|
Post by fimbrethil on Feb 22, 2008 10:15:01 GMT -6
But I had read or heard somewhere that Tolkien wanted to write a tale for England so I wondered if Middle-earth was supposed to be our own Earth. But after reading The Silmarillion, Valinor and Middle-earth really did not conform to any of the religious or scientific explanations of the creation of earth. I also recall (from where?) that Tolkien's intent was to write a mythology for England. As a mythology, it would not have had to mesh with any scientific explanation of the creation of the earth. It is debatable as to whether "The Music of the Ainur" is in conflict with religious undertanding of creation. I don't think Tolkien saw it that way. By the end of the Silmarillion we have a world "cleaned up" enough to be our own. The seas are "bent," which I always took to mean that the world is now round. Valinor is removed from the circle of the world, and can only be reached by those who manage (with help) to find the straight path - not trapped in the circle of the world. So things are set for Middle Earth to become Europe. But somewhere (Letters?) Tolkien cautions against trying to plot the map of the one on the other. Nevertheless, the Shire is approxiamately where England ought to be, if it eventually were cut off as an island. So where is Middle Earth? Is it an ancient form of our world - prior to any history that we have - with only the Red Book surviving to tell us about it? Or is it some "other" place. Tradtionally, I think "Fairyland" is part of our world, just out of sight for most mortals. Like Neverland, or Wonderland, or Oz, it can be reached by people in our world. William Morris's tale takes place in an utterly other place, though one that is very like our own (not an alien planet). More like "Narnia." And it seems to me that Lewis does more on this subject to set up the modern fantasy genre than anyone else. He takes the time to explore the relationship between worlds, and how it is possible to move between them. (Unlike Lewis Carroll and the rabbit hole, which simply seems random.) When Lewis and JRRT split the chore of writing science fiction, Lewis chose "other worlds" while JRRT took "this world, other time," did this choice reflect a pre-conditioning predilection on his part? For The Hobbit, I wonder if JRRT was simply following the standard European, Fairy-tale practice -- a format laid down long before modern (post rationalist times 1500 on) science made the idea of "other world" visits a routine part of human fiction? Just as the hobbit/ Dwarf tale has its roots in this Fairy-tale complex, so, the default mode of placement for anything "Fairy-tale-ish" JRRT might write would be our own world? I think you are right - the default is "fairyland." As I recall this Tolkien/Lewis division, it led to Lewis writing his space trilogy, which isn't (in my mind) about "other worlds," since the planets can be reached from earth, and are really part of our world. But at that time, before we had landed on Mars, it was still possible to use the planets as locations for fantasy (as opposed to science fiction). And I think that Tolkien began writing a tale of Numenor as a result of that conversation with Lewis. So it seems that Numenor was always meant to be in the past of this world. Opening a can of worms: I still haven't read UT or HoME. My knowledge of Tolkien's legendarium comes from the published version of Silmarillion, which Christopher Tolkien polished up for publishing. So my question is: was the concern to make the various tales all work together as a whole cloth a concern of JRRT, or only of CT? Clearly JRRT worked hard to make LOTR hang together well, and kept a high level of consistency within it and its appendices. But was that level of consistency between the various other tales important to him? Or did he like spinning tales, and creating loose connections between them? Fimbrethil
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 22, 2008 12:03:43 GMT -6
Letters # 181, esp. pp 235-36; #190, p. 250; #217, p. 299 talk about the Shire-England connection. The major statement of JRRT's purpose, creating a mythology for England, comes in Letter # 131, esp. pp. 144-45. Carpenter's Biography, pp. 97-100, covers this aspect as well.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 23, 2008 4:14:53 GMT -6
Opening a can of worms: I still haven't read UT or HoME. My knowledge of Tolkien's legendarium comes from the published version of Silmarillion, which Christopher Tolkien polished up for publishing. So my question is: was the concern to make the various tales all work together as a whole cloth a concern of JRRT, or only of CT? Clearly JRRT worked hard to make LOTR hang together well, and kept a high level of consistency within it and its appendices. But was that level of consistency between the various other tales important to him? Or did he like spinning tales, and creating loose connections between them? It seemed to be very important to him, at least later on. I haven't read the HoMe but I've heard about a number of the revisions Tolkien went through to make the details match up. For example, he used the name Glorfindel in both The Silmarillion and LOTR. Except the Glorfindel in Sil was killed in the First Age. So he came up with the notion of Elvish reincarnation, of being "re-embodied" and sailing back from Valinor. I think he even worked out when Glorfindel returned. The fact that he didn't just, y'know....write it off as more than one Glorfindel seems to indicate that internal consistency was very important to him. As others have discussed on this thread, I think it's very likely that he created The Hobbit independently of the mythology, added a few homages or names here and there for flavor, and then suddenly realized the monster he'd unleashed by doing so. His need for continuity and consistency probably motivated him to revise and figure out where Bilbo's story fits in the overall scheme of the world he was creating in the Sil. And then once he'd created The Hobbit and LOTR, the process reversed back on itself, leading to revisions of the earlier works to make it all fit.
