Magic vs. Power [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Iarwain

03-12-2003, 09:39 PM

You can tell that Tolkien doesn't like magic just by reading, its very interesting but he appears to see it as a crude misconception of an art, as we see with Sam and Galadriel. Intresting avatar, Inkling smilies/wink.gif . Thanks for the compliment, it seems very rare that I actually produce a topic of intrest to more than one or two people. smilies/smile.gif

Here's where I believe the line (invisible to you, Burrahobbit) is drawn. Plain magic, shown in other stories appears as a sort of anomaly, an unexplained occurence that somehow allows someone to do something without physically exerting him or her self. However, in Middle-Earth Tolkien has created an environment where Omnipotence is the backing for this nonphysical power, and where it is given accordingly to each race. Rather than being an anomaly, Tolkien's brand of magic is the very reality of middle-earth, it is the force that lies behind its creation and its continual existence. This is when it ceases to be a sort of "weird! how did that happen" power, and becomes the miniature version of divine omnipotence. Each being is woven into the very fibre of Middle-Earth, and has connections to threads around it that others might lack. This is the sort of power that I speak of. To use the same illustration, we might say that a world with traditional magic in it is like a patchwork quilt with several invisible squares, holding the world together, but in a way that is impossible to really understand.

Iarwain

[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

InklingElf

03-13-2003, 09:30 AM

Rightly put Iarwain.

Bill Ferny

03-13-2003, 09:44 AM

I think I understand the distinction that you are making Iarwain. I look at it a bit more simplistically, though. I definitely see a lack of “occult” type magic, as in incantations and witch’s brews. The stock staple of most fantasy is that magic is a learned skill. A wizard is someone who has learned how to cast spells, i.e. D&D style. Is this what you mean by “ordinary magic”?

Birdland

03-13-2003, 11:15 AM

I know I might make a muddle of this, but I'll try to put across my point. Could it be that "magic" as we think of it in the traditional sense, seems to revolve more around objects that posess some kind of power that can be controlled (sometimes poorly) by others? Such as Rings, "elven rope", Galadriel's mirror, the Palantiri, etc.

Whereas "powers" is something contained within the spirit of a being? Osenwe comes to mind: I would classify this as a "power", rather than magic. And the gods of Tolkien's mythology do not require the use of props to induce "magic". It comes from within themselves and is part of their nature.

There. I hope that came out right.

Mornie Alantie

03-13-2003, 11:18 AM

What is meant is that the LOTR "magic" is not magic as in Harry Potter. Harry Potter has magic that must be learned and developed. It includes things like spells and incantations etc. On the other hand LOTR has "magic more in the equivalent of the Christian God, My God. It is not a spell or something learned, it is a divine supernatural power given to make the world go round. Tolkien believed in God and was a Catholic and so I think that he designed the power of middle earth not to be an occult like magic but a divinely given "magic", And so the Ainur, Elves and a little bit with men and dwarves have that supernaturally given power and not the Hogwart's school of witchcraft and wizardry power.

P.S. I do not intend to start an HP debate here. smilies/wink.gif smilies/biggrin.gif The page most likely would end up getting closed. smilies/frown.gif

Mornie Alantie

03-13-2003, 11:20 AM

ainur

03-13-2003, 11:46 AM

I agree whole-heartedly with Iarwain. The substance of Arda is the Music of the Ainur, made real by the Imperishable Flame, and music is an art that anyone can learn, though some have more talent than others. It stands to reason that the Valar (and Maiar and the various others of the Ainu who descended into Arda) would have more of this ability than any others, for they were part of it's composition. The elves, too, would have greater ability, for they are more bound to Arda, and therefore the Music, and do not depart, even upon their death. They simply go to Mandos and wait, either to be reborn, or for the end of Arda. But Man was given strange gifts: Death (real death--departing from Arda) and the ability to govern things as they will, despite the wishes of the Valar or even Iluvatar (in other words, Free Will.) Both these gifts serve to seperate Man from the Fate and substance of Arda, the Music of Arda. It stands to reason, then, that Man would be less "in tune" with the Song, and have less skill at Magic in the realm of Arda.

I honestly believe that this is the way Tolkien perceived of magic in Middle Earth. It always seems to involve a sort of "tapping into" the Music of the Ainur, or repeating it in some way or merely listening to it. Luthien sings songs of enchantment, Galadriel's mirror is made of water ("And it is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance else that is in the Earth"--Ainulindale) and every word out of Tom Bombadil's mouth, whether song or prose, demands a melody. Even the One Ring seems to sing to It's bearer, like a tune getting stuck in your head (poor Gollum--hundreds of years in a cave hearing "This is the song that never ends . . . Yes, it goes on and on my friends . . ."). The magic of Arda is the substance of Arda and that substance is Song.

Birdland

03-13-2003, 11:53 AM

Another thing is that when Galadriel is showing Sam and Frodo the mirror she says something along the lines of "this would be what you call Elven magic, though I don't understand what exactly that means," Hereby she is pointing out it is not an power she aquired by long hours of study.
Actually, Mornie, I could see this in another way. For instance, if I build a radio, and turn it on in front of someone who has no concept of what a radio is, they might refer to the radio as "magic".

But I would think of it as a developed skill. The radio is not magic, and it is not controlled by any "power" that I contained within myself. It is simply understanding how a radio works, and knowing which parts to use in order to build one.

This is what I think of when Galadriel states that she does not understand the Hobbits use of the word, "magic". She has used natural elements to "build" a object that would enable her to conduct information to others. This suggests study and skill.

But if Galadriel could see these events on her own, if she can foresee the future or understand the minds of others around her, without the aid of an object such as her mirror, then I would regard this as a "power".

P.S. - Ainur - great post! And welcome to the Downs.

[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: Birdland ]

Mornie Alantie

03-13-2003, 12:25 PM

I do agree Birdland on that. If Galadriel used the magic, type magic she would have most likely realized it. You are right in the fact that if an deep jungle dweller came and I showed them something like a blender, he would most likely relate it to magic and not sience. So in the books it is realated in the same way how different cultures like hobbits thought the ordinary skills of the elves to be magic, magic. Whereas it was just that power

Valarungol

03-13-2003, 12:45 PM

Say what you will, but a sword that glows in the presence of enemies is undeniably magical.

Personally, I find Tolkien's conservative use of magic to be tasteful. As anyone who's ever played an RPG such as AD&D can attest, there must be limits on the use of magic or else the story just falls apart.

burrahobbit

03-13-2003, 04:02 PM

I definitely see a lack of “occult” type magic, as in incantations and witch’s brews. The stock staple of most fantasy is that magic is a learned skill. A wizard is someone who has learned how to cast spells

Gandalf did that all the time. Gandalf once new all of the spells for opening doors, but he seemed to have forgoten some. Gandalf first fights the Balrog with spoken spells, Gandalf trying to hold a door closed and the Balrog trying to open it. Bombadil and the wight also have spells, I would assume that they needed to learn them. There are a number of learned spells and "witch's brews" all over tLotR. It's magic any way you slice it. Galadriel may make her things by skill and craft and art, but where does anything say that magic isn't a skill or an art or a craft? Even one of the names of magic disagrees with you: witchcraft.

[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

Iarwain

03-13-2003, 08:25 PM

Thanks for the responses everyone! smilies/biggrin.gif I'm happy that I've gotten across.

