|
Origins
Dec 13, 2004 21:30:23 GMT -6
Post by Stormrider on Dec 13, 2004 21:30:23 GMT -6
From: Majah 12/14/03 i don't want to stop ANY discussion but though i would suggest we move on and read and discuss another section of the essay... since it is the holidays and everyone is probably going nuts... let's just read the section called Origins and talk about it. (i may even make a chart of two for y'all...NOT!!! he he)
* * * * *
From: Jerseyshore 12/29/03 I had a little trouble understanding this section of the essay, partly because I am not very familiar with some of the examples the Prof uses. What I got from it is that it isn't that important where the components of a faery story come from. What is vital is how the components are put together into a completed form. The "soup" is more than the sum of its parts. Searching for the sources of the stories is a futile effort. We can be aware that various stories have similar themes and devices, but we shouldn't get too involved with trying to figure out how they are related to each other. But this is not enough to require all those pages! What else is he trying to say?
|
|
|
Origins
Dec 13, 2004 21:31:16 GMT -6
Post by Stormrider on Dec 13, 2004 21:31:16 GMT -6
From: Majah 1/20/04 first an apology to all...i knew the holidays would be crazy for everyone but i intended to get back here much before now... my main comments on this part of the essay are pretty simple but i did laugh that JRR said he had little to say on the subject of Origins but took sooooooo many pages to say it...he he the man DID love words didn't he? in fact one of the things i loved is when he suggested that adjectives were magical because of how they affect the rest of the words in a story. i can see language in a new light with that thinking as something that can cast a spell over the reader. how i wish i was a writer like that!!! what struck me the most was the pot of soup theory. i like the idea that our intellects continually absord all the bits and pieces; good or bad, new or old, real or not real, etc so that all the elements of a story to be written is in the pot. and as far as searching for the sources of the material in the soup, Tolkien mentioned that Myth resembles History because they are ultimately of the same stuff. But as JRR also pointed out, the "Cook" as creator of the story selects where to dip the laddle. i feel that in being a good writer, you know where to dip and what bits you need to pick up for your story. i just like that idea so much of drawing on the richness of your life experiences...( i feel you use much the same soup theory in making art but that is another discussion...he he) maybe someone has some more insights on this section before we move on?
|
|
|
Origins
Feb 5, 2005 12:55:54 GMT -6
Post by Andorinha on Feb 5, 2005 12:55:54 GMT -6
From John Garth's "Tolkien and the Great War," I am learning a great deal about JRRT's earliest years as a writer. His formative juvenalia (1909 - 1912) are addressed in these pages, as are his war time notebooks in which much of his early linguistic material (1915 - 1916) was written while he slogged his way through the boredom of England's training camps, or watched the bursting shells fall upon the front zone of the Somme.
Here, Tolkien seems unbothered by the "wee-size" of the traditional fairy, and works within the limits of the normative definition to describe his Elves as "light fairy things tripping so gay," and "Sprites of the wood," (p. 14), and later he defines his Elves as "immortal and they drink a liquid called limpe (whereas the Valar drink miruvore). They are generally diminutive, some especially so: a mushroom is known as a 'fairy canopy', Nardi is a flower fairy, and likewise Tetille, who lives in a poppy." (p. 126) In his early poem "Goblin Feet" (circa 1915) Tolkien describes a happy Goblin type (probably based on the "good" Goblin concepts of George MacDonald) that seem more like the tiny pixies and the sprites than his later hulking, shambling Orcs: "O! the little tinkly sounds ... the rustle of their little robes... their happy little feet... their swining lamps in little starlit globes..." (p. 73). There is even a curious Pan creature (the wood divinity of the Greeks, not the Peter Pan of J.M. Barrie's famous tale) who prefigures Tom Bombadil: Tinfang Warble -- who dances all alone... hops on a stone... flits like a faun... pipes and whistles as he cavorts upon the lawn. "Tinfang Warble is a wisp of a figure, barely glimpsed." (p. 75) Tinfang shows up in later works as Timpinen, sometimes seen as a tiny fairy Elf, sometimes listed with the Valar.
Apparently, in his youth, Tolkien was toying with a much more elastic sort of fairy, as some of them were no bigger than bumble-bees, while others were Thumbelina sized, and some attained respectable leprachaun status. Other types, like the Elves who built the cities of Kor and Kortirion, were slightly taller than the men of Middle-earth, and seen to prefigure the Eldar of Silmarillion and the LotR.
