wholly good or evil. Perhaps Tolkien was lifting them up out of the mirk that they were put into.

[Bêthberry]

Here am I attempting to play catch up with some thread which have intrigued me.

Originally Posted by Tolkien

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them.

I take this from the second long quotation davem made from Tolkien's essay. Without having read all of it, I am of course hampered in what I can surmise about this very intriguing change, but one point stands out first for me.

I don't see where it necessarily follows that The relationship must therefore be one of love. Unless Tolkien means that only love can provide any kind of kindship between the two realms. This seems to me a definition rather than a proof, rather similar to defining a straight line as "the shortest distance between two points."

Is this related to what more I have to say? I'm not sure. However, it seems that if Tolkien wanted to create a realm of fantasy that would be respected, revered, loved--heart's desire--he could not do so within the ethical world he had created. He could have flawed characters with weaknesses and foibles but he could not have as the primary focus of interest characters who were both malicious and deceitful and deliberately cruel. He did not, for example, show us how Saruman fell to evil. Or Grima. He did give us the fascinating portrait of Gollem, but by and large he observes the doctrine that to study deeply evil ways is to succumb to them. He follows what I might call--and this could well be an unfair overgeneralisation--a Catholic fear of knowledge. Or perhaps I shouldn't even say Catholic. The first prime directive after all was to avoid knowledge of good and evil.

So, if Tolkien wanted creatures who belonged to a perilous realm, who incorporated elements of fairies, sprites, boggarts, dwarves, brownies, spriggans, he would have to work within this tradition which feared full knowledge of evil as something not fit for his human creations. He thus had to domesticate his elves and cleanse them of their capricious ways which were not sympathetic to humans. Otherwise he would have had an evil realm which was beyond the power of the good he wished to portray.

As I said, without having the full essay to read, I am just making some guesses about why he changed his elves. And maybe I'm just saying the same thing that drigel did with different words and ways. Of course he had the right to, as Estelyn suggests, but why he did it is a great topic for a thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I don't see where it necessarily follows that The relationship must therefore be one of love. Unless Tolkien means that only love can provide any kind of kindship between the two realms.

I wondered about this too. The lines:

The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies a spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive.

made me wonder. Does Tolkien mean 'The human love of (ie for) Faery is the 'love of love' or that the love of Faery & its inhabitants for Man & the human world is the 'love of love'? Or does it refer to the state of 'love', which is the essential nature of Faery in general & of the Elves in particular, is the 'love of love' & when that 'love of love' is directed towards the Human world it manifests as a love of humanity & our world, but is not, in its nature, specifically focussed on us alone?

Or am I just rambling......

[davem]

Addendum

Originally Posted by Bb

He thus had to domesticate his elves and cleanse them of their capricious ways which were not sympathetic to humans. Otherwise he would have had an evil realm which was beyond the power of the good he wished to portray.

I wonder if this all grew out of his initial decision to write his mythology from an Elvish perspective. I don't know if Tolkien was the first author to do this, but generally speaking writers of fairy stories write about the inhabitants of Faerie - as seen from the 'outside'. Tolkien wrote, effectively, as an Elf, seeking to tell their story from their pov. Yet he was not only not an Elf, he was a Catholic Christian, & so he would have had a very specific worldview/moral value system- as Bb points out. This consequence of this would have been that his Elves & Faeries would be 'Christianised' - they would think & act not simply like humans but like Christian humans (even the 'sinners' among them would have committed 'Christian' sins).

This, I suppose, really means that Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all. But the question I originally asked remains - why change traditional Elves & Faeries so much - to the point where they bear little or no resemblance to the original figures of folklore? Tolkien's influence on people's perceptions of Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, etc has been so pervasive that many readers automatically think of Tolkien's version of Elves when they hear the word - just as people pre-LotR would have automatically thought of 'Flower Fairies'. Yet both of those concepts were false as regards genuine Fairies.

The interesting thing is that Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories) condemned the 'Flower Fairies' imagery for its falseness & 'Pigwiggenry', yet his own 'Elves' are just as 'false' a creation & no closer to genuine Elves & Fairies. Was his intention to use Faerie for his own ends - make it safe & Christian, remove the 'dangerous' pagan elements & make Faerie a means to 'evangelise' his own people - that seems to have been his intention according to what we read in Garth's biography.

[drigel]

Was his intention to use Faerie for his own ends - make it safe & Christian, remove the 'dangerous' pagan elements & make Faerie a means to 'evangelise' his own people - that seems to have been his intention according to what we read in Garth's biography.

It's hard to conjecture, so far after the fact. If the authors underlying intention was to create (among other ideas) a study of death and immortality, then altering the traditional view of faerie would be understood as appropriate. Undoubtedly the change from traditional fairie to a being who was a higher form of man, or man in his unfallen state was the authors choice in fitting elves into that underlying theme. But, was that an original thought, or an old idea brought to light in a later age?

But then that leads me to ask what the traditional view was, and when was the archtypical view accepted as standard. If the premise being that myth derived from myth etc down through the ages, ultimately leading to that ever rare nugget of truth, then I would say it's entirely plausible that all the "folklorish" or traditional views of fairie was nothing more than a glimpse or a guess into something else further back into the past, remembered only via word of mouth.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

This consequence of this would have been that his Elves & Faeries would be 'Christianised'

This, I suppose, really means that Tolkien didn't write about 'real' (ie genuine - in a 'folkloric' sense) Elves & Faeries at all. But the question I originally asked remains - why change traditional Elves & Faeries so much - to the point where they bear little or no resemblance to the original figures of folklore?

Was his intention to use Faerie for his own ends - make it safe & Christian, remove the 'dangerous' pagan elements & make Faerie a means to 'evangelise' his own people

I do not think that Tolkien intentionally had his Elves follow a more Christian moral pattern, but I do think that there is something in the fact that his Elves are somewhat 'bowdlerised' in comparison to folkloric Faeries. I think that they were not intentionally created in that way as this would be too much of an imposition of the Primary World onto his Secondary World creation; the Elves are somewhat exalted beings in Arda, and to have them symbolic of Christian morality would be dangerously close to allegory. But I do think that Tolkien's own sense of morality, which was itself influenced by his Catholicism (amongst other things), had a strong bearing on how he created the race of the Elves; what he saw as perfection in moral terms would surely have an influence on how this 'high' race lived and behaved.