Ainur, I disagree on one point in your explaination. The Music of the Ainur and the great themes of Iluvatar is the matter of which Middle Earth is made of, I agree, but I think that power is a demonstration not of a being's ability to interpret the music, but his or her own part in the music. Think of it like a great symphony: While traces of the Ainur themselves can be found throughout entire movements, other races have different parts within the great music. Elves for example, might be like the calm fermattas produced by a group of Violists, and men the brief stacattos of a trumpet. Those who are violent and bent in their earthly ways are evidence of Melkor's discord, which he struck into the music at the beginning of all things. Please do not misunderstand me in thinking that I am proposing that the world was predestined in the great music, I'm merely saying that Iluvatar's themes and Melkor's discord were reflective of what was to come in the history of Arda. So I say that yes, the music is alive in all things in Arda, but it is also living in every being.

Birdland, great logic, but I disagree, I think that rather than knowledge and skill being the reason's for Galadriel's mirror, I think that it was the natural fibre of her own being that allowed her to manipulate the water in such a way that it connected with things that appeared to be unrelated to the Hobbits, but in fact were all things to which the reality of Galadriel extended.

Valarungol, good point, but it can be explained . The elves who forged the swords (Glamdring, sting, Orcrist, etc.) invested some of themselves into it, just as the smiths in Eregion did with the great rings. This gave the swords a power according those who created them, in many cases the ability to glow in the prescense of an enemy. If you use this ideaology, and my "blanket" illustration on the Great Rings themselves, it clearly explains why they give power according to their owner. Frodo was a mortal, a small mortal even, and had very little power over his surroundings, as his part in the music was probably very different that that of someone like Gandalf. This made his being, even with the ring, still pretty weak.

I'm not denying that Gandalf used words of power to make things happen, Burrahobbit, but the door spells were technically not spells any more than the password on your computer is a spell.

Iarwain

[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

burrahobbit

03-14-2003, 12:37 AM

I'm not denying that Gandalf used words of power to make things happen, Burrahobbit, but the door spells were technically not spells any more than the password on your computer is a spell.

It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell. What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst to pieces. Something Dark as a cloud was blocking out all of the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the cnamber as well, I think.

Thanks buddy.

[ March 14, 2003: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

HerenIstarion

03-14-2003, 01:05 AM

I surmies you'd be interested to scan through Magic in Middle-Earth (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000215) thread

Iarwain

03-14-2003, 07:17 AM

Oh, that door spell, I thought you were talking about the Moria gate. Okay, true.

Iarwain smilies/smile.gif

Bill Ferny

03-14-2003, 11:42 AM

Burrahobbit, its more like a natural ability than a learned skill, though. Gandalf, Tom, the wight, have magical abilities, just as certain elves had the ability to make magical rings and weapons. Abilities can be developed or neglected in the same way that learned skills can be developed or neglected.

A cobbler has the skill to make shoes but just as easily could have learned the skills necessary to make horse-shoes. Both the cobbler and the blacksmith are tradesmen by learned skill. In a typical D&D fantasy setting magic is presented in this manner. This is also the prevalent position taken by the modern occult crowd.

On the other hand, there are natural abilities. Human beings have the natural ability to reason. However, there are those who hone this ability to a higher degree than others. There are some who neglect this natural ability all together.

As far as magic is concerned there seems to be those who were able to hone their natural magical abilities to a higher degree than others. For example, certain elves can make magical items and command the powers of certain magical devices. Apparently there are Istari of various levels of ability. Some types of elves are more magical than others. There is even a certain type of human that can command a degree of natural magical ability, such as the Númenórean kings who could command the Palantirí. But there is absolutely no indication that the Dunlendings, for example, could ever gain such abilities.

I don’t know if I would go so far as to call “magic” in the LotR anything other than magic, though. In the end it was the word chosen by the author. The term “power” doesn’t seem to be specific enough.

I’m looking for a witch’s brew in the corpus, but can’t find one. If you know of one please let me know.

Mornie Alantie

03-14-2003, 11:54 AM

Can you give me the words of that spell? or most others that are said in ME. As we said before, Gandalf is a Maia and that is not the same as magic, magic. Most "spells" are just words in elvish that say "door open" if you read the elvish they used for the movie when Arwen is at the river she is just using normal elvish to tell the river (which if we are going to go that far we could say Ulmo) to wash away the ringwraiths.

It is insinuated throughout the whole LOTR world that it is not an occult type magic/power but a divinely given by Illuvitar natural power. When Tolkien rights the word "spells" in his book does it mean that Gandalf spent years in Valinor reading spellbooks and such? No. The Valar and the Maia were given that power specifically by Illuvitar and another lesser power but still great to the Elves.

My whole point is that there is very little "magic" magic in the LOTR.

InklingElf

03-14-2003, 12:17 PM

Mornie Alantie: It is insinuated throughout the whole LOTR world that it is not an occult type magic/power but a divinely given by Illuvitar natural power. When Tolkien rights the word "spells" in his book does it mean that Gandalf spent years in Valinor reading spellbooks and such? No. The Valar and the Maia were given that power specifically by Illuvitar and another lesser power but still great to the Elves.

Exactly smilies/smile.gif . Tolkien's 'magic' did NOT have anything to do with occultism... If elves could be representations of angels [other than the likes of Gandalf]-Illuvitar would be the representation of God, who therefore has the authority to give his angels a certain degree of 'magic-like' power. And it is only given to the elves [angels] and not to the likes of man... Sorry if I'm going over my head again, but I hope you catch my drift. There can be no argument that Tolkien did not have occultism in his stories. It's very simple, and he made it even simpler with his letters.

[ March 14, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

ainur

03-14-2003, 01:33 PM

Iarwain--I concede your interpretation of the "Music Theory" makes more sense than mine. Going back to your original question, then, could you then say that 'power' is one's own part in the music, and 'magic' is an interpretation or repetition of the overall theme (-sound? -orchestra? -symphony?)of the Music of the Ainur?

burrahobbit

03-14-2003, 02:17 PM

Burrahobbit, its more like a natural ability than a learned skill

Abilities can be developed or neglected in the same way that learned skills can be developed or neglected.

So what you are saying is that even though they are not the same thing, they are actually the same thing.

A cobbler has the skill to make shoes but just as easily could have learned the skills necessary to make horse-shoes.

You see, what the cobbler actually has is a natural ability to swing his arms about, and he has honed and developed this natural ability to be able to pound nails into the soles of shoes, and to cut leather, and to put them all together just right. It's all founded on his natual arm-swinging ability.

In the end it was the word chosen by the author.

I’m looking for a witch’s brew in the corpus, but can’t find one. If you know of one please let me know.

Orc-draught surely must be made of something unpleasant.

Can you give me the words of that spell?

No. Why should I be able to? Gandalf says that he uses spells, that is good enough for me. Im not trying to show what the words to the spells are, only there there were spells.

Most "spells" are just words in elvish that say "door open" if you read the elvish they used for the movie when Arwen is at the river she is just using normal elvish to tell the river (which if we are going to go that far we could say Ulmo) to wash away the ringwraiths.

So? Do you know anything about magic? It used to be that when people used "magic words" they were just using "normal" latin, like Arwen was using "normal" Elvish. (Also, using the movie to prove your point doesn't help, Tolkien didn't write that.)

It is insinuated throughout the whole LOTR world that it is not an occult type magic/power but a divinely given by Illuvitar natural power.

So why isn't that magic?

When Tolkien rights the word "spells" in his book does it mean that Gandalf spent years in Valinor reading spellbooks and such?

I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves Men or Orcs, that was used for such a purpose. I can still remember ten score of them without searching in my mind.

My whole point is that there is very little "magic" magic in the LOTR.

Equivocation is my favorite, I think.

If elves could be representations of angels

Can't.

And it is only given to the elves [angels] and not to the likes of man

See above.

is one's own part in the music

Only the singers have a part in the music. Men and Elves did not sing.

