Minor Works -- 3 - Smith of Wootton Major

[littlemanpoet]

I can't find the quote from one of you, who mentioned Smith's occupation as mere ironmonger. Did Tolkien perhaps choose his occupation because of the possible pun of himself being a 'word-smith?' Reading the descriptions of Smith's faerie-blessed works in that light, it seems that Tolkien may be saying that his own craft of word-smithy was enriched by Faerie. And this could be taken in the sense of his philology as well as being a writer of stories.

To expand upon Guinevere's evidence that the Village Hall and Kitchen and Master Cook are a play on the village church and parson, the reversal of gift draws attention to itself. Gift given without merit, as described in SoWM, is known as grace. It seems to me that Tolkien's description of the King and Queen of Faerie as essentially benevolent cuts across the grain of the tradition of Faerie as well, and in this he seems to follow George MacDonald instead of the larger tradition. Faerie seems to partake of spirituality in some sense. And thus SoWM has in some ways the feel of a parable, not unlike George MacDonald's work.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I can't find the quote from one of you, who mentioned Smith's occupation as mere ironmonger. Did Tolkien perhaps choose his occupation because of the possible pun of himself being a 'word-smith?' Reading the descriptions of Smith's faerie-blessed works in that light, it seems that Tolkien may be saying that his own craft of word-smithy was enriched by Faerie. And this could be taken in the sense of his philology as well as being a writer of stories.

To expand upon Guinevere's evidence that the Village Hall and Kitchen and Master Cook are a play on the village church and parson, the reversal of gift draws attention to itself. Gift given without merit, as described in SoWM, is known as grace. It seems to me that Tolkien's description of the King and Queen of Faerie as essentially benevolent cuts across the grain of the tradition of Faerie as well, and in this he seems to follow George MacDonald instead of the larger tradition. Faerie seems to partake of spirituality in some sense. And thus SoWM has in some ways the feel of a parable, not unlike George MacDonald's work.

Well, originally it was Verlyn Vlieger.

It is worth noting that while Niggle is an artist, Smith is an artisan, a blacksmith who works with iron, traditionally an element inimical to fayery. That Tolkien should have chosen this medium for his central character I find quirky and perplexing. But then, nobody ever said Tolkien was an easy read. (I certainly never did.)

in her essay which examines many of the contradictions in Tolkien's comments and his writing, https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol38/iss1/3/.

That edition which Guinevere recommends, the one edited by Flieger, has some very interesting comments from Tolkien about SoWM. I'll quote a few passages which pertain to our discussion, of course with the provisio that I don't think an author's comments necessarily are the last word on his or her art.

Tolkien's essay opens with

This short tale is not an 'allegory', though it is capable of course of allegorical interpretations at certain points. It is a "Fairy Story", of the kind in which beings that may be called 'fairies' or 'elves' play a part and are associated 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. It is cast in an imaginary (but English) country-side, before the advent of power-machinery but at a time when [community prosperity] had begun to have an effect in making many of them vulgarly self-satisfied, and coarser. pp. 111-112

While Nell and his daughter Nan were probably themselves elf-friends and even walkers in Outer Fairey, Ned was dependent on his father: he could receive 'Fairey' only through the lore and companionship of the older Smith. p.141

But (as in my stories generally) it will be observed that there is no religion. There is no church or temple.... In a story written by a religious man this is a plain indication that religion is not absent but subsumed: the tale is not about religion or in particular about its relation to other things. p. 142

I'm not sure if this helps or hinders us, but it does add piquancy to the soup. And nice punning about wordsmith and a blacksmith.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Just a side remark about "mere ironmongers": I am sure we are all aware that smiths and their craft in other Tolkien's works are the most important craft of all, at least in terms of their impact on the world. They are given prominent place. Rings, Silmarils, swords (Andúril)... Fëanor, Celebrimbor AND Sauron. Aulë and his making of the Dwarves gets a separate story and is the closest anybody got to actual creation. In the terminology of Tolkien from On Fairy Stories, Aulë is the subcreator - par excellence. And it is his former Maiar and "apprentices" who are responsible for every great and problematic in Arda's history.

The Silmarils, the Rings... Things of great beauty and power but also of great danger. Just like Faerie itself. It seems to me that it is not a coincidence that it was the Smith who gained the access to Faery. The association of smithcraft and faery appears too often in all his works not to be a pattern.

For clarification, I do not think Tolkien thought the smithing skill to be somehow inherently "magical" like the early-Post-stone-age cultures often did; I simply think that the had that association in his mind, somehow. And that explains why he does not see Iron as the traditionally "anti-faery" metal, but quite the opposite, THE faery metal.