Faery and Faeries are altogether too tricksy to be subject to any kind of moral code; in Faerie 'right' and 'wrong' as we see them do not exist, and these ideas are even more clear in Arda, so it is at yet another remove from the traditional Faerie.

It brings to mind the discussion on whether there was a Trickster figure in Middle-earth; it is a world with a clear (or more clear than we have at any rate) moral code, and it would be difficult to fit a morally ambiguous, even amoral character into that world. Anyway, back to the thorny question of what Tolkien meant here:

The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things. animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies a spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive.

There is one aspect of Faerie and indeed of love that has not been mentioned and that is sensuality. If the traditional Faerie is amoral, then there would be no censures surrounding love in all its forms and expressions, and traditional views of Faerie have shown this. The ballad Tam Lin is very dark in tone, describing amoral behaviour; even in the more modern view of Faerie painted by Shakespeare the pleasant atmosphere is still centred on love with a certain amount of trickery and mischief. While the former is sinister, the latter is more playful.

It seems that Tolkien was aiming for neither of these things in his own version of Faerie. Certainly the more sensual elements of Faerie were altogether too dark and unpredicatable for the Elves, at least for the majority of them. Can we imagine Galadriel cavorting with wild drunken abandon with the other Elves in Lothlorien? No. Could we see Elrond with a string of lovers? No. Not if we are sticking to what Tolkien wrote anyway. I do wonder if something of that wildness still lingers in ideas such as 'dark elves' though? Certainly Eol has little regard for the 'morals' of the Noldor; he only seeks pleasure, and I have to admit I feel quite shaken when he is killed, me being the product of a more morally ambiguous world. It might be fun to try and find these elements in his work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

It's hard to conjecture, so far after the fact. If the authors underlying intention was to create (among other ideas) a study of death and immortality, then altering the traditional view of faerie would be understood as appropriate. Undoubtedly the change from traditional fairie to a being who was a higher form of man, or man in his unfallen state was the authors choice in fitting elves into that underlying theme. But, was that an original thought, or an old idea brought to light in a later age?

But what of Fairies/Elves as beings in their own right? Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories & the Smith essay) repeatedly refers to Faerie & its inhabitants as having an 'objective' existence:

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men.

Yet it seems that he was willing to ignore that 'objective' existence when it suited him & make use of them as 'symbols' or 'metaphors' (or even as 'allegories') of something else - Art, Death, etc.

[drigel]

But what of Fairies/Elves as beings in their own right? Tolkien (in On Fairy Stories & the Smith essay) repeatedly refers to Faerie & its inhabitants as having an 'objective' existence:

Yes, he spends some thought as to the physical manifistations of Faerie, and also the time/space affects. But to a point. They are almost symbolic/allergoric in nature.

My symbol is not the underground, whether necrological and Orphic or pseudo-scientific in jargon, but the Forest: the regions still immune from human activities, not yet dominated by them (dominated! not conquered!). If Faery Time is at points contiguous with ours, the contiguity will also occur in related points in space - or that is the theory for the purpose of the story. At certain points at or just within the Forest borders a human person may come across these contiguous points and there enter F. time and space - if fitted to do so or permitted to do so.

Meaning this is a Forest, not a forest. In our world, this could be anywhere on the globe, no? It is intersesting to see how (of course) in his mind it's all worked out. But to translate it into the story is where the rub lies.

Yet it seems that he was willing to ignore that 'objective' existence when it suited him & make use of them as 'symbols' or 'metaphors' (or even as 'allegories') of something else - Art, Death, etc.

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.

Death we can define. But Art? To me, its like defining wind. You can point out
results or examples, you can define air, but you cant point to a spot and say "ah, there is wind".

Also: ruth - ruth as in Compassion or pity for another, or, Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws?

[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'.

[drigel]

It is interesting to contemplate. There are more than one dimension to this. Traditional view is touched upon when physicality is considered. But, back then, there were definate Boundries, both real and percieved to the world. The boundries to Fairie wouldnt be any different. There was a very "real" end to the (flat) earth. There was a very real border between the forest and the Forest.

The other side is more spritual, aesthetic and very personal. Intentionally or not, the author touched upon this as much as the maps of ME did - and thankfully. I would say that definately added to the universal appeal to the works.

So, the question is: Is your Faerie the same as mine?

[Lalwendë]

If there is a Faerie of the mind, of the imagination (and I think that there is), then it will be different to everyone, but it will also be the same in that Universal images and concepts will be present. Now my Faerie would be a place of light and shade as the imagination to me takes account of both; the wonders may be thrown into sharp relief by the terrors and dangers. But this again, is similar to how I see the place Faerie. Capricious and unknowable.

Even if Tolkien wished his Faerie not to have darkness then I should still expect to find it in mine. But I still think that even in Tolkien's creation there is plenty of darkness. It is 'tamed' within the pages, but as soon as a reader gets their hands on the book, they can begin to build on those ideas and create all manner of wonders or horrors that Tolkien did not place there, as seen in RPGs and fan-fic.

As to whether people can get by without an imagination, well everyone has got one, but some decide not to exercise it sadly. Maybe this is what Tolkien is getting at in SOWM; he is creating a story out of the contrasts of those who do and those who do not allow the mind to wander...

[drigel]

Even if Tolkien wished his Faerie not to have darkness then I should still expect to find it in mine

Mine too. I think the fact that a good deal of darkness (Doom, Kinslaying, etc) related to in the Silm was Elf upon Elf, and attests to the fact that not everything was skipping joyously through the woods in Faerie land.

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

Mine too. I think the fact that a good deal of darkness (Doom, Kinslaying, etc) related to in the Silm was Elf upon Elf, and attests to the fact that not everything was skipping joyously through the woods in Faerie land.

Certainly there is 'darkeness' in Tolkien's Faerie, but it is a 'logical' darkness. What I mean is that the 'chaotic' nature of traditional Faerie is absent - possibly because as an orthodox Christian Tolkien thought in terms of an opposition of Good & Evil, rather than the 'Pagan' opposition of Chaos & Cosmos. The 'Doom' & the Kinslaying are acts of moral evil. In the traditional Faerie there are constant battles between Fairy tribes, there is malicious destruction & cruelty, but there is also a strong trend of childlike, 'innocent', cruelty - like children pulling the wings off flies, or the legs off spiders - not out of a desire to hurt but simply to see what happens. This 'cruelty' seems to reflect a sense of wonder, an eternal curiosity. There are stories of Fairies discovering that a human had seen them & blinding them, stealing babies out of cradles, or beautiful young humans to come & live with them to join their revels. Its about an absence of human feelings & emotions (&, not being human, why should they be expected to share our values?)