Iarwain

03-14-2003, 02:17 PM

I disagree Bill:
Rather than being able to "hone" your natural abilities, I think that ME power is your born abilities, just as some people are born with a certain level of brain power that differs from others. A person who has an IQ of, say 46 is not likely to bring that number up to more than maybe 55, unless they get a Flowers for Algernon type brain surgery (the equivalent of a ring of power) that raises their IQ a drastic 50 points or more (depending on the person. In the Unfinished Tales, when the choosing of the Istari takes place, what does Gandalf say to Manwe and Varda? He says that he is weak, and I seriously doubt that it is due a lack of "honing" on his part. He is a lesser spirit, not a lazy maia. I use the term power merely because of the fact that their is a lack of words to fill the descriptive void in the English language.

Bravo, Mornie, I agree. smilies/smile.gif It is most definately not occultic power, it is a lesser version of Devine Omnipotence, created by Iluvatar.

Inkling, nice icon, again. smilies/wink.gif Good analogy. smilies/smile.gif

That's all for now,
Iarwian

Iarwain

03-14-2003, 02:35 PM

Bravo, Burrahobbit!

Spells are words of power. In other words, Gandalf could easily be talking about the passwords used by Elves Dwarves and Men to shut their doors. Mornie's argument is still valid. When Gandalf, surrounded by wolves in FotR cries out a "spell" to set alight all the trees around him, is he really doing anything more than speaking about fire in Quenya?

To defend my own metafore about the great music, I ask this. Who were the Ainur singing of? It could not all be of trees and rock and air. They sang of the people of middle earth, of the tortures that would take place within Arda. Does it not seem at all odd to you, Burrahobbit, that Tolkien makes a point of describing Melkor's disruption and destruction to the music? He is not about to be cast from heaven as in Paradise Lost. Melkor, in marring the perfection of Iluvatar's vision and the great themes has already done his greatest harm. He has stated his malice, all that remains after Ainulindale is to act it out. Men and Elves did not sing, but they were sung of. They were in the great themes that Iluvatar produced.

Iarwain

[ November 01, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

obloquy

03-14-2003, 02:50 PM

Magic in Middle-earth is the ability to manipulate unseen forces of nature. The 'natural ability' part of the Elves' magic is that they have a stronger connection to nature and the world than do Men, which is one of very few distinctions between the two races. The Ainur have an even stronger connection to the unseen fabric of reality because they played a part in its creation. Think of a computer system: the programmers know the system intimately and can thus manipulate it to the maximum possible degree, and on a level beyond the Graphical User Interface. There's also a learned aspect to Middle-earth magic, because this ability to manipulate reality is available to everyone if they only develop it. Of course, the availability doesn't do Men much good when they have such a short span to develop this power, and when their connection to the fabric of reality is rather puny. So the magic wasn't given to Elves, it was just that Elves had the right stuff to learn it, and plenty of time. The Ainur played this or that part in the creation of the world, so their influence over a certain type of physical creation is the 'unseen force' I mentioned. Melkor put his fingers in nearly everything, so nearly everything can be manipulated for evil by those who know how to invoke the Melkor element. Ulmo was the God of Waters, so doing 'water magic' consists of learning to call upon that little bit of Ulmo that was in the water of Middle-earth. That's what Elrond did. It's just about 'knowing the language' of the spiritual aspects of creation.

Salocin

03-14-2003, 03:50 PM

I believe the word you are looking for is not power but virtue. Elves are given more "virtue" than men and Valar and Maia are given even more. This comes from the idea that middle earth "magic" is a granting of a measure of power/virtue from Eru to others.

I think that it was the natural fibre of her own being that allowed her to manipulate the water in such a way that it connected with things that appeared to be unrelated to the Hobbits, but in fact were all things to which the reality of Galadriel extended.

I would disagree. She was able to make the water reveal images, but she was not able to control what images they showed. She got this power from her ring which was the ring of water. The ring served as sort of an amplifier for her inate virtue as well being able to channel it in certain ways. Obviously a hobbit would not be able to use the ring in such a way. This would be explained as there "base" virtue being significantly lower so even with the multiplier of the ring they would not have much power. I doubt even an ordinary elf would be able to use the ring in the ways Galadrial could. I think you got it right when you said If you use this ideaology, and my "blanket" illustration on the Great Rings themselves, it clearly explains why they give power according to their owner. Frodo was a mortal, a small mortal even, and had very little power over his surroundings, as his part in the music was probably very different that that of someone like Gandalf. This made his being, even with the ring, still pretty weak. .

Iarwain

03-15-2003, 11:36 AM

Okay, I see, Salocin. I forgot to factor in the ring. But, she does say that she could control what the mirror shows, she merely said that it is better to let it show you what it would. How's this:

I think that it was the natural fibre of her own being, tied to the power of the ring, that allowed her to manipulate the water in such a way that it connected with things that appeared to be unrelated to the Hobbits, but in fact were all things to which the reality of Galadriel, or Nenya itself extended. This is why seemingly random visions appeared, because all were related to the rings of power, to which Frodo was bound through his possesion of the One. Because of the fact that Galadriel possessed Nenya, a great ring, the mirror had an immensely greater range of vision, because the ring was tied into a sort of network through the One Ring, and therefore all things related to all the rings were possible sights in the mirror.

I hope that isn't too confusing, I'm thinking as I write, so perhaps it didn't come out so well.

Iarwain

Bill Ferny

03-15-2003, 12:28 PM

Burrahobbit, if you are unable or unwilling to see the obvious distinction between a human’s ability of locomotion or reason and learned skills such as riding a horse, making shoes, designing websites, etc… then there’s no need to continue the discussion along those lines. How is orc draught a witch’s brew? Witch’s brews are usually whipped up in a cauldron, not drawn from barrels. Calling something a draught (or draft) is an obvious insinuation that it is an alcoholic beverage. Surely you don’t believe that employees at Anheiser-Bush wear black robes and pointed hats?

Iarwain, I do not disagree with you about varying degrees of natural ability. Equality does not exist in reality. On the other hand, natural abilities can be improved via habit. She who employs herself in activities that are physically demanding will improve her natural physical abilities of locomotion, dexterity or strength. Similarly, she who employs herself in mental activities will improve her natural ability to reason. The point I was attempting to make in context is that like learned skills, natural abilities can be improved. That doesn’t make them the same thing.

There's also a learned aspect to Middle-earth magic, because this ability to manipulate reality is available to everyone if they only develop it.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. There is no indication from the corpus that hobbits can directly employ elven magic (making a magic blade as opposed to using one) or the magic native to the Istari. There is no indication from the corpus that the Dunlendings could eventually learn to use the Palantíri, or make lembas. However, if you can find a direct quote that supports this thesis, I’ll be more than willing to change my mind.

Salocin, the mention of virtue is provocative. However, virtue (in the classical sense) is not something that is granted, it is something that is practiced. Virtue is habit. Likewise, it does not explain the magical powers possessed by Melkor or Sauron or the balrog, unless we call their activities the practice of virtue.

Iarwain

03-15-2003, 01:58 PM

To defend my own metafore about the great music, I say this. Who were the Ainur singing of? It could not all be of trees and rock and air. They sang of the people of middle earth, of the tortures that would take place within Arda. Does it not seem at all odd to you, Burrahobbit, that Tolkien makes a point of describing Melkor's disruption and destruction to the music? He is not about to be cast from heaven as in Paradise Lost. Melkor, in marring the perfection of Iluvatar's vision and the great themes has already done his greatest harm. He has stated the his malice, all that remains after Ainulindale is to act it out. Men and Elves did not sing, but they were sung of. They were in the great themes that Iluvatar produced.

