The Sun is shining in Michigan and the day inspirational of speaking of the strange and the wonderful. Fortunately for me, I've just managed to complete the logging of the second hundred Little People case files and may have something modest to say. The following will NOT, however, rival that shining Sun for Light-giving. But we do what little we can, so here goes. The above is a nice Faerie kingdom picture by James Christensen, which illustrates all the beings we could ever wish for.
These hundred cases were in most ways like the previous hundred. There were some notable exceptions.
A). because there were not a lot of cases taken en masse from a dedicated internet site for fairy encounters, and because those that did come from the internet were from sites not predominantly geared to younger girls, the number of tiny winged Tinkerbell-type encounters diminished from 17 to only four. There were still a fairly large number of diminutive little folk, but wingless they be. What exactly this is telling us about"sociology" I can't in honesty say, but it must be telling us something. Before writing off Tinkerbells as a purely culturally-induced artifact conjured up in the minds of young females, though, I'll remind everyone that a fair percentage of the previous Tinkerbell reports were from [allegedly; you can't really say with these website things] older women remembering incidents of their youth.
B). A minor [statistically] but major [phenomenologically] difference in the sets of 100, was the emergence of seven knock-out Pookha cases from Ireland. These glimpses of the huge friendly fairy dog are owed entirely to Diarmuid MacManus, as cases from his great book are included in this set.
C). Recognizing the changes in numbers caused by losses of Tinkerbells and gains of Pookhas, the rest of the numbers are very much in order. 20th century experiences dominate the case files, showing, to me anyway, that such encounters can still be expected to occur. The "smalls" absolutely dominate the reports. I am sure that there is a powerful filtering bias operating here, but I'm still surprised at the lack of normal height Fairyfolk and the almost complete absence of extra-large folk entities. One needs to meditate on this a lot more before sticking ones foot in ones mouth in any attempt at "solution". But I'll say a little bit more VERY tentatively below.
D). I have been forced to change my early opinion of the "smalls" already, due to the trend in the data. I'll probably change it again; this is called "doing rudimentary science" and letting data drive the conclusions. I suspected that I'd see a large clump of "smalls" of the 1 1/2-4 1/2-foot stature, who would "peak" at about three foot tall and generally be "garden Gnomish" or "Leprechaunish" or "Trooping Fairy" in nature. These guys would be the typical brightly-dressed bunch with old faces and beards, who'd mess with you if they felt like it. And, on the other hand, there would be the very tiny, less than a foot, "fairies", who would be seen typically in dancing circles and very fine raiment and rarely if ever interacting with humans. These I had split from the "smalls" as the "tinies", and assumed a fairly clean disconnection. Well..... maybe not. Some of these cases may show that the overlap might be more significant than I thought both up and down. Maybe the third [and fourth?] hundred will sort it out better.
E). The problem of the lack of "norms" [in height -- 5' to 6'+]: a guess--- these experiences are being shunted off into report-collections of apparitions. Some might even make it into cryptozoology collections. Having said that, though, I am still surprised that there are not a significant group of full-sized "Pans" or "forest elves" [there is no evidence of people reporting human-sized "elf-like" beings yet in my files] or "mountain trolls", etc etc. What we get are "black-hooded monks" and similar figures of dread. [and the occasional merfolk]. In fact, the smaller the beings get, it seems the more filled with joy they are.
F). On the absence of extra-talls: I'd expect the random giant here or there; no soap. I'd even expect the odd hero/demigod; nope. Perhaps all of this has migrated to cryptozoology, where at least very large near-apes abound. If Nessies and ABSMs are Faerie denizens, even that would be a surprising "specialized pair of choices" of appearance by the otherworld denizens. Why not then a greater variety of shapes? As to size: There has been a lot of writing both in scholarship and fantasy-fiction about "diminishment" in Faerie. Maybe that's even measurably literal.
G). On whether any of these cases are true: taking off my conical Faerie hat for a moment, and putting on the space-helmet of the UFOlogist, there ARE a few things that can be said. The UFO researcher judges "good" cases on the twin grounds of "strangeness" and "credibility". And we should do exactly that here, of course. When you look at "fairy encounter" claims, the Strangeness issue is almost always immediately laid to rest. Basically all fairy encounters are the UFOlogical equivalent of very close Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. Any thought of mundane explanations of the narratives themselves is immediately moot.
Credibility is where it's at here --- entirely. And Faerie lacks SIGNIFICANTLY in comparison to UFOlogy in this area. Modern fairy encounter claims are rarely investigated by any independent investigator who interviews witnesses cleverly and thoroughly, publishes results in detail, and becomes known as to competence by other investigators in the field. Almost every story from the internet is purely believe-it-or-not. Most others are as well. Thankfully there is the occasional Diarmuid MacManus. One case investigation by him is worth several dozen other basically anonymous reports. If it were not for MacManus, and the old great gatherers led by WYEvans-Wentz, I'd give up on any effort to make sense of any of this. But they are thankfully there to establish some sort of foundation on which to tentatively stand.
Later this week I'll begin to thumbnail specific cases and you'll be able to see what I see, and hopefully much more. Till then... watch the skies.. no, the bushes.