Much later, in the 1930s, Tolkien would look back upon his first attempts to use fairies in his poems and in his tales, and he would shiver in dismay: "I wish the unhappy little thing ["Goblin Feet"], representing all that I came (so soon after) to fervently dislike, could be buried for ever."
What I have not been able to find, so far, is a clear statement as to why JRRT gradually renounced the "diminutive" mode of the fairy kind, and opted to use only the man-sized sort. In many ways, I see Tolkien as becoming increasingly anthropocentric in his views the older he became. The clever-thinking, independently acting, talking animals are gradually phased out (Tevildo, Prince of Cats) as we move toward "The Hobbit." Some glimpses of a wider definition of Fairy and of Faerie, of a freer use of non-human characters is still seen in Bilbo's tale, but even this becomes more cramped toward the predominance of humans as we enter the pages of LotR. In LotR, even Radagast "fails" in his mission to Middle-earth, because he spends too much time saving "animals" and not enough time working with the all important humans; the Wargs no longer talk; there is no speaking dog like Huan; the Eagles are reduced to a few cameo appearances; and the Elves have lost their size-variability, and have become "humanized" to the point where they can even interbreed successfully with Men...
At this moment, I am thinking that Tolkien's increasing absorption into the Roman Catholic Faith, his increased concern with revising all his Middle-earth works so that they would be consistent with Christianity, led him to elevate mankind to the central role,* led him to gradually dismiss the independence and the complexity of all the other magical, fairy creatures that once inhabited his sub-created world. Pixies, Leprachauns, Kobolds, talking dogs, etc. just had to go...
_____________ * Despite the "JHWH-Christ-centered," Heaven-aiming protestations of Judaeo-Christianity, it is a remarkably anthropocentric religion, where the function of universal existence seems to be the creation of Mankind, the tutoring of Mankind, the salvation of Mankind, and the consequent subjugation of all other concerns and creatures to the domination of Mankind. Tolkien, I think, reflects this thrust in his own re-shaping of an originally freer ranging concept of Faerie and Middle-earth to approximate the all pervading Christian concern with humanity.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 21, 2006 1:27:16 GMT -6
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jan 21, 2006 1:27:16 GMT -6
I realize that no one has posted on this thread for almost a year. Still, I just discovered it and have some opinions on faeries that I thought were relevant. Faeries (of all sorts) have always been my favorite fictional race so I wanted weigh in on this.
I see a lot of questions on this thread regarding "What are faeries truly like?," "Why does Tolkien have one vision of them while classic fairy tales have another?" and such. I think to understand the difference between these two approaches, you have to understand something of the history of faerie legends.
In ancient mythology, the faeries-- or fay, fae, Sidhe, etc.-- were a powerful, immortal, almost semi-divine race, much like Tolkien's Elves. They were of varied size but usually not tiny and insect-like. From what I've read, many of these legends began as either memories of an actual race of smallish men that our ancestors interacted with (the Picts of the British Isles or their forerunners) or as remnants of stories and traditions of the Celtic gods.
Due to their origin in pagan religion, when Christianity came to power, these kind of stories were frowned upon. But the belief was so strong in Celtic countries, the church couldn't get rid of it entirely. So they used other methods to try and either assimilate or downplay the faeries. They tried to explain them as being fallen angels too good for Hell. They tried to tie them in with dark powers or the dead. They encouraged the belief that the power of Christ or of church bells would cause the faeries to lose power or shrink. Gradually this mixes with the memory of that small primitive race and stories of the smaller faeries. And hence, we get the "Little People."
This is where all the smaller, less god-like faerie races come into play-- winged flower-fairies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, gnomes, etc. Some of these existed in the stories in some form already but pretty soon they become the dominant tradition. The godlike variety of Fay starts to be fazed out entirely. And we end up with the tiny Victorian style fairies that most people know today. The faeries dwindle (literally and figuratively) from gods to powerful immortals to tiny helpers and mischief-makers.
I suspect that Tolkien did not touch upon a lot of this in his essay for two reasons: 1. He was more concerned with "fairy stories" in general than the actual creatures. He was making a point about fantasy, why it exists, and what it can teach us. And 2. His belief in Christianity may have biased him slightly towards the church's role in suppressing the older beliefs and encouraging the "Little People" stereotype. That's my take on it anyway.