I was rereading the thread just now, and I realized something I left out of the above post.

Look at the existence of Arda in three levels:

Creation (Ainulinale, the Great Themes of Iluvatar)
Existence (the Living history of Middle-Earth, all of the tales told in the books that take place within Arda)
Rapture (post Dagor Dagorath, the final music of Arda, when all men, elves, ainur, and (possibly) dwarves are gathered before Iluvatar to sing anew the Great Music of Creation.

These are the necessary states of existence for Arda, and without one the others cannot possibly exist. When you, Burrahobbit, say that Men and Elves were not involved in the music, you are thinking solely of the beginning. You must take into consideration the fact that every beginning not only has an existence, but an end. In this case the end is imperitive. In the end we realize the reality that all of the people that have lived in Arda exist. After the Dagor Dagorath, all are taken from Arda and sing in an innumerable host before the throne of Eru. Then, Burrahobbit, we can most definately say that Men and Elves are not only sung of, but do sing themselves in the great music.

Iarwain

Magician of Nathar

03-15-2003, 05:48 PM

Some say there is a line between normal "magic" and Tolkien's magic, some say there isn't. Well, it really depends on how you define the word "magic". If magic simply means things that can't be explained by our current knowledge, then no, there isn't a line. If you want to define "magic" to the specific degree of chanting spells and have some kind of a ritual, yes then there is a line. Whether you see the line or not completely depends on your point of view. For me I don't think magic is anything different from building a skyscraper and flying a spaceship. If you show those things to people from medieval time, or better, Middle Earth, they would scream "magic" in your face. I also believe those so called "magic" and supernatural things can be explained scientifically if you tried.

The Saucepan Man

03-15-2003, 08:00 PM

This thread is entitled "Magic v Power". Surely these concepts are not mutually exclusive. And surely, they both cover a multitude of concepts in themselves.

Take power. Now, that can mean physical power, such as that displayed by Tulkas or Broromir. It can mean magical power, such as that imbued in items such as the One Ring, the Elven Rings or Glamdring, or displayed by the likes of Galadriel and Gandalf. Or it can me the power of resilience and friendship, such as that displayed by Sam, Merry and Pippin.

So, magic is a form of power. But, what is "magical power"? Well, we have magical items, such as the Rings, Galadriel's Mirror, the Palantiri, Elven Rope and magical weapons such as Glamdring, Orcrist and Sting. Each of these items was imbued with magical abilities by their makers. Some, such as the weapons and the rope, can be used by anybody. Others, such as the Rings and the Palantiri, can be used to varying degrees of effect, depending upon the qualities of the wielder. Others, such as Galadriel's Mirror, it seems, can only be used by one person, or a select few.

What of the magical powers of individuals? Well, some seem to be a natural, innate ability, such as the telepathy used by the Eldar. Other magical abilities seem to be more of the learnt kind, which might require words of command or ingredients to make them work. The Witch King, for example, was a great sorceror before becoming enslaved by his Ring. I always imagined that human sorcerors such as this learnt their craft and, perhaps, needed "props" to make their spells work. The Istari seem to have used a combination of magical powers. They surely had innate magical abilities, but they also required items to assist them in discharging (some of?) their magical abilities. Their staves, for instance. And Gandalf had the Ring of Fire which, no doubt, enhanced his natural abilities. We are also told that Gandalf learnt "spells" while in ME, which he used to assist him in his mission. And what of Beorn? We are told that he was a magician of sorts. But was his shape-changing an innate magical ability, or was it an acquired skill, performed through the use of "spells"?

It seems to me that the word "magic" in JRRT's works covers a variety of concepts, from the "spell-based" magic performed by human sorcerors such as the pre-Wraith Witch King to the "psychic" abilities used by the likes of Galadriel. It also refers to magic items, which might be used by anyone, or only by one or a select few. And similarly, they could presumably be made either by those who had innate magic ability or by those who learned their craft. Or also by those who had special skill which would not necessarily be considered "magical". Mithril arnmour, for example, might be considered a kind of magical armour, but it was made by Dwarves from a naturally occuring substance (some have likened it to Aluminium). So "magic" here is not referring to an innate ability or to any kind of "spell", but to a scientific method of treatment.

So, I see magic in JRRT's works as covering different types of ability. Yes, some are innate. Others are learnt, either as a scientific method, or as spells possibly requiring words of command or ingredients. And all are a kind of power, just as someone who has a hefty sword in their hand and the ability to use it has power of a kind.

Bill Ferny

03-15-2003, 08:36 PM

Iarwin, you’ve thrown me off. smilies/wink.gif

For me I don't think magic is anything different from building a skyscraper and flying a spaceship. If you show those things to people from medieval time, or better, Middle Earth, they would scream "magic" in your face.

I seriously doubt everyone would. Lack of scientific knowledge does not negate intelligence. For example, contrary to popular belief remote tribes in New Guinea do not worship Coke bottles.

I do see what you are saying, though. For elves, magic isn’t magic at all, it belongs to them by nature.

However, elves aren't exactly natural. Elves are preternatural, and so their magical abilities are preternatural. Elves, Gandalf, Saruman, the balrog, Sauron, even Smaug, orcs, trolls, ents, dwarves and hobbits are all preternatural. Magical abilities may belong to them by definition, but these abilities remain preternatural. Galadriel may not understand the word “magic”, but magical she is. If we call these magics supernatural powers, then I think we run the risk of reducing magic to grace. If that is the case, then magic does not belong to these creatures by definition.

(Retraction: How can we seriously say that anything belongs "naturally" to creatures that are in their very essence preternatural? In the above posts, I’ve changed my mind about the wording: “belongs to them by definition” is much clearer than “naturally”.)

I also believe those so called "magic" and supernatural things can be explained scientifically if you tried.

I will renounce with my last dying breath, such a belief. At a little grotto in a place called Lourdes, back on a cool October day in ‘87, all my doubts about the supernatural were dispelled.

Iarwain

03-15-2003, 09:08 PM

Glad to have both of your comments, Saucepan and Narthar. It is definately time to provide a definition for each term.

I consider Magic to be the use of spells, incantations, or other occultic means for to make something happen, physical or not.

Power is, as you say, a very broad term, as it covers every form of control over both man and nature. The reason I have chosen to use the word Power is that though there is a difference between Tolkien's brand of magic and the magic used by a more classical magician, there is no word to specifically describe that difference, that my reason for starting this thread; to discern from Tolkien and the occult. Therefore, when the term "power" is used in this thread, I presume that the person is describing Tolkien's brand of magic, not the book definition of power (which has many meanings indeed).

Now that that explaination has been given, the debate begins, that is the debate over whether power is a divine gift, a learned skill, or a practice dealing with props.

If you read my previous posts, I have already explained my view on the "magical items", such as the Rings, the Mirror, and swords such as Orcrist and Glamdring. If you read those posts, my method for explaination is easily applicable to the Elven Rope and Palantiri. Why they seem to work differently for different people is very understandable. Allow me to use the following illustration:
Each being is woven into the very fibre of Middle-Earth, and has connections to threads around it that others might lack. This is the sort of power that I speak of. To use the same illustration, we might say that a world with traditional magic in it is like a patchwork quilt with several invisible squares, holding the world together, but in a way that is impossible to really understand.