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Feb 23, 2008 20:22:27 GMT -6
Posted by Andorinha on Feb 19, 2008, 4:22am: "Here, then, Rateliff's attempt to use the BLT1 material to bolster his chain fails completely. By 1940, it was impossible for England to be associated with Tol Eressea, and that thought had to be utterly abandoned by JRRT. Rateliff's attempt to resurrect it is plain nonsense. "
I am in the process of reading through the posts posted since I was sick. And I haven't read further than this point... We aren't talking about "after 1940". We're talking about the early 30's. Rateliff didn''t have to resurrect anything. The Hobbit came about as Tolkien's mythology was changing from BoLT to "The Earliest Silmarillion". I remember reading in John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War that BoLT was definitely written as "prehistoric" Britain. When was BoLT abandoned for Lays of Beleriand? I don't have my pile of books in front of me... Fan
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Feb 24, 2008 9:03:07 GMT -6
I haven't dissected Andorinha's argument against Hobbiton in Beleriand, yet. My overall feeling however, is that we have to come up with some further evidence (either way) of Tolkien's original intentions when writing The Hobbit.
We have discussed certain letters from Tolkien describing that The Hobbit "intruded" and "was on the edge of the mythology". What does intrude mean? "To push or force something (or someone) in or upon something (or others) without being asked or welcomed." - combination of two definitions from Webster's dictionary. It comes from the latin in (in) + trudere (to thrust, push) There is no apology implied in this definition. "Edge" is an interesting word. It may mean "corner or border of an object or part ajacent to a line of division" (edge of a table, edge of night) which is the definition I assumed Tolkien meant. But, it could, also, mean "to move gradually so as not to attract notice" towards or away... Another letter #31 (1938) mentioned that Bilbo "got dragged against my original will" into the mythology. When was the original will - oral or written phases? "Against my original will" means Tolkien had a change of heart at some point. "Independently conceived" states letter #131 (abt 1951), "originally quite unconnected" states letter #163 (1955). Again the question is "when - oral phase or written?" I must mention that these letters are over 20 years after the fact.
The fact is when Tolkien handed over the manuscript for publishing (1936), Bilbo lived in Middle-earth. Do we agree on that? Then the next question to answer is where...At what point did Tolkien conceive of the changes to the geography? Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 24, 2008 10:37:24 GMT -6
RE Fanuidhol's: "The fact is when Tolkien handed over the manuscript for publishing (1936), Bilbo lived in Middle-earth. Do we agree on that? Then the next question to answer is where...At what point did Tolkien conceive of the changes to the geography?"
I am getting the feeling that Tolkien wrote in a much less structured fashion than it might seem when we read backwards into the mass of his mythology. And I do not think that the early version geographies, chronologies, casts of characters, or even event episodes were clearly in his mind as he moved from one tale to the next. I think he later tried to reshape both the older version mythologies and his latest works, to make them both consistent. In fact, given his penchant for revisions, I think The Hobbit and LotR re-shaped the earlier mythologies as much as they originally were shaped by them.
What, I suppose we are trying here is to find, if we can, when any given work becomes "firmly" embedded in some sort of Middle-earth legendarium? When does The Hobbit indisputably become placed in an easily recognized Middle-earth, and what does that particular Middle-earth mean at that particular time?