As for whether one tradition is "better" than the other, though I love the man's work, I disagree with Tolkien. I actually like both versions of the faeries and think they can co-exist. I view the tall immortal Fay as the rulers of the Faerie Realm and the race that the other smaller species descended from. I think this adds a richness and variety to the legends by incorporating all the different types of faerie creatures.
Anyhow, I hope this has shed some light on where the two traditions came from.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 21, 2006 8:48:06 GMT -6
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 21, 2006 8:48:06 GMT -6
I found this very interesting. I am currently reading a book by Anne Bishop called The Pilars of the World. I have started reading some witch and wizard books and that is why I chose this one. Then I started reading about Fae in it and the small people. In this book the Fae are like gods and goddesses, but I had never heard the term Fae before. So far they have not gone into detail as to what the small people are, but your info has shed some light for me! Of course this book is the first in a trilogy so I have lots more reading to do!
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 21, 2006 9:33:06 GMT -6
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 21, 2006 9:33:06 GMT -6
Here a link about Tolkiens essay On Fairy-Stories en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Fairy-StoriesThe key points of this philosophy are: - Fairy-Stories are not the same thing as fairy tales (e.g., Grimm's Fairy Tales). - Fairy-Stories are not stories about fairies, etc.; they are stories about people and the effects on their lives of interactions with such things. I found the key points interesting...I never thought differentiating between fairy tales and stories. I also looked up Fae now that I know it is a commonly used term. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaeI was thinking of Fredegar mentioning and that made me think of Peter Pan...but in that tale/story isn't that a fairy gets her wings every time a bell is rung? *Go Tinkerbell!*
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 21, 2006 16:38:39 GMT -6
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jan 21, 2006 16:38:39 GMT -6
I haven't read Peter Pan in years but are you sure you're not thinking of It's a Wonderful Life? In that movie, angels get their wings whenever a bell is rung. Don't recall if the same has been said of fairies.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 21, 2006 23:15:51 GMT -6
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 21, 2006 23:15:51 GMT -6
Maybe it isn't a bell maybe it is clapping hands or something...I never read the book, but my kids have the cartoon...I need to watch it again I guess....I might watch it tomorrow so I can let you know exactly what it is or isn't!
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 22, 2006 1:07:32 GMT -6
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jan 22, 2006 1:07:32 GMT -6
I read the book when I was kid. Yes, it's clapping. You're supposed to clap your hands if you believe in fairies and that saves Tinkerbell's life. I think they cut that from the cartoon though because you don't usually have audience participation at a movie. Anyhow, I hope others join in this discussion. I was striving for an Andorinha/Orgulas style research post with that faerie overview and thought it turned out pretty well. Curious what others think.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 22, 2006 5:25:25 GMT -6
Post by Andorinha on Jan 22, 2006 5:25:25 GMT -6
Fredegar! This is very informative stuff -- an excellent background synopsis, followed with a clear presentation of some very insightful interpretations that are well-rooted in the actual data! I LIKE it! It rises to the heights of scholarship I find in the "Maiar, Istari, and Wizards" thread where an erudite discussion between Desi and Stormrider (even has text-source citations!) led to some provocative questions and a well-researched "set-up" that produced a great line of responses, including those by Orgulas!
__________
Fredegar, I like your use of an introductory statement that allows readers to quickly see the major premises/ questions you are addressing: "'Why does Tolkien have one vision of them while classic fairy tales have another?' and such. I think to understand the difference between these two approaches, you have to understand something of the history of faerie legends."
And, as regards your summary statemen -- "Anyhow, I hope this has shed some light on where the two traditions came from." -- it certainly has!
___________
As you have established, Fredegar, the basic concept of the "diminution," of elves/ fairies/ the fay moving from the godlike towards a "pixie-like" sprite of minute size -- perhaps to de-emphsize their "religious" importance as a competing Christianity took over western Europe -- is something I find very probable. According to the local anthropologist/ mythographer I talked to in Belize, the old Maya gods were gradually reduced by the early Christian missionaries to forest spirits, some beneficial, some mischievous, some down-right malevolent, but ALL of greatly diminished physical stature. Today, the believing residents still see rodent-sized to tapir-sized bipeds in fancy feathered costumes resembling the dieties pictured on the ancient Maya stele. But, of course, just like leprechauns, their magical antics manage always to stay just in the corner of one's eye -- turn your head to properly focus, and they are gone!