Now, you may or may not agree with that illustration, but in either case, it is the base of my argument, so bear with me. I believe that in Middle-Earth, spells are useless. All nonphysical activity involves one's innate "power". Therefore, when you speak of the Morgul King being a sorcerer, I believe that his nonphysical activities were not invoked by his own being but by some twisted maiar that Sauron sent to twist his ways and make him bent. The staves of the Istari were nothing but symbolic of their status. Gandalf lived though his staff was broken in moria, and defeated the Balrog without it. Saruman did not loose any of his potency because of the breaking of his staff, but because of the squandering of his spirit. This is the same thing that weakened Morgoth and Sauron over the years. They invested their spiritual potency in the torment of others, they squandered it in their attempts at global rule, and in the end, all three of them fell. Oh, how I wish you could just jump inside my head, so I wouldn't have to explain this all! smilies/smile.gif Beorn could have been a Maia, which his existence most closely resembles, or he could be merely another unexplained existence, like Tom Bombadil.

I'm sure that the preceding paragraphs are a jumbled mess, but they'll just have to do for now, because my brain is overflowing with ideas and information that I cannot right now put down without much confusion and difficulty. Basically, I hold the the theory that the Magic in middle earth is one hundred percent innate ability that is merely distributed among objects.

Iarwain

P.S. Bill, it may just be due to the circumstances listed above, but you've completely lost me in your last post. Did I really say those things?

P.P.S. Did the spring at Lourdes deny you, Bill? smilies/wink.gif

[ March 15, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Bill Ferny

03-15-2003, 09:47 PM

My last post was in response to Nathar, really. I’m sort of in agreement with you when you say that magic is 100% innate ability in Middle Earth. Even though it may resemble at times occult magic or divine intervention, magic can only be directly predicated to magical characters or creatures.

I’m a little leery of saying magic is like a divine gift, or powers granted by Illuvitar as an addition to a creature’s state of being (like grace). But I’m not sure if you are saying this. Secondly, I understand your illustration to mean that there are layers of reality, some accessible to only a few, and access to these other layers of reality, the ability to tap into various connections, is what constitutes magic or Power in Middle Earth. I’m not sure if I agree with that.

PanMan, while it is always possible for anyone to use certain magical items, it certainly is not possible for anyone to create them. Study as much as they like, hobbits could never learn the spells that Gandalf learned.

Iarwain

03-15-2003, 10:15 PM

Okay, Bill, the brain has cleared. I'm glad to know that we agree.

I definately do not think that power is like grace. I think it is a gift given according to race. You do not gain it or practice it like virtue.

Iarwain

The Saucepan Man

03-15-2003, 10:55 PM

PanMan, while it is always possible for anyone to use certain magical items, it certainly is not possible for anyone to create them. Study as much as they like, hobbits could never learn the spells that Gandalf learned.

Yes, Bill, I agree. While I believe that it was open to individuals without any innate magical ability, such as Men, to learn sorcery, this would only apply to those with an aptitude for doing so. Hobbits seem to have a natural resilience to magic (hence their talent as Ringbearers) which no doubt precludes any likelihood of them becoming sorcerors ...

... presumably that's why in D+D, you could never have a Hobbit Magic-User. smilies/wink.gif

Bill Ferny

03-16-2003, 12:04 AM

LOL, I just noticed this postscript:

P.P.S. Did the spring at Lourdes deny you, Bill?

No, I never got close enough. A vision of the Blessed Lady chucking apples at me scared me off half-way up to the grotto, so I went back to my little stand and went back to selling tap water in little plastic Mary bottles.

Bill Ferny

03-16-2003, 11:14 AM

Once again Middle Earth intrudes into the real world. One of my new projects involves connections between early Christian Gnosticism and pagan/pseudo-pagan alchemy. I was immediately reminded of Tolkien in many of the connections, and I formulated a theory throughout the course of the night and this morning, rather undeveloped and hodge-podge to say the least, that touches on the issues raised in this thread.

The elves are obviously based on the Tuatha Dé Danann (Children or People of Danu) of Celtic myth. Danu is a figure associated with craftsmanship, thus the Tuatha Dé Danann can be called the people of craftsmanship. The dwarves are forged by the smith of all smiths, Aulë. The Númenóreans are known for their various crafts learned from the elves, especially ship building, in virtue of the blood of Elros. There are intrinsic parallels between alchemy and magic in LotR. Sauron is the epitome of the alchemist. In the forging of the rings of power he makes the alchemical bridge between the spiritual and material creation. The alchemist is often called the master of fire. Sauron wields fire at every turn. Even Gandalf can be seen in this light, he carries the ring of fire, and he proclaims himself the “servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor.”

In all the mythologies that I perused the alchemist figure is always otherworldly, like the Tuatha Dé Danann. Andvari the Dwarf in the Volsunga Saga, and his parallels in the German romances, is the craftsman who forges the ring of unlimited wealth. In the same, Regin who forged anew Odin’s sword into Gram, was not a man, but born long before the first men. Völund (Wayland) crafts wondrous items, interestingly enough, by the power of an otherworldly magical ring.

I wonder if we could place the Lady of the Lake into this mold as well.

Iron was one of the most influential discoveries of human history, and the art of smelting raw ore into workable iron was a secret jealously guarded; thus the origin of the “secrets” of the furnace’s fire. With such a world changing discovery at their finger tips, is it any wonder that these holders of the secrets of its creation would appear to the common person as otherworldly figures, and associate their fiery craft with sorcery and magic? However, for our present discussion, which is the mythology of Middle Earth, such a speculation does not belong. Whether or not the origin of historical alchemy/magic was based on simple natural science and pagan belief systems is of no consequence. What is of consequence is the connection between the otherworldly character of sub-creation within the fabric of the myths, themselves.

Its apparent that Tolkien may have drawn from these sources his basic conception of magic. It comes from a wisdom or secret knowledge held only by a select few (which reminds me of Christian Gnotics) and is intimately tied to sub-creation. Like the other mythologies I came across, Tolkien makes these select creatures and characters otherworldly in nature.

Meoshi

03-16-2003, 12:15 PM

And he entered the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron; and he was more cruel than any orc.

'for this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word for the deceits of the Enemy.'

I would say that magic in the traditional fantasy sense (spellcasters tapping into a power that is not inherantly theirs through potions, incantations, etc.) does exist in ME- But only evildoers are foolish enough to use it. Sauron and the Witch-King trained sorcerers, teaching them to 'tap into the Melkor element', as one of you said. That power was not natural or inherant to Arda, nor inherant in the spellcasters. You wouldn't find Elves among Sauron's pupils, but only Men- Men who envied the Elves' and Numenoreans'(to some extent) inherant skill and wanted some of their own.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Meoshi ]

Iarwain

03-16-2003, 03:25 PM

Very interesting. I cannot disagree with you, Bill, because what you say is logical and fits in with the greater picture of Tolkien's works. Also, I have little to no experience in early mythology of the norse, anglo saxons and other civilizations in western Europe. A question:

You speak a lot about men and elves, what of the higher race, the ainur? I realize that they would not have any innate need or desire for the evil knowledge of sorcery, but would not some maiar have been corrupted and drawn to service beneath Sauron?

Iarwian

Mornie Alantie

03-17-2003, 12:20 PM

Another thing is that Tolkien was Cotholic and belived in God. He set the power/virtue/ability in middle earth with the kind of power found in the Bible. God's all powerful power, the angels power to do his will, and that Satan and his host use that power evily. If you think about it, they are very alike. Illuvitar being all knowing and all powerful, Aunir and Elves having the power given to them, And Melkor and his host using that power evily.

God does not use occultic power or magic, he uses his divine power and same with those under him. So to say that the LOTR has the occultic power/magic is very unrealistic.

Iarwain

03-17-2003, 03:59 PM

Now, another point of dispute has come up:

Which would have played a greater role in Tolkien's writing; his religious beliefs or his mythopoetic authenticity?