Frankly, by the 1936 version Hobbit I think we are connected "loosely" with some sort of Middle-earth; Elrond of the hobbit has been attached to Elrond son of Earendil; Sauron, as a tangental character without much development, has "peeped" over the horizon. But I do not think Gandalf is here become a Maia, or even an Istari, though there are "other wizards" mentioned. I still find very little in terms of geography to connect the 1936 tale with Beleriand, and in terms of chronology, I am not certain we are yet dealing with a fully developed "Three Ages" scheme.
Fan, your point that most of our source material in the Letters represents JRRT's remembrance of things 30 odd years old is something to keep in mind -- but really, what else have we? I would rather trust JRRT's potentially faulty memory than Rateliff's attempts to tie the package up too nicely. In my opinion, he simply fails, he makes too many leaps of faith, too far, for me to be "comfortable" with his conclusions.
Because I think JRRT's conceptualizations of Middle-earth, its geographies, chronologies, and narrative ventures are such amorphous things, I think it is easy for us readers to stretch it into any shape WE wish, convenient to our current hypotheses.
Looking forward to your future arguments here, Fan, you may change my opinions further on this issue, but I'll need more than Rateliff's line of argument!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 24, 2008 13:39:58 GMT -6
This is going to be a sticky point indeed. How far may we go in interpreting Tolkien from his Letters?
Fanuidhol: "Another letter #31 (1938) mentioned that Bilbo 'got dragged against my original will' into the mythology. When was the original will - oral or written phases? 'Against my original will' means Tolkien had a change of heart at some point. 'Independently conceived' states letter #131 (abt 1951), 'originally quite unconnected' states letter #163 (1955). Again the question is 'when - oral phase or written?' I must mention that these letters are over 20 years after the fact."
LOL, here, "got dragged against my original will," has a different meaning for me. JRRT's original design for Bilbo's tale had no real connection with the mythology but gradually through a long, slow process of "dragging," (not a rushing, conscious change of heart/ mind) Tolkien found himself adding bits and pieces of the mythology to this new story.
I think both can be valid interpretations, but each with very different implications for how deeply we should see The Hobbit as being rooted in the mythology. Which interpretation is more valid, more fair an interpretation of what JRRT actually meant? LOL, beats me.
At a later time, I think it also may open up more territory here to define any connection between the hobbit Dwarves and those of the mythology. Certainly by the time of Unfinished Tales there are some post LotR connections made, but can we see anything definite before LotR? And when does "The Shire" as a geographical/ ethnologically segregated unit come into existence? If we look at the published version Hobbit, do we have a hobbit-enclave Shire at all, or could Bilbo have been living next door to Dwarves and Men as well as hobbits (a Bree like situation)?
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 24, 2008 19:08:26 GMT -6
You know, there's something very amusing about Bilbo being "dragged against [Tolkien's] original will" into the legendarium. It mirrors Bilbo being dragged against his will into Gandalf and the Dwarves' adventure.
Against his better judgment and that of his creator, our little hobbit was drawn into a quest and, as a result, into the greater context of Middle-earth. Thematically appropriate, don't you think?
(Without the Letters or Rateliff's book, I can't really add much more to this discussion. But I just wanted to make this observation as I find it rather fitting.)
|
|
|
Post by fimbrethil on Feb 24, 2008 19:31:40 GMT -6
Fredegar: "Against his better judgment and that of his creator, our little hobbit was drawn into a quest and, as a result, into the greater context of Middle-earth. Thematically appropriate, don't you think?"
Excellent point, Fredegar! I've often thought that Tolkien's writing is more revealing of himself than he realized. Interesting image! He really did not go looking for the Hobbit or LOTR - as he describes the process it feels like the tales came to him.
Andorinha: "And when does "The Shire" as a geographical/ ethnologically segregated unit come into existence? If we look at the published version Hobbit, do we have a hobbit-enclave Shire at all, or could Bilbo have been living next door to Dwarves and Men as well as hobbits (a Bree like situation)?"
Good question! If my murky memory of more than 20 years ago is accurate, I re-mem-ber feeling, when I first started LOTR, that the atmosphere was different from the Hobbit. It felt like Bilbo's hobbit hole had been moved to a different kind of place. There was no feeling of a place like the Shire in the Hobbit. Of course, it's hard to recreate that feeling now - I read the Shire into the Hobbit.
But Bilbo's hobbit hole seems to be in a world where it is quite normal to find a wizard or a dwarf on your doorstep. But the Shire is a very hobbity place, and it is odd when other kinds of people visit.