So, we're not talking about darkness in the sense of moral evil at all in many instances. Its not that Tolkien was unaware of this side to Fairies - he translated Sir Orfeo, with its account of the kidnapping of Orfeo's wife, Heurodis, & her imprisonment by the Fairy king, & Aotrou & Itroun has a very malicious Fairy, but he seems to have produced a Faerie which was incredibly idiosyncratic & to have created it for a moral/philosophical purpose - well & good - yet he presents this 'Faerie' as Faerie itself. Or, more precisely, at some points he refers to his Faerie as something he has invented - a 'symbol'

My symbol is not the underground, whether necrological and Orphic or pseudo-scientific in jargon, but the Forest:

this 'Faery' is as necessary for the health and complete functioning of the Human as is sunlight for physical life:

while at other times he seems to refer to it as a realm in its own right - neither symbol nor metaphor. In the Fairy Stories essay he refers to it in both ways - without any reference to his own creation. As he does in this essay.

It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love:

Faery, for Tolkien, seems to be both a 'real' objectively existing place, or state of being, seperate from, but in relationship with, our own world (hence his constant references to not 'inventing' the Legendarium, but rather 'discovering what really happened') & as 'merely' a metaphor a way of speaking about our ideal relationship to creation - & in its essence it can't be both. Yet it seems that at some times it is wholly one & at other times it is wholly the other. But it becomes more complex, because this 'objective realm' of Faery to which he refers is not the Faerie of tradition - that too is his own creation. In other words he is claiming an objective existence for something he himself constructed - because his Faery is to be found nowhere else in folklore, legend or myth.

[drigel]

What I mean is that the 'chaotic' nature of traditional Faerie is absent

I finally am seeing what you are driving at Davem! The absense of this element of fairie is deafening in the Legendarium.

The easy way out would be 'translator's conceit', this being a history written by historians (who were mostly existing at the highest levels of their civilizations). I would tend to adhear to your Christianizing theory though. Although it still could be argued that much of the evil / malicious pranks and practices that were attributed to them (or piled on them) may be more of a reflection of the aftermath of humans becoming Christianized. Also, one should take into account how much of the chaotic element of nature was lumped into evil workings of the devil, post Chrisitianizing. The same element that had a persona of it's own for eons, very quickly became a result of sinfull living - we were flooded because we angered God, etc. Before this time, this similar thought might have been there with pagan gods, but not necessarily. That chaotic nature was more personified in the gods back then. They didnt necessarily have to have a reason to flood your crops, they just did - so deal with it....

This 'cruelty' seems to reflect a sense of wonder, an eternal curiosity. There are stories of Fairies discovering that a human had seen them & blinding them, stealing babies out of cradles, or beautiful young humans to come & live with them to join their revels. Its about an absence of human feelings & emotions (&, not being human, why should they be expected to share our values?)

That sense of "cruelty" in nature is a good point. Of course, from our point of view, we attribute cruelty to acts of nature. It's more pronounced as we become further removed from nature. Looking through the eyes of a pre-Christian society coping with life, this POV will of course be different. Couple that with the general ignorance of biologic systems and a pre-industrial non-scientific kind of learning of nature in general, then we may start to understand that eternal curiosity that you mention. Nature is nature. The truth is that nature has been doing it's own thing long before we came on the scene. But with our ancestors - back then, just about every aspect of life was cruel - from our POV.

So the unhindered, chaotic, wild and untamed aspect to Faerie is ignored in the Legendarium. Does omission mean the author wanted that separate from his Faerie, or does it just not fit with the theme and style he was striving for?

[davem]

A couple of things struck me the more I thought about Tolkien's 'Faery'. One is the way so many of his readers (& so many of the fantasy writers who have followed him - ie ripped him off) have accepted the 'objective' existence of his created Faery - his Elves & Dwarves & Goblins have been accepted by others, not simply Tolkien himself as existing 'out there', but more importantly so has his morality - the moral value system he imposed.

The other thing is the way in the essay he rejects out of hand any allegorical interpretation of Faery (only allowing it to be a 'symbol' - though where the exact dividing line between symbol & allegory is to be found is another question) as it appears in the story, but himself provides an allegorical interpretation of the 'human' world in the story.

[Formendacil]

In a world that is more and more becoming elastic in its moral standards, blurring the lines of good and evil, authors are following in the tradition of assigning morals like ours to non-humans, contrary to a more moral age, when authors assigned no morals like ours to non-human creatures...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In a world that is more and more becoming elastic in its moral standards, blurring the lines of good and evil, authors are following in the tradition of assigning morals like ours to non-humans, contrary to a more moral age, when authors assigned no morals like ours to non-human creatures...

Well, Tolkien certainly does. Clarke doesn't - in a footnote she mentions that faeries are effectively 'insane' - at least in comparison to humans. She is speaking as narrator though. Certainly her Fairies lack anything approaching a human standard of morality. Yet they seem to have a sense of right & wrong - its just not ours. Tolkien attributes the same moral value system to Elves, Dwarves & humans - & even his Orcs seem to have a 'moral' code. Gorbag or Shagrat (don't have the books with me) refers to the leaving of Frodo as a 'regular Elvish trick', & Shagrat declares Gorbag a 'filthy rebel'.

Tolkien's assigning of a common moral value system seems to deny any real moral difference between races. The only real difference between Elves & mortals seems to be that Elves are bound within the circles of the world while mortals are not. Effectively this reduces the difference between them to mortality.

In the Irish myths Fairies have a different origin to men. In the (Christianised) tradition the Fairies were originally the neutral Angels - they took no part in Lucifer's rebellion, but were caught up in the expulsion from Paradise & fell to earth - though not being evil they didn't end up in Hell & were fated to wander the earth. This would make them equivalent to Tolkien's Ainur - except there were no neutral Ainur: they either sided with Melkor or remained loyal to Eru.

It would seem that Tolkien's focus on Death as his chief area of exploration (he declared that LotR is 'about death, the inevitability of death) perhaps overrode other questions. Yet it lead him to ignore other issues. Its outside the tradition, yet we seem to accept it as being traditional - is this purely because so few of his readers have no knowledge of the traditions or is there more to it? Do we feel that Tolkien tapped into something that was originally there but was subsequently lost - as Drigel suggested, or is it that Tolkien's Elves are easier to relate to & identify with?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It would seem that Tolkien's focus on Death as his chief area of exploration (he declared that LotR is 'about death, the inevitability of death) perhaps overrode other questions. Yet it lead him to ignore other issues. Its outside the tradition, yet we seem to accept it as being traditional - is this purely because so few of his readers have no knowledge of the traditions or is there more to it? Do we feel that Tolkien tapped into something that was originally there but was subsequently lost - as Drigel suggested, or is it that Tolkien's Elves are easier to relate to & identify with?