Iarwain

Bill Ferny

03-17-2003, 11:45 PM

Meoshi, the first quote refers to the Mouth of Sauron who was a Black Númenórean. The Númenóreans, under my flimsy theory, would be the only the humans able to learn magic. My point of contention has evolved to not whether or not magic is learned per se, but that it can only be learned by a select, otherworldly, few. The second quote is a demonstration of perspective that was discussed above. However, I have a vague recollection of sorcerers under the influence of evil that were Easterlings of Rhûn. I’ve searched through a good portion of UT, but haven’t been able to find anything. Of course, if my recollection proves accurate, my theory is basically out the window.

Iarwain, the Ainur I suppose fit perfectly into this otherworldly scheme. However, I can’t really think of any mythologies that seem to reflect the Ainur/Valar theme in Tolkien (their entrance into Arda), except perhaps the Origin of Nephilim from Genesis 6;1-4:

When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. Then the Lord said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.” At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

Since I’m on the Bible, I have a tendency to down play Tolkien’s religiosity in regards to the crafting of his mythology. It seems to me from reading HoME (and this has been debated elsewhere, and I’m open to correction and various opinions) that Tolkien began to craft his mythology using only his mythological sources, not excluding Judeo-Christian myth, but not consciously depending on that particular myth. In fact, it seems to me that his initial crafting was based almost completely on the mythologies of northern Europe. However, after reviewing his work later in the process he realized the many Christian themes he had unconsciously inserted, and “consciously in the revision” attempted to make these Christian themes more apparent and cogent. So in reply to Mornie, I would say that Tolkien first attempted to capture of the “magic” of the Edda, which is not “occult” in origin.

Iarwain

03-18-2003, 08:23 PM

Great passage from Genesis, Bill. Madeleine L'Engle wrote an entire book based on information provided in that brief and mysterious statement. smilies/smile.gif

I've always felt the same about Tolkien's inspiration. Even when other's have pointed out the Christian resemblance, I completely refused to believe at first. However, that does not change my view that from a spiritual aspect, "magic" in middle earth was never learned, it was practiced as an innate power from Iluvatar, or given from bent Maiar to evil men who were corrupted by Sauron. What rationality would allow power to be gained like a college degree, changing the very fibre of a being just through learning a few empty words and phrases? I do not believe that Iluvatar would allow or perform such deep changes to the innate characters of men whom he had gifted such great things.

I've always had the idea that one of the Nazgul came from the far east. I imagine their rulers would make good Nazgul (good, that is for Sauron's purposes, no one else's smilies/smile.gif )

Iarwain

Salocin

03-19-2003, 03:50 PM

As I see it there are three intertwined forms of "magic" in ME. There is the inherent abilities thet Bill and Iarwain champion, learned craftsmanship which can be compared to science, and learned magic. I will start my justification with craftsmanship as I think Bill and Iarwian have done a better job with inherent ability than I could ever do.

Any "magic" item would fall under cragtsmanship. I would argue that anyone could learn to make at least the material part of these provided they had the time to learn how. Before you stone me let me clarify a bit.

Elven Swords, lembas, Rope, Cloaks etc.- This first class of "magic items" seems to just require the knowlege of how to make them. A strong indication of this is when an elf in Lorien tell Sam that if they had known he had an interest in rope making, they could have taught him how to make it. In the case of the swords, cloaks, and maybe even the lembas, though, I suspect would take more than a Hobbit's life time to learn. One must also take into account that some people have natural skill in craftsmanship, fine sight for detail or a steady hand for example, so maybe not everyone could make them. The "magic" glowing of the swords I would attribute to science, but that is just my own oppinion and maybe they should be classified with my next group of items.

My next group includes the Palantir, Silmarils, Rings of Power, the Phial of Galadrial, and maybe even the Wizard's staffs, though the amount of power they posess inherently is highly debatable. These physical aspects of these items I would say could be made by anyone with the time to learn how, like the items above. A skilled glassmaker could make a sphere of black glass, or a glass phial, or maybe even clear crystals and a simple woodsman can make an oak staff. Their power, though, seems to depend on the power of both the creator of the object and the user. (This is why I would not put elven swords here. They seem to glow regardless of who is weilding them.) The creator appers to invest some of their own inherent power in them and sometimes looses it permenently (as in the case of Sauron forging the one ring) to the object. The user can only use the item in so far as they have power, a consept I think everyone is familiar with, at least as regards the rings and the palantir.

Finally there is learned magic. This defenitely seems to exist, though I am not sure the idea is consistent and that may be the reason for these problems. Before I try to explain my stance here, site examples, etc., I would like to explain a view of magic that I think Tolkien may have had as it is a predominant Christian idea.

There is no magic. At least not in the sense that if you do certain things and mix up a potion you can comand the elements or something like that. Many Christians would place events like these in one of too catigories:1)Events that have or will be explained by science. 2)Events that are explained by the intevention of a demon at the request of a person who is either a Satanist or thouroly decived by the devil. In this way there isn't any really "occult" magic as someone, I think it was Iarwain, defined as invisible squares holding the patchwork quilt world together. The "invisible" squares would be explained by demons.

I hope that is cohernt. I know what I mean so it is hard for me to see how one might misunderstand it. Anyways, back to Tolkien. I think the Witch King and the Mouth of Sauron would fall under category number two. Their sorcery was derived from his corruption by Sauron, a demon. The spells of Gandalf and sorcery of Beorn (I would classify the transformation into a bear as inherent ability since it is only done by him and his ofspring and therefore apears to be inheritable.) I think these are either based on the celtic idea of a druid running around controlling the elements with incantations (though even they associated spirits (demons) with the elements) or as a form of pseudoscience.

O.K., throw your stones. Lets see how many holes we can put in this smilies/smile.gif

But seriously, I am getting a little muddeled here towards the end here and doubt a am being coherent. It all seemed like a good idea when I started smilies/biggrin.gif. I would greatly apretiat any critisism(constructive of otherwise), questions, suggestions, arguments, complaints, or queries would be greatly apretiated. If it is wrong, nothing would please me more than seeing it torn to shreads.

Iarwain- To answer your question I would say he took myths and reshaped them to his religious beliefs.

Iarwain

03-20-2003, 04:36 PM

Well, Salocin, I think you are quite coherent, except perhaps where you are saying that you aren't smilies/smile.gif. I hope my stones don't hurt too much smilies/wink.gif.

I understand what you say, and I agree with some of it (the evil in occultic magic), but with other parts I will always disagree. I do not believe that there is any form of learned magic in Middle Earth (I realize that I have already said this many many times, so I appologize for my redundance smilies/wink.gif ). The magic that we see invested in objects (palantiri, rings, etc.) is just that: invested. It is nothing more. To prevent further redundence, I'm going to stop there, because you've already read all of my arguments from before. I'm realizing that this wasn't really a post worth posting...

Iarwain

Bill Ferny

03-20-2003, 11:08 PM

Beorn: after going through some Norse mythology, I’m 99% certain that he and his were based on the berzerkers who according to these mythologies had the ability to transform into wolves and bears (berzerkers wore wolf and bear skins).

As far as the Witch King and the other Nazghoulies, I would say their command of “magic” is wholly based on their existing in the shadow realm due to the nine rings, not according to any schooling they may have had at Dol Guldor High.