Fimbrethil
|
|
|
Post by fimbrethil on Feb 24, 2008 20:02:24 GMT -6
I want to move here the conversation Andorinha started on "REAL POETRY", because I don't want to clutter that board with these comments.
Andorinha: "I compare these types of Faries with Tolkien's late version of the Silmarillion Elves, quite a change. I wonder now if the common perception of fairies has altered with the popularity of the LotR movies, so that the basic assumptions of fairies/ elves is now JRRT's? "
The elves in the Hobbit always annoyed me. Especially once I knew the elves in LOTR and Sil. In the Hobbit they seem much more like the "wee fairies," though not necessarily "wee." (Are we ever told their size, in comparison with the Hobbit and the dwarves?) Their singing as the dwarves arrive at Rivendell is that playful, mischievious sort of taunting that is associated with "fairies." Take a look at that song - can you imagine any of the Noldor singing it?
I, personally, never liked the kinds of poems like Andorinha posted on the REAL POETRY board. I don't like the randomness or cutesy aspect of many "fairy" stories pre-Tolkien. Fairies and elves, as depicted in Phantastes for example, are irritating and irrational.
I do think that Tolkien has had a powerful influence on nearly every "fairy" story told since LOTR was published, especially in his definition of what an "elf" is.
But now the question is, when did he get a clear sense in his own mind as to what an elf was? Another question: did he always equate the "elves" of the Hobbit with the "Eldar" of his other tales? This just seems like another place where the Hobbit world has to be shoe-horned a bit to get it to fit in the legendarium.
Fimbrethil
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Feb 25, 2008 7:03:09 GMT -6
I agree that the elves of Rivendell in The Hobbit are very different than they are in LOTR and I was surprised at how they sang that teasing song about Bilbo and the Dwarves as they arrived in Rivendell. I can only assume that middle-earth was a more comfortable place when Bilbo stopped there than it was later when Frodo arrived so the elves were more frisky and playful then. But you are right, Fimbrethil, I find it hard to believe the Noldor would sing that song.
I rather like the fairies being wee and more mischievious but I think they could also have their own "real" side to their behavior when they are among their own and not around the big folk.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 25, 2008 21:55:53 GMT -6
Thanks Fan, your questions and comments have gotten me a bit deeper into this material, as have the comments added by Fredegar, Fimbrethil, and Stormrider! Lots of interesting research yet to be done!
RE: Fanuidhol's --"We aren't talking about 'after 1940'. We're talking about the early 30's. Rateliff didn''t have to resurrect anything. The Hobbit came about as Tolkien's mythology was changing from BoLT to "The Earliest Silmarillion". I remember reading in John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War that BoLT was definitely written as "prehistoric" Britain. When was BoLT abandoned for Lays of Beleriand? I don't have my pile of books in front of me..."
No, here, I think we are talking about fundamental changes to the chronology, personae, events, and geography in the Legendarium that were made long before the 1940s. This is what disturbs me most about Rateliff resurrecting VERY old material, and then pretending that it still has validity in the post LotR world, and can be used by him even today to illustrate "what he thinks JRRT REALLY meant."
BLT 1, pp 24-5, is the source Rateliff quotes for the information that Tol Eressea = England. But, as usual, the quote is not from JRRT at all, JRRT's own text, pp.13-20, never mentions this connection. Rateliff is actually quoting Christopher Tolkien, and Chris says that he found this information in marginal notes. Unfortunately, we, the common readers have no access to the original manuscripts and these notes. But, let us assume CT is correctly reporting them, and has correctly interpreted them for us. In that case, what CT says is "... the elvish isle to which Eriol came was England -- that is to say, Tol Eressea would become England, ... Koromas or Kortirion, the town in the center of Tol Eressef to which Eriol comes in The Cottage of Lost Play, would become in after days Warwick..." (BLT 1 pp 24-25).