It might be possible to trace a similar pattern in any nation where a dominating, well-organized religious tradition enters and achieves a measure of political control. In Islam, the original gods are reduced to demonic afreet, or "pint-sized," but expanable (carbonated?) jinn in bottles, etc.
Even the Buddhistic nations have similar situations where the "lesser gods" of local/ tribal paganisms are replaced/ assimilated, and usually "diminished" once the more developed philosphies and rituals arrive and gain political-religious control.
Additionally, the "demonization" of foreign gods, is a sort of "diminution" even when it does not reduce their physical size. Demonization "belittles" the original importance of the pagan supernatural figures and is usually accompanied by a suite of stories showing Christian dominance/ superiority over the old deities (Christian church-bells scare demons, devils, and trolls away!). Both of these related mechanisms (physical diminution, and demonization) can be usefully presented, as you do Fredegar, for expalining how Tolkien winds up with an initial inheritance of the Victorian "pixie-size" fairies in his early works.
But Tolkien, if my understanding of his writings is even near the real mark, rebels against the pixie ideal somewhere along the line. Despite his own strong Christian beliefs, he seems (in the 1925- 1940 period) to have reacted against this diminution/ demonization. He eventually restores the "fay" of his Middle-earth (in the persons of his Eldar, Maiar and Valar) to more than human stature and he gives them a dignity and grace that certainly takes them out of the leprechaun league. His Valar/ Maiar actually become godlike powers invested with the majesty and awesome characteristics of the Olympian and Norse deities. But, perhaps under the influence of the Christianized Inklings, perhaps in reaction to C.S. Lewis' highly christianized allegories, Tolkien seems to have made a late effort (1950s-73) to re-adapt/ re-assimilate his enhanced "fay" to Christianity -- but without reducing them in physical presence or majesty.
RE, Fredegar: "As for whether one tradition is "better" than the other, though I love the man's work, I disagree with Tolkien. I actually like both versions of the faeries and think they can co-exist. I view the tall immortal Fay as the rulers of the Faerie Realm and the race that the other smaller species descended from. I think this adds a richness and variety to the legends by incorporating all the different types of faerie creatures."
YES! We are in full agreement here. I also like the versatility afforded us when we can accept both traditions, and move fluidly between them, or even, in creative writings of our own, mix them as we please!
Well done, Fredegar, THANK YOU!
__________
Desi, thanks for the urls, and the definitional differences between "fairy stories," and "fairy tales," I think I've been using them incorrectly as exact synonymns... uh-oh.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 22, 2006 8:30:51 GMT -6
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 22, 2006 8:30:51 GMT -6
Yes, it is clapping to save a fairy's life...and you are correct it isn't in the cartoon, but is in the movie Hook!
Andorinha makes an interesting point that I have over looked, I never really thought Tolkien used fairies in LotR, but the Valar do appear to have Fay qualities. His elves do too since they are not like most elves in other stories.
I also have to agree that both fairy versions can co-exist. I have been trying to write a story of my own and I do research on things and then I change them to be unique to my story. So I think you can write anything however you want and you don't have to keep to any set guideline. I would like to know what Orgulas thinks on that because I know he does a lot of writing of his own too. I might have to drop him an email to let him know we are liking to hear from him!
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 22, 2006 8:51:44 GMT -6
Post by Stormrider on Jan 22, 2006 8:51:44 GMT -6
I can see that Christians would want to negate or belittle the beliefs of and strengths of faeries, faes, and others that fall into this category. It is their mission to introduce God to all people who don't know him. So giving lesser attributes to these fairy characters and reducing them to something in a "tale" would benefit their purposes.
However, being a Christian myself, I still like to read and enjoy the tales from the older ages. But I imagine it was hard for those people to detach themselves from their ancient beliefs, so shrinking the powers and sizes of their faes and faeries might have been their way of still keeping them while still adapting to Christianity.