Good post, Salocin, very coherent. I try not to throw stones, but I do occasionally toss back apples. smilies/wink.gif

The Saucepan Man

03-21-2003, 09:24 AM

As far as the Witch King and the other Nazghoulies, I would say their command of “magic” is wholly based on their existing in the shadow realm due to the nine rings, not according to any schooling they may have had at Dol Guldor High.

smilies/biggrin.gif But what about the Minas Morgul College of Further Education? smilies/biggrin.gif

But, it seems that the Nine, or at least the Witch King, did become sorcerors before they became Ringwraiths. Here is a quote from the Silm:

Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerors, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them ... And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and under the domination of the One, which was Sauron's. And they became for ever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows.

Not only does this tells us that they became kings, sorcerors and great warriors before they entered the realm of shadows, but it also suggests that they did so (or at least some of them did so) before, one by one, they fell under the thraldom of the rings they bore, and thereby under the dominion of Sauron. Also it is suggested that the wills, of some at least, were good in the beginning. Quite possibly they became sorcerors while still remaining "good".

So, those that were able to use "magic" did not gain this ability by virtue of being Ringwraiths. Nor, it seems, was such an ability "imbued" in them by Sauron. They gained it while mortal and, arguably, before they fell under his dominion.

This leaves the question of whether the Rings themselves bestowed the ability to use magic. I do not think that they did. Undoubtedly, the power of the Rings assisted them in gaining kingdoms, weath, power and magic, but I do not believe that they gave them these things directly.

I therefore believe that those of the Nine who were sorcerors before they became Ringwraiths learned their sorcery as a craft.

Now, I am not saying that those who argue that there is no such thing as "learned magic" in JRRT's world are wrong. As far as I am aware, there is no conclusive evidence one way or another. It is simply my interpretation that there was such a thing.

Iarwain

03-21-2003, 10:30 AM

Thank you for proving that point, Saucepan. smilies/smile.gif

Now we can see that, though they were perhaps learned men, lords and knights before they recieved their gifts from Annatar, they did not change to a higher (or lower) level until they began to use the rings, which allowed them great power. This is when they became great sorcerors, kings, and heroes. Therefore, the Morgul King was not, as some have suggested, a great sorcerer before he recieved his great ring. He did not fall into shadow, but as soon as he began to misuse the power the ring gave him he began to slip into the abyss.

Another quote, from the Sil: It was in Eregion that the counsels of Sauron were most gladly received, for in that land the Noldor desired ever to increase the skill and subtlety of their works. Moreover they were not at peace in their hearts, since they had refused to return into the West, and they desired both to stay in Middle-earth, which indeed they loved, and yet to enjoy the bliss of those that had departed. Therefore they hearkened to Sauron, and they learned of him many things, for his knowledge was great. In those days the smiths of Ost-in-Edhil surpassed all that they had contrived before; and they took thought, and they made Rings of Power. But Sauron guided their labours, and he was aware of all that they did; for his desire was to set a bond upon the Elves and to bring them under his vigilance.

Sadly this may contradict my belief of the lack of learned power. Any thoughts?

Iarwain

[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Meoshi

03-21-2003, 04:24 PM

Sauron didn't teach them magic, I would say; He 'put a little of himself' into the Rings, as he did with the One, so that he would be able to control them better when he made his own- and so they would be more powerful.

Iarwain

03-21-2003, 05:36 PM

I understand, Meoshi. I'm glad that my theory is still applicable. smilies/smile.gif I like the idea of people "putting themselves" into objects and crafts, it's almost like investing time or effort into a project. smilies/smile.gif

Iarwain

The Saucepan Man

03-21-2003, 08:04 PM

Ah now, is this conclusive proof of the existence of learned magic in JRRT's world?

From The Hobbit, Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire:

But, of course, Gandalf had made a special study of bewitchments with fire and lights (even the hobbit had never forgotten the magic fireworks at Old Took's midsummer-eve parties, as you remember).

So part of Gandalf's magic, at least, seems to have derived from study. No doubt, as a Maiar, he had the capacity for magic. But perhaps one aspect of the constraints put upon him and the other Istari when they came to ME was that they were unable to use their innate powers to the full. Maybe, therefore, Gandalf felt that he had to study to build up his powers on his arrival in ME, in order to prepare him for his mission.

Iarwain

03-21-2003, 08:12 PM

Well, that finishes it! Congrats, Saucepan. We can now say with confidence that ME magic can be learned, at least by the appropriate, capable people.

Iarwain

Bill Ferny

03-21-2003, 08:28 PM

There does seem to be a learning curve when it comes to magic. However, only select few with an innate, perhaps otherworldly, predisposition toward magic can learn the craft. You are right, PanMan, that there is no conclusive evidence based on the Silm’s description of the Nazgûl. Those of sorcery powers could have been Black Númenóreans possessing that predisposition as did the Witch King. Juxtapose this with the common perception of occult type magic, such as voodoo, modern day witchcraft, and New Age “powers” that can be achieved by anyone who has the right formula or the proper tarot deck or stands in the right place.

Once again the examples sited exemplify the craftsmanship model of the old alchemy mythologies. These characters learn magic and incorporate magic much like a craftsman, most notably the smith and metallurgist.

Minas Morgul College (MMC for short)… bah. Good basketball team, but lousy football. I matriculated from UEI (University of Espionage, Isengard) and we spanked them every year (orc-men linebackers, you know).

Salocin

03-22-2003, 12:32 PM

The magic that we see invested in objects (palantiri, rings, etc.) is just that: invested.

I am afraid you missunderstude me. What I was saying was that power invested in palantir, rings, etc. can be "claimed" only as far as you have power yourself. I don't think I connected the learning part of magic with the magic items part at all. They are completely unrelated. You may, though, need to practice using an item to relize its full potential and the skill to make an item must be learned, but that is completely different from the existance of "learned" magic which PanMan has apparently proved conclusively.

Consiquently, you said I understand what you say, and I agree with some of it (the evil in occultic magic), but with other parts I will always disagree. I do not believe that there is any form of learned magic in Middle Earth and then We can now say with confidence that ME magic can be learned don't you find this in the least bit irronic? smilies/tongue.gif

Anyway, if its proven now, is this thread now pointless?

[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Salocin ]

Iarwain

03-22-2003, 03:54 PM

Ironic, it is indeed. smilies/tongue.gif. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. The thread is NOT, however, pointless, because its goal was not to prove the lack of learned power in Middle-Earth. The purpose of this thread is in fact to discern the differences between occultic magic and the magic which Tolkien illustrates in his descriptions of Middle-Earth. Perhaps you should reread the previous posts in this thread? smilies/smile.gif
The reason I have chosen to use the word Power is that though there is a difference between Tolkien's brand of magic and the magic used by a more classical magician, there is no word to specifically describe that difference, that my reason for starting this thread; to discern from Tolkien and the occult.

Also, Saucepan has merely shown us that magic can be learned, to what degree and by whom we have not yet decided. It is possible that only the powerful of Arda could learn magic, and it is also possible that such learning was gained through a sort of grant, or diploma given by the Valar, or Iluvatar, the only one's powerful enough to distribute new power into a being. We can also look at Saucepan's quote and say that these "bewitchments" were probably just discoveries about the materials used to make fireworks, mixed with Gandalf's previoius innate power. So, you can clearly see that this thread is not outdated, nor is my argument inapplicable. smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif

Iarwain

[ March 22, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

The Saucepan Man

03-22-2003, 08:00 PM

Also, Saucepan has merely shown us that magic can be learned, to what degree and by whom we have not yet decided.

Ah, but its not for us to decide. smilies/wink.gif

The evidence we have so far is that:

1) one or more of the Nine became sorcerors at some point after having been given a Ring of Power by Sauron but before becoming a Ringwraith; and

2) Gandalf learned "bewitchments" involving fire and lights which he used to bring lightning bolts down on the goblins in the Misty Mountains and set light to fir-cones to throw at the Wargs, as well as making fireworks.