What Rateliff does NOT tell us is found in the introduction to this volume, again in a set of commentary notes by Christopher Tolkien. Apparently the CoLP material was very early on superseded, so that Tol Eressea could no longer be England. The early 1920's verse material found in The Lay of Leithian forced many radical alterations in the 1917 version prose narrative, so that by 1926, JRRT had to abandon almost all of CoLP in favour of a new start:
"The prose form of the 'mythology' began again from a new starting point in a quite brief synopsis, or 'Sketch' as he called it, written in 1926 and expressly intended to provide the necessary back-ground of knowledge for the understanding of the alliterative poem [ Lay of Leithian]. The further written development of the prose form proceeded from that 'Sketch' in a direct line to the version of 'The Silmarillion' which was nearing completion towards the end of 1937..." ( BLT 1, p. 8, bold face mine)
With this new background base to the Legendarium, humans are no longer allowed on the island, save by divine intervention. The island itself is now moved during the early, first migration of the elves from Middle-earth to Valinor, and the city of Gondolin falls to Morgoth long, long after Tol Eressea is moved to the margins of Valinor. In the original CoLP, Eriol's trip to Tol Eressea came AFTER the fall of Gondolin, but BEFORE the Elves great migration to the Immortal Realm. All this was swept aside by 1926, and when JRRT re-wrote this early material, he, perforce, had to drop the idea, irrevocably, that Tol Eressea had been the ancestral land-form of England.
CT explains this sequence on pp 26-27 BLT1. Admittedly, the text here is a bit confusing -- so those of you who have BLT1, please read it yourselves -- but what I get out of this is the information that Tol Eressea being "the geographical position of England. This latter element was soon lost in its entirety from the developing mythology."
Other MAJOR items of mythology were also dropped at this time (1917 to 1926) including the conception of the Elves as "wee folk" so that Eriol, in order to enter the Cottage of Lost Play, has to be "shrunk" down small to get in. Also lost is the narration: "the Children who went to Valinor was to be abandoned almost without further trace," (BLT 1, p. 27) The chronology alters greatly as well, post 1926 versions have the Fall of Gondolin occurring long after the Elves were removed to Valinor, not BEFORE that event.
Consequently, the material Rateliff resurrects from the 1917 version mythology, has been almost entirely restructured or simply lost by 1926. England, at least AFTER 1926, is NOT Tol Eressea any more. Therefore, much of the "sense" of Ratelif's argument that since England = Tol Eressea, and England = Shire, therefore the Shire is in Beleriand, falls apart. England IS NOT Tol Eressea by 1926, maybe earlier, two years BEFORE the conception of hobbits ever came to JRRT's mind.
Now, I need to see if HOME Vol 3, has a mythology background that moves us firmly into a concept of Three Ages, to see "when" The Hobbit can logically be placed in the chronology. And, how much further alteration is there between the 1926 version Silmarillion and the 1937 version?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Feb 26, 2008 1:07:09 GMT -6
RE: Fredegar's -- "Against his better judgment and that of his creator, our little hobbit was drawn into a quest and, as a result, into the greater context of Middle-earth. Thematically appropriate, don't you think?"
LOL, yeah, that is ironic! I wonder if "Leaf By Niggle" is a sort of encapsulation of how JRRT must have felt, never really finishing anything, always caught up in the ever continuing act of creative discovery?
Re: Fimbrethil's -- "...I re-mem-ber feeling, when I first started LOTR, that the atmosphere was different from the Hobbit. It felt like Bilbo's hobbit hole had been moved to a different kind of place. There was no feeling of a place like the Shire in the Hobbit. Of course, it's hard to recreate that feeling now - I read the Shire into the Hobbit."
Precisely! I've always had that sort of Twilight Zone feeling that somehow the two stories were more different in tone, style, conceptualization than similar. Accidental works later stitched together, and stitched secondarily into the reworked/ revised mythology material. Not an organic whole.
____________
Concerning the "Wee" Folk:
LOL, Fimbrethil, I know what you mean, there is for me, as well, a sort of annoyance factor built into the tiny buzzing fairy concept, too cutesie in some of its treatments from the Victorian era. At the same time, I can accept the "wee" ones if they are portrayed with a consistent, internally logical development -- as they are in Sylvia Townsend Warner's Kingdoms of Elfin."
I also don't mind even the children's tales of wee, fairy folk, if the fairies are presented "realistically," I get upset when a book starts out realistically, then gets all "ooey-gooey."
RE: Stormrider's -- "I rather like the fairies being wee and more mischievious but I think they could also have their own 'real' side to their behavior when they are among their own and not around the big folk."
Yeah, they need to have a "realness" to their characters, not simply be a total farce?