[Thinlómien]

I hadn't read The Smith in ages, perhaps never (it was read aloud to me as a child) and I had really no idea what I was getting into. All in all, I quite enjoyed it. Unlike Legate, I wasn't disturbed by the Smith's keeping the Faery to himself because - sorry Professor - I saw the story as deeply allegoric. It seemed to me indeed that you could just as well say that Nell, or Nan, or Ned, or even old Noakes had their own Faery where they could travel and see marvellous things of their own (well maybe Noakes would not be interested, but theoretically). Faery is fantasy, and fantasy is private - even if Tolkien's children visited Middle-Earth with him, it wasn't quite the same place as it was for him. It's not the same for anyone; we all have our private imaginations no one else can ever fully enter. To me, the story is a lot about this.

Also, about how the Smith's extensive journeys in Faery, as wonderful as they are, put a distance between him and the rest of the village, even his family. When he comes home in the end, you can see how his son Ned is relieved that his father will now spend more time with his family and be there for him and teach him things, as well as being there for his daughter and little nephew and his wife. I know Tolkien advocated fantasy as a means of escapism, but this story seems to say, too much is too much. You have to come back to real life, there are people who need you.

All that being said, I loved how faery itself was described. The Elf-Queen, very much like both Goldberry and Galadriel, the Elven party reminiscent of King Thranduil's forest feast, the fearsome Elven warriors with their ships, the magical flowering tree with the fruit... it's all very Middle-Earth, and very beautiful. There are rather unsettling things too, such as the lake that is not made out of water but of stone. Everything in Faery is very atmospheric and it was a joy to read.

Lastly, it is interesting to hear the cooks were an allegory. I have to say I was wondering about them the whole time. I have never heard of a medieval custom of there being a cook in a village that cooks for everyone (in a castle yes, but in a village?), yet that seems to be the arrangement in the village in the Smith. I wonder if there is any historical precedent of this, or if it's simply there for the allegory.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Just a side remark about "mere ironmongers": I am sure we are all aware that smiths and their craft in other Tolkien's works are the most important craft of all, at least in terms of their impact on the world. They are given prominent place. Rings, Silmarils, swords (Andúril)... Fëanor, Celebrimbor AND Sauron. Aulë and his making of the Dwarves gets a separate story and is the closest anybody got to actual creation. In the terminology of Tolkien from On Fairy Stories, Aulë is the subcreator - par excellence. And it is his former Maiar and "apprentices" who are responsible for every great and problematic in Arda's history.

The Silmarils, the Rings... Things of great beauty and power but also of great danger. Just like Faerie itself. It seems to me that it is not a coincidence that it was the Smith who gained the access to Faery. The association of smithcraft and faery appears too often in all his works not to be a pattern.

For clarification, I do not think Tolkien thought the smithing skill to be somehow inherently "magical" like the early-Post-stone-age cultures often did; I simply think that the had that association in his mind, somehow. And that explains why he does not see Iron as the traditionally "anti-faery" metal, but quite the opposite, THE faery metal.

Well argued, Legate.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well argued, Legate.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Faery is fantasy, and fantasy is private - even if Tolkien's children visited Middle-Earth with him, it wasn't quite the same place as it was for him. It's not the same for anyone; we all have our private imaginations no one else can ever fully enter. To me, the story is a lot about this.

That is very nicely phrased, and absolutely true. That way, I can absolutely get behind it. My personal disturbance stemmed mostly from the fact that I exactly did not read it as allegory - being too much forewarned by Tolkien himself that he absolutely would never write one. You cheated us, Master, yess, yess. Wrote nassty allegoriessess.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I know Tolkien advocated fantasy as a means of escapism, but this story seems to say, too much is too much. You have to come back to real life, there are people who need you.

On the other hand, I have to point out that this is actually not true. Meaning the first part of the first sentence. Tolkien very much argued against fantasy being escapism in the sense of "running away from the world" and his whole On Fairy Stories is about that. Simply put, he says that one enters fantasy to get refreshed, which has clear benefits for the real world and for interacting with people around you. Also, after coming back to the real world, it enables one to see the world in a slightly different light. Every glade can become the glade where Elves can dance, any everyday object or unremarkable place can become a place of wonder because you have glimpsed their likes beyond the borders of Faery.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

All that being said, I loved how faery itself was described. The Elf-Queen, very much like both Goldberry and Galadriel, the Elven party reminiscent of King Thranduil's forest feast, the fearsome Elven warriors with their ships, the magical flowering tree with the fruit... it's all very Middle-Earth, and very beautiful.

I agree that there are a gazillion similarities. The Elven ship, for one - the only thing remaining is that the Elves should set it on fire and we'd be all set. And the Queen is a ridiculous Galadriel. Unlike those that argued otherwise, I definitely see her as more Galadriel than Goldberry. If you read her description, Goldberry is the merry, unnaturally beautiful but ultimately humble lady, gorgeous as summer itself, but she is only the spirit of one small river. The Queen in Smith is Galadriel, or perhaps more: Melian; but her description is that of Galadriel, all white and radiant. She sees into the Smith's heart, they speak without words (didn't we have the thread on Osanwë somewhere on this forum?).