I rather like both the powerful and the less powerful aspects of them because it gives us broader reading and enjoyment levels.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 23, 2006 0:06:04 GMT -6
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jan 23, 2006 0:06:04 GMT -6
Ah, good to see this was well-received. I kind of have a reputation around here as the comic relief hobbit of our RP sessions. Just wanted to to show that I do have another side. Heh, citations, eh? I wouldn't know where to start. This came from a hodgepodge of things I've read over the years (and even from a tour guide I had when I visited Ireland). The only title that I recall for sure is The Truth About the Leprechaun by Bob Curran. He talks about the gradual change and the shrinking of the faeries in folklore. I definitely think this "diminunization" is something that's happened to almost every ancient belief system around the world. You see bits and pieces that survive in some form or were assimilated or reinterpreted. The cultural roots remain despite a larger system's attempts to drive them out. While I enjoy the end result (the variety of faerie creatures), the "diminunization" itself and the downplaying of the traditions is something I have issues with. I've never cared for the way major religions sometimes feel their way is the only way and that local "primitive" beliefs should be stamped out (no offense meant to those on the board who are religious of course). I think there is a lot of wisdom to be found in other belief systems and ancient stories. Ultimately, it seems Tolkien agreed, as he used creatures far closer to the pagan-style fay than the mini-fairies of later folklore. It's an interesting dychotomy when you think about it-- a world influenced by the ancient pagan sagas and myths yet still tying in with the writer's Christianity. Desi, I think Tolkien certainly does use faeries in his stories, though again, not the winged fairy-dust sprinkling variety. "Faerie" or "Fair Folk" are terms that can apply to a lot of supernatural yet humanoid races. I think that Elves and even Hobbits would be part of that family tree. Valar and Maiar, not so much. I think Tolkien intends them to be the stand-ins for angels in his mythology. As for writings of our own, I do a lot of writing too. The story I'm working on at the moment mixes both faerie traditions (among other things) as the hero is a pixie knight-- Tiny and cute like the Victorian fairies but possessing some of the nobility of the fay. Of course, the whole thing has an irreverent sense of humor as well which would no doubt perplex Prof. Tolkien.
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 23, 2006 7:02:10 GMT -6
Post by Stormrider on Jan 23, 2006 7:02:10 GMT -6
It has been my belief that all people from the dawn of time, have had an instinctual awe, fear, and reverence for something that is greater than themselves. The early people realize that The World is much greater than themselves and have been curious how it came about and who made it. They realize it is much more than what a mere human could have done.
The ancient gods, faeries, magical beings, etc. that develop from the old civilizations all over The World have been their way of recognizing, honoring, fearing, and explaning the mysteries of The World in each civilizations' own way.
It is a shame that the great gods and goddesses of old have been reduced to myths and downsized. I have not studied many ancient beliefs myself but I can see that it could be very interesting and enriching.
The only ancient story I have been slowly reading is The Illiad by Homer. The gods and goddesses are very "into themselves," jealous of each other, and vindictive. They "play" with the lives of each other's favorite humans as if they were toys to be broken and thrown away. Although times were very brutal in those days, it did give people an explanation for their brutality by explaining it as the acts of the gods. I keep thinking while reading this, that perhaps one god is a good idea! lol!
I would like to read some books on faeries, gnomes, and pixies since I have not read anything like those except for Rumplestiltskin. I will have to go to the bookstore and see what is out there in this category.
Fredegar: Have your stories been published? I understand there is a certain detailed process you have to go through to get someone to publish you. I would love to read some of your work!
|
|
|
Origins
Jan 24, 2006 1:41:37 GMT -6
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jan 24, 2006 1:41:37 GMT -6
Fredegar: Have your stories been published? I understand there is a certain detailed process you have to go through to get someone to publish you. I would love to read some of your work! Not yet but I'm working on it. The short version is that it was going to be in a fantasy anthology that fell apart so at the moment, I'm revising it and trying to find a publisher. I'll let you know if anything develops. A very early draft of chapter one is online, if you'd like to read it. I'm not real happy with this version and it's been majorly overhauled since then. I expanded it, changed wording, added new details, replaced the orcs with night hobs (so as not to be lifting too much from Tolkien), etc. But this will give you a basic idea of the structure. Here's the link: www.cultureshockcomics.com/theproject/elindberg/pixis_one.phpAnd here's a goofy drawing I did of the cast: www.cultureshockcomics.com/theproject/elindberg/Pixis%20and%20friends.jpg
|
|