__________
RE: Fimbrethil's -- "But now the question is, when did he get a clear sense in his own mind as to what an elf was? Another question: did he always equate the "elves" of the Hobbit with the "Eldar" of his other tales? This just seems like another place where the Hobbit world has to be shoe-horned a bit to get it to fit in the legendarium."
BLT 1 has some data here as to when JRRT started finalizing his conceptions of Elves as other than the "Wees." Apparently "The Cottage of Lost Play," 1917, is the last time JRRT was working with wee folk: "Likewise, all the 'elfin' diminutiveness soon disappeared." (BLT 1 p. 32) But, even in 1915, when JRRT accepted the idea of wee-sized Elves, he was perhaps already starting to move away from that concept, suggesting in a note that the Elves had once been the same size as Men, but "... the smallness (and filminess and transparency) of the 'fairies' is an aspect of their 'fading', and directly related to the domination of Men in the Great Lands." (BLT 1, p. 32)
Also interesting here is the mention by Chris T. that the idea of "Middle-earth" is relatively late. The term itself is first used in the 1930s, before that time, the term for the world was The Great Lands, and Fairyland was a special sub-part of that world. The names Gnomes, and Eldar are used in the 1915-17 material, and Noldoli (later Noldor) is eventually equated with Gnomes. Need more research here, but it looks like the very concept of the noble, serious Elves was also a late invention/ revision. So that, as Stormrider also points out, even as late as the 1936 Hobbit there is still an element of the frivolous "wee-folk" Fairy in their behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Mar 2, 2008 17:26:37 GMT -6
Concerning the "Wee" Folk: LOL, Fimbrethil, I know what you mean, there is for me, as well, a sort of annoyance factor built into the tiny buzzing fairy concept, too cutesie in some of its treatments from the Victorian era. At the same time, I can accept the "wee" ones if they are portrayed with a consistent, internally logical development -- as they are in Sylvia Townsend Warner's Kingdoms of Elfin." I also don't mind even the children's tales of wee, fairy folk, if the fairies are presented "realistically," I get upset when a book starts out realistically, then gets all "ooey-gooey." RE: Stormrider's -- "I rather like the fairies being wee and more mischievious but I think they could also have their own 'real' side to their behavior when they are among their own and not around the big folk." Yeah, they need to have a "realness" to their characters, not simply be a total farce? Just wanted to comment on this. If anyone recalls my posts on the "On Fairy Stories" board, you know I'm fascinated by faerie legends and have an equal love for the tiny mischievous "wee folk" and the tall, noble fae. I think they both have their strengths. I do agree that the Victorian faeries could get a little too cutesy. I think what was lost in that era was not simply the faeries' stature (smaller fae co-existed with larger one in some old stories), it was their dignity. People forgot that in ancient times, the fae were something to be feared and respected, not to grant wishes or fly about in gossamer gowns. There was a sense of something alien about them, of creatures that could be benevolent or malicious depending on how we treated them. Tolkien eventually rejected the Victorian ideas and seemed to equate the "wee-ness" with the lack of dignity. I don't think they're necessarily synonymous but that was his prerogative as a writer. Me, I tend to lean more towards Brian Froud's conception of faeries, where they come in all shapes and sizes and can be tall, beautiful, and dignified or small and full of mischief or even something dark and terrifying. Though I suppose Tolkien didn't reject the "little people" concept entirely, as the hobbits found their way into the mythology eventually. They could be rather foolish and quaint at times but he certainly did instill them with a sense of personal dignity and worth as well. Anyhow, sorry for the slight tangent. I'm always interested when the "Fair Folk" are mentioned though.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Mar 3, 2008 7:18:23 GMT -6
Well put Fredegar. That is exactly what I was thinking although you expressed it much better than I did--but then again you have a knack with words and expressing yourself being an author yourself.
Yes, the nature of the Hobbits is a great example (although they are not flighty and sprighty). They do have their michievous side, a down-to-earth side, a dependable side, and even some bad habits.
I think it depends on the view that a story is written from. If it is the big people seeing the fairies and/or faes then it may only be the side that the wee folk would like them to see. If the story is from a fairy's point of view, then the story would show more of the real life of the fairy-folk. I guess I am relating to what I have read from your own Sir Pixis story.
|
|