I'm not sure I quite follow this, davem. Are you including Tolkien's conception of death here when you talk about tradition? People's view of death derived from his ethical system is different from that in earlier cultures, no? Perhaps I don't know enough about the pagan myths you are referring to, but is fear of death derived from a fear of hell and damnation or does it extend to other religions and beliefs? Would the Numenorean fate have been possible outside of Tolkien's beliefs?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not sure I quite follow this, davem. Are you including Tolkien's conception of death here when you talk about tradition? People's view of death derived from his ethical system is different from that in earlier cultures, no? Perhaps I don't know enough about the pagan myths you are referring to, but is fear of death derived from a fear of hell and damnation or does it extend to other religions and beliefs? Would the Numenorean fate have been possible outside of Tolkien's beliefs?

I was not as clear there as I should have been. I meant that his conception of Faery & the motives he assigns to Fairies (ie 'love') are outside the tradition. I simply meant that its possible that his desire to focus on & explore the nature of death may have lead (even required) his to assign a common moral value system to all his races. This would throw the death question into sharp relief.

Different religions & traditions have differrent beliefs - some of the Pagan traditions had a fairly unpleasant view of the afterlife - cf The Aeneid - others held out a more pleasant prospect. Some taught reincarnation. My point, as I said, was that maybe the exploration of death over rode everything else for Tolkien, to the extent that he was required to re-create the Elves in his own image, put them in the service of his story, effectively make them into 'symbols', even 'emasculate' them. Elves & Fairies were not like that pre-Tolkien. Post Tolkien they are generally thought of in that way. The wild, fear inspiring, awesome, disturbing Fairies & Elves of tradition, the ones who can transform us & our reality, are absent from Tolkien's world & have been replaced by a unique, beautiful, powerful creation of Tolkien's own - the older Fairies occasionally peep out, & at those points we may feel a thrill, but generally his Elves are 'good Christians'.

[drigel]

the older Fairies occasionally peep out, & at those points we may feel a thrill, but generally his Elves are 'good Christians'.

Especially in The Hobbit. Tra la la lally yes, but there were some seriously drunk and leary wood elves in there too.

I still am unsure ommision from the works = ommision from the body of the elvish culture. I think about how much literature that came from multitudes of authors that have described the history of the past 2000 yrs. I then consider the limited snapshot of what Tolkien has described that covered a period of what - 4-6 thousand years? And that period was (debatably) 7, 8 or more thousand years prior to today, all from a few books and writings.

I suppose it's too simplistic (or forced application) to view this as the "traditional" pre-Tolkien elves are actually (in terms of the Legendarium) the post 4th age Morquendi who are no longer exposed or influenced by the Eldar..? Left to themselves, perpetually fading, and "gone native"..?..?

Translators Conceit, applicability, canon all rearing their ugly heads......

[davem]

drigel, good point, but... One aspect of Tolkien's Elves which is world's away from the traditional figures (particularly the Irish Sidhe) is in their sexual mores. The Fairies of tradition are notoriously lascivious & this sexual element was extremely shocking to the early Christian redactors of the Pagan material. Tolkien's Elves are almost innately 'Catholic' in as regards sex - no sex till they are married & then seemingly only for procreation - which is usually limited to a couple of children.

So, as I said they seem from a sexual perspective to be innately good Catholics - they wouldn't even need the Church's prohibitions - every 'demand' the Church makes on member's sexual conduct is just second nature to Tolkien's Elves - no struggles involved. Traditional Fairies, on the other hand, seem to have no self control (sexual or otherwise) to speak of.

[Lalwendë]

Ideas....

Maybe we ought not to look at Tolkien's Elves at all if we want to find any reflection of 'our' Faerie. They are altogether too perfect to be a representation of Faeries, too controlled and moral. Tolkien's Elves are more like Men, or rather, like idealised Men.

In terms of relationships, Tolkien's Elves are sometimes like stiff, buttoned-up Victorians with high romantic ideals - I'm thinking of figures like Ruskin here, with the apocryphal tale of what happened after he saw his wife undressed - for Elves, romantic ideals are easily shattered. For Faeries, quite the opposite would be the case! Seemingly, it is only when Men arrive on the scene that passions start being stirred. It fascinates me why Tolkien should write his Elves in such a way...

It is possibly in other areas of Tolkien's work that Faerie emerges. Dare I say that the Dwarves have a lot more in common with Faerie than do the Elves? They traditionally live underground (not all Elves do this, only some), and their realms are like whole other worlds, literally The Underworld. In common with Faerie, Dwarves keep their names secret, they also like to keep to themselves, and to upset a Dwarf is to make an enemy. As to the difference that Dwarves are mortal, they are also long-lived, and we cannot say that faeries are always represented as immortal; there are stories of Faery deaths. The other main difference is that we often equate Faerie with beauty, but who is to say that Faeries are not little fellas with long beards?

Relationships between Elves/Dwarves were once good but now have declined, much as the relationship of Men/Faeries has declined. Any Men who consort with Faerie might be viewed suspiciously; they live on the margins. Eol was one Elf who lived in this way, preferring the mystery of the Forest to the society of Elves, and trading with and taking company from Dwarves; he is like the figure of the Mage who lives on the edges of the community, shunning the rules and forging relationships with Faeries.

Hobbits too can be more Faerie than Elves are; Faeries are often seen as small, and fond of humour and feasting. Gollum is like the tricksy side of Faeries. The Woses may be Faeries too. And I find Tom Bombadil and Goldberry would be more appropriate as the King and Queen of Faerie than any Elf; they remain slightly enigmatic yet familiar, otherworldly and unpredictable.

Just some ideas to stir into the pot...

[drigel]

edit - Lalwendwe has already efficiently posted some points I was bringing up...

Davem,
Your correct. There is too much out there to unify it all. There is also the distortion that history provides that muddles up the picture. You have mentioned the Sidhe, and previously the Tuatha De Dananns. My problem is where to stop in regards to Tolkien. Do we stop at Celtic/Nordic traditions in regards to faerie?