I concede that she may appear a little more Goldberry-ish when she meets the Smith the first time, but there she also reminds me of just a common, tra-la-la-lley girl from Rivendell. But the second time, she is definitely Galadriel/Melian. Her giving the gift of the strange blossom to the Smith (that they later keep in a box) also reminds me of Galadriel's gift to Sam (also flower - seeds - and also in a box).

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

There are rather unsettling things too, such as the lake that is not made out of water but of stone. Everything in Faery is very atmospheric and it was a joy to read.

This actually prompts me to speak about something else that has been on my mind. Just like it has been pointed out, the Smith reflects many of the theoretical themes of Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories" in practice. One of these theorems is that the Land of Faery is dangerous. This brings me to another, perhaps not entirely expected (and for some perhaps controversial, but nevertheless undeniable) similarity: to that of H.P. Lovecraft's Dream-Cycle (famously especially in "The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath").

One Lovecraft's story in particular seems very similar thematically to the "Smith", and that is "The Silver Key". There, the protagonist loses the key to his dreams that he had owned when he was a child, and that allowed him to visit strange places of forgotten beauty and see majestic kings and marvellous vistas. And that land, too, was beautiful yet dangerous.

Lovecraft is obviously one level "darker", I would say: but the border is close. The beautiful places in Lovecraft's Dreamlands are such that could exist in Tolkien's Faery, and the dark places in Lovecraft seem like they might be akin to what is hinted at in Tolkien, where his heroes never go. There is the fundamental difference that Lovecraft can be raw and naturalistic, "ugly" in a way Tolkien never would: he describes things like cannibals, which Tolkien could mention in passing - we know that the trolls wanted to eat the Dwarves, but he would not elaborate. Lovecraft might.

More importantly, despite nearly 100% overlap between the looks and feel of Faery and Dreamlands, there is a fundamental difference, testified already in the name. Lovecraft's Dreamlands are the stuff of dreams that in the worst case turn into nightmares. Dreamlands is not the product of a creative imagination, but the projection of wild subconsious. And the protagonist of "The Silver Key" does not enter the beautiful faraway lands the way the Smith does, there is the use of narcotic substances involved, however poetically described.

Nevertheless, the feel is very similar and I felt like I should point it out. (It is also of note that both writers published around the same time - Lovecraft a little earlier - although I sincerely doubt that there was any mutual influence; more like common influence from other literature that was popular at that time - for instance the abovementioned MacDonald. Some English/American literature experts would probably be able to speak in a more informed manner.)

[littlemanpoet]

"You look like a giant, Dad," said his son, who had not spoken before.

The concluding phrase in this sentence seems strange. It sticks out to me. We know that the son had not spoken in this particular conversation before, we can tell ourselves because it's the first time he's given words, obviously. Which leaves me to wonder, is this the first time that this lad has spoken at all? Is this what Tolkien means? If not, fine, but show me how this is not so. If so, why add it to the story? Is the boy's tongue loosened by Faery?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

"You look like a giant, Dad," said his son, who had not spoken before.

The concluding phrase in this sentence seems strange. It sticks out to me. We know that the son had not spoken in this particular conversation before, we can tell ourselves because it's the first time he's given words, obviously. Which leaves me to wonder, is this the first time that this lad has spoken at all? Is this what Tolkien means? If not, fine, but show me how this is not so. If so, why add it to the story? Is the boy's tongue loosened by Faery?

Rather interesting take. I personally never saw anything strange to it. Exactly quite the opposite: the son's tongue had been "taken away" by Faery in that particular conversation, he was so stupefied by Dad's sudden "glowy" appearance that he could not speak. Only after a long while, he managed to stutter out, or put into words the feeling he had.

That always seemed rather straightforward to me, although one can read it in different ways, just like anything.

Speaking of that particular experience - maybe this is the moment to mention my last strange impression from the whole story, vaguely related to my misgivings about the Smith leaving his family behind while he runs away to have fun in Faerie.

I remember that when I read it the first time, I was somewhat disturbed by the scene where the Smith dances with the Queen. She gives him the flower, then he comes back home and everyone, including his wife, is slightly puzzled. Back then, I wondered whether it was some very suspicious cipher for marital infidelity. The Smith keeps going somewhere away, and when he comes back, his wife asks: "Where have you been? And where did you get this flower?" Which was given to him by another woman. I remember being especially upset on his family's behalf because they clearly had no clue where he had been going and he never told them.

The impression was in my mind combined also with the fact that the Queen flirts (as I had read it) with the traveller, but the King is nowhere to be seen. I think I even interpreted Alf's initially somewhat reserved attitude towards the Smith later on as a way of saying "I know you have been visiting my wife, but I am not saying anything".

To be fair, now that I was rereading it, I did not see it there so much - but it is hard for me to judge it objectively, because the knowledge that I had read it as such still somehow influences my perception of it. I'd be interested if anyone else got a similar vibe. It is quite obvious (especially from the son's discussion as discussed above) that the intent was different, but I wonder whether anyone else got the impression that there is a bit of that in there.