First, at the risk of being accused and chastised for considering the subject of faeries as some idle embroidery upon the hem of discourse rather than a matter of staggering ontological consequence, I would like to say what I have always thought: Your more ‘occasional’ essays possess a peculiar and disarming brilliance, not because they depart from the seriousness of your larger work, but because they refract it through a different lens, one in which wit, anecdote, and a kind of nimble curiosity are either allowed fuller play or at least become more conspicuous against the backdrop of subject matter. The intellectual gravity remains, unmistakably, yet it is worn more lightly, as though the mind, relieved of its heaviest loads, reveals distinct dexterities of touch and tone.
As for the review, I suppose it is an interesting question whether Tolkien effectively banished faeries and elves permanently to the realm of creative writing or, instead, rescued their last intelligible echo. Having not read Egeler’s book, however, is it correct to say that he in part argues that by situating the faerie definitively within the precincts of fiction, Tolkien ensures that faeries exist only in that quarantined province, admired, even loved, but only safely contained within the covers of a book? If so, I think I side with your point, if I understand it correctly, that Tolkien should be credited with keeping open for many readers a conceptual aperture through which the possibility that a more enchanted reality— the truths modernity has trained itself not to see—might still be glimpsed. Tolkien preserves with rare seriousness the intuition that actuality exceeds the categories of empiricism. Even if he stands as a mere custodian of memory, safeguarding the grammar of Faerie in an era when the language itself had nearly been lost, that is no small feat.
I’m always confused about whether we’re talking about 'fairies' as a way to describe intentionality within the Infinite Mind-using the term primarily to annoy modern scientists who view the world as a mere 'machine'-or if we’re talking about literal beings that we can no longer see because our mode of perception has changed.
I would also recommend folklorist Jo Hickey-Hall’s Modern Fairy Sightings podcast, particularly the episode featuring the eminent historian Ronald Hutton, who recounts an encounter with a Leanan sídhe on a misty Irish evening: “Oh yes, tonight she will be walking.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIiLMxvBZe4
I’m a stranger to this field of inquiry—all the more intrigued by how David Bentley Hart frames it. “Ours may be a disenchanted world in many respects, but it need not have been, and it certainly will not become less so as the result of a pathetic pining for an unfallen pre-technological paradise.” Traditionalism loses its suffix. Modernity is spared the usual diatribe. Thanks.
First, at the risk of being accused and chastised for considering the subject of faeries as some idle embroidery upon the hem of discourse rather than a matter of staggering ontological consequence, I would like to say what I have always thought: Your more ‘occasional’ essays possess a peculiar and disarming brilliance, not because they depart from the seriousness of your larger work, but because they refract it through a different lens, one in which wit, anecdote, and a kind of nimble curiosity are either allowed fuller play or at least become more conspicuous against the backdrop of subject matter. The intellectual gravity remains, unmistakably, yet it is worn more lightly, as though the mind, relieved of its heaviest loads, reveals distinct dexterities of touch and tone.
As for the review, I suppose it is an interesting question whether Tolkien effectively banished faeries and elves permanently to the realm of creative writing or, instead, rescued their last intelligible echo. Having not read Egeler’s book, however, is it correct to say that he in part argues that by situating the faerie definitively within the precincts of fiction, Tolkien ensures that faeries exist only in that quarantined province, admired, even loved, but only safely contained within the covers of a book? If so, I think I side with your point, if I understand it correctly, that Tolkien should be credited with keeping open for many readers a conceptual aperture through which the possibility that a more enchanted reality— the truths modernity has trained itself not to see—might still be glimpsed. Tolkien preserves with rare seriousness the intuition that actuality exceeds the categories of empiricism. Even if he stands as a mere custodian of memory, safeguarding the grammar of Faerie in an era when the language itself had nearly been lost, that is no small feat.
Missed opportunity to use Dadd's The Fairy Feller's Master-Stroke.
Among the pantheon of the exquisitely unhinged patricidal artists, I have long reserved a singular esteem for Dadd’s deliriously meticulous painting.
(Cf. Artists Who Kill & Other Essays on Art by Alexander Theroux with illustrations by Edward Gorey)
I’m always confused about whether we’re talking about 'fairies' as a way to describe intentionality within the Infinite Mind-using the term primarily to annoy modern scientists who view the world as a mere 'machine'-or if we’re talking about literal beings that we can no longer see because our mode of perception has changed.
Whichever you prefer.
Which do you prefer, that's what I prefer hahahaha.
Is there a sane mind that wouldn’t prefer fairies to be real?
All of the above?
Historian and folklorist Francis Young has also published a book on the subject, Fairies: A History (Polity, 2026): https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=fairies-a-history--9781509566778. While I have not yet read Egeler’s study, I know that Young remains refreshingly open to the reality of the fae folk.
I would also recommend folklorist Jo Hickey-Hall’s Modern Fairy Sightings podcast, particularly the episode featuring the eminent historian Ronald Hutton, who recounts an encounter with a Leanan sídhe on a misty Irish evening: “Oh yes, tonight she will be walking.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIiLMxvBZe4
I'm no expert in general, but I found Egeler’s Elves and Fairies quite inaccurate concerning the Irish folklore.
I’m a stranger to this field of inquiry—all the more intrigued by how David Bentley Hart frames it. “Ours may be a disenchanted world in many respects, but it need not have been, and it certainly will not become less so as the result of a pathetic pining for an unfallen pre-technological paradise.” Traditionalism loses its suffix. Modernity is spared the usual diatribe. Thanks.
Incidentally, have you had the chance to read the Three Books yourself?
What?
Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy is what I meant. I believe the portrait in the post is of Agrippa. Am I mistaken?
Ah. Yes. Well, much of the Three Books (it’s a little boring). I missed the capital letters in your comment. My apologies.