There are other subjects (dragons come to mind) that cross cultures and history. In that regard, fairys (faeries) have as well: Greek, Arabic, Egyptian etc. You have your muses, genies, sirens, nymphs .. the list goes on.

What I do notice in all these variations is that Faeries are not divine in and of themselves (although most are immortal), they do represent (in most cases), the transition, or go-between our world and the "divine" world. Either as messengers, couriers, propheters, or just because they can, and want to.

[davem]

I suppose that, putting it simply, what Tolkien introduces into Faerie is Christian moral values. He has, effectively, 'baptized' the Elves into the Church. Though perhaps its more subtle - he gives us in his Elves perfect Christians. Some of them 'fall' - but again they fall as Christians fall, for the same reasons & with the same result. Having fallen they must 'repent' to be 'saved'.

Originally Posted by drigel

What I do notice in all these variations is that Faeries are not divine in and of themselves (although most are immortal), they do represent (in most cases), the transition, or go-between our world and the "divine" world. Either as messengers, couriers, propheters, or just because they can, and want to.

In the Legendarium this is certainly true, but in the essay Tolkien states:

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise. Certainly its inhabitants, Elves, are not angels or emlssares of God (direct).

The 'sex' question in relation to Elves is interesting. In the Legendarium sexual desire for anyone but one's spouse, for any reason other than procreation, is seen as a sign of moral corruption: Wormtongue's desire for Eowyn, Celegorm's (& Morgoth's) for Luthien, Morgoth's for Arien, (& possibly Feanor's for Galadriel), Maeglin's for Idril - the list goes on. Sam clearly has a healthy sex life with Rose, but this is within marriage & produces children. Yet, as I said, the Elves & Fairies of tradition are infamous for seducing young men & women to gratify their desires (in the Ballad Tam Lin is placed as guardian of the Fairy site of Carterhaugh, & from any maiden unwise enough to tresspass there he 'takes a fee, either their rings or their mantles, or else their maidenhead'). This is very similar to the behaviour we find among the classical gods. Even Merlin is the child of a 'nun' & an otherworld inhabitant. The children of these unions in the tradition are natives of both worlds - a concept Tolkien adapts to produce the half-Elven. These children of both worlds were often seen as 'mediators', providing a link between the worlds. Some commentators have pointed out the similarity of these beings to Christ. RJ Stewart quotes a Gaelic invocation of Christ:

In the name of the Son of Light,the Son of Maria,
Keystone of the Arch of Heaven,
Who joins as one the forks upholding of the sky.
His the right hand, His the left hand.
His the rainbow letters in the rich fermented milk.
May you go in his ways, in all shapes of shapes,
In all colours of colours.
It is the Son of Light, the Son of Maria, saying:
'Ask in my Name, you shall not be cast out.'
Do you see us here, o Son of Light?
Says the Son of Light, 'I see'.

Jesus is also a 'Child' of two worlds - Paradise through His Father, earth through his Mother, & so provides the link between Earth & Heaven. The closest thing to a 'Christ' figure, or 'saviour' in Middle-earth is Earendel, who is also a child of two worlds.

Yet what is lacking in these Pagan figures is the Christian moral value system which we find in Tolkien. There is a (mistaken imo) belief that Tolkien, because he wasn't writing a Christian allegory, was writing within the 'Fairy tradition' - giving us Elves as they 'really' were. But he clearly wasn't. Yet, in both the Fairy Stories & the Smith essays, he seems to be at pains to tie himself into that authentic tradition & have us believe that he is presenting us with 'Just the facts, ma'am.' Now, did he really believe that he was presenting us with authentic Elves & Faeries, or was he deliberately trying to mislead us? If so, why? Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants? For all our discussions here, I don't think we've yet got the heart of the matter - why did he change the traditional Elves & Fairies to the extent that he did & more importantly perhaps why did he make out that he hadn't changed them at all?

[drigel]

At this point it's almost a philosophical debate. What were they (Faerie) to us really? One needs to answer this question first before attempting to describe the intent of the author.
Were they representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?
Were they representing actual gods and goddesses that have fallen (both physically and in regards cultural spiritualism) from importance?
Were they real agents of transition between the physical and spiritual?
You tell me. Im all ears

BUT Faery is not religious. It is fairly evident that it is not Heaven or Paradise.

This is where I get confused. All descriptions of Valinor (especially post Numenor) seem paradise-esque. But, as the essay says, Faery is Faery. Period. Hard to wrap the head around. Perhaps Faerie resides somewhere in the suburbs of Paradise?

Did he see traditional Elves & Faeries as so 'dangerous' that he felt some kind of moral imperative to make them safe & suitable? Or was it that he just decided they were a suitable means to his didactic end - if so, what does that say about his real attitude to Faerie & its inhabitants?

Forget balrogs wings - the heart of the matter of your thread is quite possibly IMO the most important question to ask the Prof if only one question could be asked of him. I wonder if the answer to one question would satisfy us..

If I were to imagine him answering, I would have a few alternatives.

1: Perhaps my grounding in Catholicism inadvertantly changed my motivation in dealing with fairie in the Legendarium.

2: It is a study of death and immortality. In my work, we have the Unfallen living alongside the Fallen. Adam and Eve living with Cain and Able. Or, (plug in any religion here Lif and Lifthrasir living with Sigmund and Borghild. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.

3: My faerie IS faerie. But, so is the traditional faerie. Truth is truth, morals are morals, dont confuse religion with that idea. I do not expect you to think I have changed Faery to suit my own needs, just as I do not expect you to think I have changed history to suit my own needs.

add more as you see fit please

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

At this point it's almost a philosophical debate. What were they (Faerie) to us really? One needs to answer this question first before attempting to describe the intent of the author.
Were they representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?
Were they representing actual gods and goddesses that have fallen (both physically and in regards cultural spiritualism) from importance?
Were they real agents of transition between the physical and spiritual?

Hmm... Well, to some people - the rural Irish (up to & including in this century) they were real beings - a 'real & present danger'. As they were (& still are) to some Icelanders. And to rural peoples everywhere. As to them being 'representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves answer?' I suppose that would be a result of 'civilisation'. Originally they were not that at all. As beings in their own right they had their own mores & motives.

I suppose that they were available to Tolkien to make his own use of, in whatever way he wanted. But he doesn't say he's doing that - he claims he's giving them back to us as they 'really' are - or were. In this he's somewhat in the position of Jung as regards Alchemy.

This is where I get confused. All descriptions of Valinor (especially post Numenor) seem paradise-esque. But, as the essay says, Faery is Faery. Period. Hard to wrap the head around. Perhaps Faerie resides somewhere in the suburbs of Paradise?

Valinor, I suppose, is Middle-earth's 'Earthly Paradise' - yet there is no actual 'Paradise' in the Legendarium, only references to 'something' beyond the circles of the world. Faerie is used, in the early writings (& in TH & Roverandom) interchangeably with Valinor. I wonder about the connection between Niggle's Parish & the Halls of Mandos in Valinor. Both are equivalent to Purgatory - a middle ground, neither earth/hell or heaven. Faerie & its inhabitants are also 'betwixt & between'.

1: Perhaps my grounding in Catholicism inadvertantly changed my motivation in dealing with fairie in the Legendarium.

2: It is a study of death and immortality. In my work, we have the Unfallen living alongside the Fallen. Adam and Eve living with Cain and Able. Or, (plug in any religion here Lif and Lifthrasir living with Sigmund and Borghild. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.

2: My faerie IS faerie. But, so is the traditional faerie. Truth is truth, morals are morals, dont confuse religion with that idea. I do not expect you to think I have changed Faery to suit my own needs, just as I do not expect you to think I have changed history to suit my own needs.

Any of the above - & other possibilities, as you say. But I still wonder if there is any common ground between Tolkien's Faerie & traditional Fairie, between his Elves & traditional Elves. Can we say Tolkien's Elves are simply a variation on an existing theme, or are they wholly 'other'. In Appendix F he says he has used the name Elves as the nearest current equivalent for his Eldar. Fine - except that in his essays he stakes his claim to Faery.

And so we have Smith, in itself & particularly in the Smith essay. This particular 'Secondary World' & its inhabitants is another 'betwixt & between' realm, but this time it stands 'betwixt & between' the 'High', 'Christian' Faerie of the Legendarium & the simple 'rural' Faery of tradition. Yet even so it is closer to Middle-earth than to the 'Fair Elfland' of True Thomas. Perhaps if he had lived he would have moved even closer to the traditional Faery.

We seem to see in Tolkien a conflicted artist - 'torn in two'. Part of him is pulled towards the traditional Faery, part towards his religion & its requirements & values. At Birmingham Ronald Hutton gave a talk on 'Tolkien the Pagan', examining this question. It seems Tolkien was never able to give Faerie its head - he had to make it 'safe' - though maybe he had no choice in that. One gets glimpses, as I said, of traditional Faerie in his writings, but he never seems to feel it is entirely 'safe'. His mentions of 'pitfalls' & 'Dungeons' awaiting the overbold strayer into Faery seems as much a warning to himself as to his readers.

Yet maybe there was more going on. If the glimpse of the little Fairy Queen doll on the cake was better than no glimpse of Faery at all, & provided for some - both Smith himself &, according to the essay, his wife (who is named a 'walker in outer Faery in the essay) the entrance into it, maybe Tolkien intended his Legendarium to be a similar glimpse & means of ingress into traditional, 'real' Faerie? Maybe he gave us the Faery that we were capable of taking in at the time & offering us the chance of going on.

I don't know. I'm increasingly confused by the question. All I have is Tolkien's claim that he is telling 'what really happened' set against the fact that his Faerie is nothing like the Faerie we find in traditional tales & accounts, yet he tells me that it is the same 'place'.

Edit.

Thinking about it, (& with drigel's earlier mention in mind)I find the Elves of TH quite 'traditional' - even with their 'Tra-la-la-lally's - or maybe even because of them. In traditional Fairystories the inhabitants of Faery often behave in 'mad' or childish ways. There seems no contradiction between the behaviour of those Rivendell Elves & the Wood Elves encountered later, with their short tempers, self-importance, greed & drunkeness.

My point here being, it seems that in TH, which was originally not meant to be part of the Legendarium Tolkien felt able to set the Fairies free to be themselves. It was only the Legendarium Elves that were required to 'work for a living' & earn their bread.....

[drigel]

just for the record - when I ran off with the :
'representations of nature and explanations to events that the ignorant could not themselves' answer, I was thinking of the example of how elves were to blame when a child was born sickly. It was told that they were actually sickly elvish babies that were switched with the healthy human baby.

no offense intended toward the celts or any otherwise uncivilized culture

[Lalwendë]

Some more thoughts...

I think that the Faerie of SOWM quite literally is Tolkien's Faerie, but that's because Tolkien seems to have had a particular notion of what faerie was/is. I think that his Faerie, rather than being an Otherworld place was in fact the imagination, the realm within people. The star in SOWM could represent the imagination and the passing on of this could represent the encouragement of further generations to explore the Faerie within.

fairy-stories are not in normal English usage stories about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being.

Tolkien says that a fairy story is not about the people who live there, but about the place. How does this square up with his work set in Arda? We do not actually get to see very much of the Undying Lands, as the books are set in Middle-earth, and we might expect that the former would be the 'Faerie' of the story.

I think the answer to this depends on how much the books are about the places or about the people. If the answer tends towards the latter then maybe the books aren't about Faerie or Tolkien's idea of Faerie at all.

Getting back to what Tolkien said in On Fairy stories, I have to note that this was his opinion on what good Fairy Stories ought to be like, and though I agree with most of what he says, it does not necessarily apply to Faerie itself. He says that 'pigwiggenry' ought to have no place in a good fairy story, but that doesn't mean it would have no place in Faerie; if pixies wished to ride around on earwigs in Faerie then no doubt they would, it's that kind of tricksy place (I should imagine... ). What Tolkien was trying to get across in his essay is that a good Fairy story ought also to be good Art, while Faerie itself would have no respect for such a notion as Art.



Amusing Footnote: I was googling for a reference on 'pigwiggenry' and only about 14 entries came up, one of which was the latest canonicity thread on the Downs. Hmmm....

[drigel]

And to rural peoples everywhere.

Here as well to a certain extent. No fairies, but plenty of ghosts and spririts, mothmen and Jersey Devils. I probably shouldnt use ignorant as a descriptor. But, come to think of it, saying that tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes happen to people because God is angry with them is way, way ignorant IMO.

And so we have Smith, in itself & particularly in the Smith essay. This particular 'Secondary World' & its inhabitants is another 'betwixt & between' realm, but this time it stands 'betwixt & between' the 'High', 'Christian' Faerie of the Legendarium & the simple 'rural' Faery of tradition. Yet even so it is closer to Middle-earth than to the 'Fair Elfland' of True Thomas. Perhaps if he had lived he would have moved even closer to the traditional Faery.

It's what makes this all the more interesting - reading that I find that physicality of Faery in the essay very real. And the people and objects transitioning between here and there very real and mostly ordinary. It's almost approaching a middle ground of sorts in SOWM. Facinating! I agree with your conclusion here, and would find it much more interesting to see how he would evolve and/or combine these seemingly disparate Faeries, than reading anything about a 4th age "New Shadow". Alas..

Tolkien says that a fairy story is not about the people who live there, but about the place.

He says that 'pigwiggenry' ought to have no place in a good fairy story, but that doesn't mean it would have no place in Faerie

We seem to see in Tolkien a conflicted artist - 'torn in two'.

So is my brain trying to work this out. Is the stigma of validating things pagan too much of a conflict? Would it have been not so if Tolkien was Protestant? Agnostic?

[davem]

Its interesting that SoWM was the last thing Tolkien published. Of his other post LotR published writings, what do we have? The 'Notes for Translators of LotR published in Lobdell's A Tolkien Compass, the co-authored Road Goes Ever On - anything else?

Yet what we now find is that Tolkien didn't simply write Smith as a short story & leave it at that - he created a whole backstory for it, giving depth & history to the secondary world. In early drafts of Smith the story was to some degree linked into the world of Middle-earth:

When he got it down, he found that very little of the spices was left, and that was rather dry and musty, but in one compartment he found a ring, black-looking as if it was made of silver and was tarnished. 'That's funny!' he said, as he held it up to the light. 'NO, it isn't!' said a voice that made him jump; for it was the voice of his apprentice who had come in behind him, and he had never yet dared to speak first before he was spoken to. He was only a small boy; bright and quick, 'but he has a lot to learn yet' (so the cook thought).
So 'What do you mean, my lad' said the cook, not much pleased. 'If it isn't funny, what is it?' 'It's a magic ring' said the apprentice. Then the cook laughed. 'All right, all right,' he said. 'Call it what you like! You'll grow up someday. Now you can get on with stoning the raisins; and if you notice any magic ones tell me'.
'What are you going to do with the ring?' said the apprentice. 'Put it in the cake, of course,' said the cook. 'Surely you have been to children's parties
yourself, and not so long ago, where little trinkets like this were stirred into the mixture, and little silver coins and what not: it amuses the children.' 'But Cook? this is not a trinket, it's a magic ring' said the apprentice. 'So you've said before' said the Cook crossly. 'Very well, I'll tell the children. It'll make them laugh.'

One day, however, he was walking through a wood in Fairy, and it was autumn there, and there were red leaves on the boughs and on the ground. Footsteps came behind, but he was thinking about the leaves, and did not turn round. A man caught up with him, and said suddenly at his side: "Are you going my way, Gilthir?" For that was his name (Starbrow) in Fairy; at home he was called Alfred Smithson. "What is your way?" he answered. "I am going home", said the man, and Alfred looked at him and saw that it was the Apprentice: a tall man now, but he stooped a little, and had lines on his brow and face, though he was only a few years older than Alfred. "So am I," he said; "we will walk together."

Magic Rings & a Quenya name for Smith! Yet Tolkien removes these 'links' & moves the story away from Middle-earth. Perhaps he felt that such references would impose too many restrictions on his freedom & he wanted to explore another Faery - or explore Faery in a new way. He can't break free of his established Faery (ie Middle-earth) because the moral value system remains, yet it is in many ways a different world & the Faeries have new motives (albeit entirely Tolkienesque ones rather than traditional ones).

In speculating on possible endings for Smith Tolkien wrote:

When the Smith comes home after surrendering the star, should any more be said than has been about what became of him? In earlier draft it is said that he could go back to Fayery, for the mark of the star that had been on his brow was still visible to the folk of Fayery; but he could not go deep in, nor ever visit any new place or see any new thing that he had not already seen. (This has a significance, of course: a time comes for writers and artists, when invention and Vision' cease and they can only reflect on what they have seen and learned.)

So, we have Tolkien stating ' a time comes for writers and artists, when invention and Vision' cease and they can only reflect on what they have seen and learned.' at the same time as he is creating a brand new Secondary world - without the depth of Middle-earth, certainly, but still he is doing far more than merely 'reflecting on what he has seen & learned'. Indeed, this essay, in its own way, is as profound & important an exploration of Faery & Fairy stories as 'On Fairy Stories'. The analysis of the nature of Faery & the motives of its inhabitants is in some ways even more profound.

It is a 'Fairy Story', of the kind in which beings that may be called 'fairies' or 'elves' play a part and are associates in action with human people, and are regarded as having a 'real' existence, that is one in their own right and independent of human imagination and invention...

This is an interesting statement in light of the quote from OFS given by Lalwende

fairy-stories are not in normal English usage stories about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being.

He seems to be using a different definition of 'Fairy Stories' in the Smith essay - in OFS Fairy Stories are not stories about Fairies, but in SoWM - which is a Fairy Story according to Tolkien, Fairies are central characters - they are the initiators of the action. Smith is given the 'freedom of Faery':

In such stories there must be some way or ways of access from and to Faery, available at least to Elves as to favoured mortals. But it is also necessary that Faery and the World (of Men), though in contact, should occupy a different time and space, or occupy them in different modes. Thus though it appears that the Smith can enter Faery more or less at will (being specially favoured), it is evident that it is a land, or world of unknown limits, containing seas and mountains; also it is plain that even during a brief visit (such as one on an evening walk) he can spend a great deal longer in Faery than his absence counts in the world; on his long journeys an absence from home of, say, a week is sufficient for exploration and experiences in Faery equivalent to months or even years. ...

But then it gets interesting in other ways:

But also this must be considered: the Faery of this tale is a particular one. If one accepts it, while 'within' the tale, then clearly the Rulers of Faery — who are presented as interested in Men (not necessarily primarily) and beneficently - must be able to arrange that the experiences in Faery of favoured human persons may be enjoyed without dislocation of their normal human life. The time of their Faery must be different, even though it may be at points contiguous. For them human time is or may be also longer than that of Faery. The King dwells in Wootton for 58 years. ..

'This' Faery is a particular one - how many Faery's are there? According to OFS really just the one. Faery is, maybe, still the human imagination - or the human imagination fired by some 'Other' place or state, but it seems there is now more than one Faery. But however many there are they are not 'illusions', but objective states of being:

Entry into the 'geographical' bounds of Faery also involves entry into Faery Time. How does a mortal 'enter' the geographical realm of Faery? Evidently not in dream or illusion. Physical objects, such as the star, the Living Flower, and the elvish toy, survive transplantation from Faery to the World...

Faery(s) is not defined or limited, & it seems that only part of it has a relationship with the human world, only certain of its inhabitants are concerned with humanity - but those that are are on a mission to 'save' mankind & the human world (& by extension their own:

But in this tale Forest and Tree remain dominant symbols. They occur in three of the four 'remembered' and recorded experiences of the Smith — before his leave-taking of the Queen. They do not occur in the first, because it is at that point that he discovers that Faery is 'limitless' and is mainly involved in vast regions and events that do not concern Men and are impenetrable by them. ..

It is probable that the world of Faery could not exist* without our world, and is affected by the events in it — the reverse being also true. The 'health' of both is affected by state of the other. Men have not the power to assist the Fdvenfolk in the ordering and defence of their realm; but the Elves have the power (subject to finding co-operation from within) to assist mm the protection of our world, especially in the attempt to re-direct Men when their development tends to the defacing or destruction of their world. The Elves may thus have also an enlightened self-interest in human affairs. ..

Faery needs the human world, just as much as humans need Faery. Yet only the Faeries realise this at the beginning of the story. But Tolkien himself also recognises this need, this interrelationship. Except, according to him it is not traditional Faery that we need, but this very precisely defined creation that he sets before us.

Still no nearer....

[drigel]

One aspect of Tolkien's Elves which is world's away from the traditional figures (particularly the Irish Sidhe) is in their sexual mores. The Fairies of tradition are notoriously lascivious & this sexual element was extremely shocking to the early Christian redactors of the Pagan material.

I keep coming back to this thought. From what Ive been exposed to, it seems the traditional view on sexuality is one sided. The faeries being the aggressor as it were. Their human victims either being duped, or forced into the relationship. Is this right? Or do I need to dig up more material?

Contrast this with the Legendarium, where the few times (at least with the "higher elves") it happened it was very much mutual, and the Choice had to be made. Producing offspring for elves was also very much a Task, the sexuality nothing more than a means to the end.

Of course, initially, my modern mind views the traditional model as mainly an excuse: "I was faithfull, really! It was a confounded elf that accosted me!", etc. But anyways, the stuff I read the tryst has been either forced, coerced, or manipulated in some way by faerie, resulting in either a cursed or magiked baby, and / or the disappearance of the victim.

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

I keep coming back to this thought. From what Ive been exposed to, it seems the traditional view on sexuality is one sided. The faeries being the aggressor as it were. Their human victims either being duped, or forced into the relationship. Is this right? Or do I need to dig up more material?

As I understand it, it could work both ways - there's an analysis of Kirk's Secret Commonwealth here:. Especially

There were also more sinister aspects to human/fairy interactions.
Most people have heard of changelings, where a human baby is taken away
from its parents and a defective fairy child left in its place. But the
Subterraneans did not balk at taking adults away too. They particularly
liked women who'd just given birth. They were kidnapped to serve as wet
nurses to fairy babies. Interestingly, the fairies would leave exact
doubles of their captives behind. Kirk discusses these doppelgangers,
who he calls "co-walkers," in some detail. Like changeling infants,
co-walkers tend to weaken, become incoherent, and eventually die.
They're not human or fairy, but a sort of biological robot created by
fairy magic to distract mortals away from the truth about the abduction
of their loved ones. UFO lore is full of co-walker types. Many of the
classic "men in black" episodes feature clumsy, muddle-mouthed visitors
who don't quite seem in sync with the mundane world. MIBs, like
co-walkers, perform some task, then depart -- though they don't usually
die in front of puzzled witnesses.

Kirk gives this account of one woman's abduction (I have modernized
his spelling):

"Among other instances of undoubted verity, proving in these the being
of such aerial people, or species of creatures not vulgarly known, I
add the subsequent relations, some whereof I have from my acquaintance
with the actors and patients and the rest from the eyewitnesses to the
matter of fact. The first whereof shall be of the woman taken out of
her child-bed, and having a lingering image of her substituted body in
her room, which resemblance decayed, died, and was buried. But the
person stolen returning to her husband after two years space, he being
convinced by many undeniable tokens that she was his former wife,
admitted her home and had diverse children by her. Among other reports
she gave her husband, this was one: that she perceived little what they
[the fairies] did in the spacious house she lodged in, until she
anointed one of her eyes with a certain unction that was by her; which
they perceiving to have acquainted her with their actions, they fained
her blind of that eye with a puff of their breath. She found the place
full of light, without any fountain or lamp from whence it did spring."

Kirk goes on to say the returned woman was undoubtedly the same one
everyone thought had died, and that her husband, having remarried since
her "death," was obliged to divorce his second wife to remarry his
first.

& an article on Selkies gives:

The male members among the selkie-folk were renowned for their many encounters with human females - married and unmarried.

A selkie man in human form was a handsome creature with almost magical seductive powers over mortal women. These selkie men had no qualms in casting off their sealskins, stashing them carefully, before heading inland to seek illicit intercourse with an 'unsatisfied woman'.

Should such a mortal woman wish to make contact with a selkie man, there was a specific rite that she had to follow. At the high tide, the woman should make her way to the shore where she had to shed seven tears into the sea.

The selkie man would then come ashore and after removing his magical sealskin, would seek out 'unlawful love' among the women of the island.

In the words of the Orkney folklorist Walter Traill Dennison, these selkie males:

"..often made havoc among thoughtless girls, and sometimes intruded into the sanctity of married life."
If a girl went missing while out on the ebb or at sea, it was inevitably said that her selkie lover had taken her to his watery domain - assuming, of course, she had not attracted the eye of a Finman.

But if the males of the selkie race were irresistable to the island women, selkie women were no less alluring to the eyes of earth-born men.

The most common theme in selkie-folklore is one in which a cunning young Orcadian man acquires, either by trickery or theft, a selkie girl's sealskin.

This prevented her from returning to her home in the sea and the beautiful seal-maiden was usually forced to marry their 'captors' and sire children.

These tales generally end sadly, however, with the selkie wife's children finding and returning her sealskin so that she might return to the sea. In some accounts her children go with her while others have them remaining with their mortal father.

Six of one, half dozen of the other, so to speak.