The fact that the Nine became sorcerors means that it was not only those of divine origin, such as Gandalf, who were able to learn magic. Those of the Nine who became sorcerors were mortal when they did so. That leaves two possibilities. Either Sauron invested them with their magical abilities, or they learned them independently. Since there is, as far as I am aware, nothing to establish the former, I choose to believe the latter. It is therefore my interpretation that the ability to use magic could, in ME, be learned by anyone with suitable aptitude. smilies/tongue.gif

Bill Ferny

03-22-2003, 09:38 PM

It is therefore my interpretation that the ability to use magic could, in ME, be learned by anyone with suitable aptitude.

What constitutes this aptitude? What do you mean by aptitude? intelligence? knowledge? wisdom? psychic prowess?

The only indication from the corpus that I can find is that the aptitude to use magic is dependant on racial stock.

The Saucepan Man

03-22-2003, 10:29 PM

Drat. I knew someone would ask that, and I could have laid pretty good odds on it being you, Bill. smilies/wink.gif

Hmm, access to the means to learn and the intelligence to use it. That, I suppose, makes it like any other craft, but that ties in with my own idea of "learned magic" in a world such as ME. Those with the ability to teach magic of this kind would no doubt have been pretty rare, thus the scarcity of sorcerors.

The idea of whether particular racial stocks might be precluded from learning magic is an interesting one. I agree that it is difficult to imagine Hobbits or Dwarves becoming sorcerors. Perhaps they just never had the inclination to do so and, in the case of Hobbits at least, had no access to those able and willing to teach them.

Mind you, a Hobbit sorceror may have gone down well in the Shire. The ability to conjure food and beer would have commanded great respect. And imagine how popular the creator of the "Bowl of Everlasting Mushrooms" would be. smilies/biggrin.gif

Iarwain

03-23-2003, 01:51 PM

Saucepan, your argument is pure logic, and for once I refuse to take the path that logic has provided, so here's a detour.

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of annoying you, and I know that every theory has holes in it, but we've already established that Gandalf could set things alight without necessarily learning any new magic, he set the trees on fire during another warg attack in FotR, and I believe we have also established that this is part of his innate power over his surroundings. You make a specific point, Saucepan, in saying that one or more of the Nine became sorcerers after recieving their rings. Does this not further prove my point: that mortals could not gain any considerable amount of power without a boost (aka a ring), and that sorcery by a mortal would be impossible if the mortal acted on his/her own.
A person who has an IQ of, say 46 is not likely to bring that number up to more than maybe 55, unless they get a Flowers for Algernon type brain surgery (the equivalent of a ring of power) that raises their IQ a drastic 50 points or more (depending on the person.

Now, I see the point you are trying to make through this idea: that the pre-wraith sorcerers must have had to learn their skills, as they were not yet well aquainted with the world of the unseen. But, couldn't you look at this as a simple stage of adjustment when the the Nine were realizing their new skills. And now I have just proven your point.

Power can be learned in Middle-Earth, it has to be learned in order to make the existence of the Rings of Power possible. Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others. Yet even so, as Ring-bearer and as one that has borne it on finger and seen that which is hidden, your sight is grown keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger? Did you see my ring? ' she asked turning again to Sam.

It is imperitive, therefore, that we recognize the need for ringbearers to learn to use their power, for how else would the rings pose any threat at all to those around them?

Finally Enlightened,
Iarwain

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

burrahobbit

03-23-2003, 05:23 PM

I consider Magic to be the use of spells, incantations, or other occultic means for to make something happen, physical or not.

That is a tautology and an equivocation.

There is no magic in Tolkien's work because magic is the occult and the occult is not in Tolkien's work.

You're using the word in a way that Tolkien never did.

Tolkien's work says that there is magic in Tolkien's work, Tolkien's work says that there are spells in Tolkien's work. That's good enough for me.

The Saucepan Man

03-23-2003, 05:40 PM

You make a specific point, Saucepan, in saying that one or more of the Nine became sorcerers after recieving their rings. Does this not further prove my point: that mortals could not gain any considerable amount of power without a boost (aka a ring), and that sorcery by a mortal would be impossible if the mortal acted on his/her own.

Well, I see it like this. The Rings of Power gave the Nine the opportunity to become sorcerors, but they did not make them sorcerors. Possessing the Rings of Power no doubt allowed them to acquire great wealth and status. And this allowed them to come by the means to become sorcerors. Yearning for further power, they would no doubt have been attracted by the idea of being able to use magic. And, having become great rulers, they would have had the wherewithal to seek out those who were able to teach them magic.

Of course, this is only my interpretation, but it is one that I feel happy to stick with in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Salocin

03-23-2003, 05:59 PM

1) one or more of the Nine became sorcerors at some point after having been given a Ring of Power by Sauron but before becoming a Ringwraith; and

2) Gandalf learned "bewitchments" involving fire and lights which he used to bring lightning bolts down on the goblins in the Misty Mountains and set light to fir-cones to throw at the Wargs, as well as making fireworks.

I think you forgot one piece of evidence we have:

3)Beorn is described as a sorceror and had (at least) skin changing abilities. That ability, though, was most likely inherent in all Beornlings and therefore probably not part of his sorcery. The fact remains that he was a sorceror and, as far as we know, did not posses some item of great power that allowed him to learn as we suspect the Witch King might have.

And, having become great rulers, they would have had the wherewithal to seek out those who were able to teach them magic

Thats all well and good except there is no evidence of people for them to seek out aside from Sauron that is but I don't think he is what you are refering to since they would not have to seek him out.

Oh, here is another bit of evidence we have:

4)The Mouth of Sauron was a great Black Numenorean sorcerer. Aperently thousands of years old (he extended his life by some unknown magic, maybe a connection to the life extending properties that Sauron gave the rings of power?) it is unclear whether he became a sorcerer under Sauron or went into Sauron's service because he was a sorcerer.

There, I think that is all the references to sorcerers in ME.

The Saucepan Man

03-23-2003, 06:35 PM

Beorn is described as a sorceror and had (at least) skin changing abilities.

I did not include Beorn, because he is not evidence of the existence of "learned magic". I agree that his magical powers were probably inherent. I am not saying that all who are described as sorcerors necessarily acquire their magic through study.

The Mouth of Sauron was a great Black Numenorean sorcerer.

Yes, you are right Salocin. I should have included the Mouth of Sauron. But, he falls into the same category as the pre-Nazgul Nine. It is, as you say, unclear whether he became a sorcerer under Sauron or went into Sauron's service because he was a sorcerer. Accordingly, he neither proves nor disproves my theory.

Iarwain

03-23-2003, 07:12 PM

I finally understand Saucepan, I agree with you.

Burrahobbit, I'm a very impatient person, that is one of my greatest faults. You are making the relationships in all the places that I do not wish you to. Strip away the words, and look at their mere meanings and then, perhaps, you will precieve what I am saying. You are right, there is a big difference between my definition of Magic and Tolkien's.

Iarwain

Kalessin

03-23-2003, 07:52 PM

Just a couple of small points ...

A person who has an IQ of, say 46 is not likely to bring that number up to more than maybe 55, unless they get a Flowers for Algernon type brain surgery (the equivalent of a ring of power) that raises their IQ a drastic 50 points or more (depending on the person.

Now, Flowers for Algernon is a wonderful book, full of pathos and some searing insights into the relationship between 'cerebral' intelligence, emotions and empathy, among other things. However, I would argue strongly that someone's IQ can be raised dramatically without occult or surgical means. After all, what an IQ test measures is your competence at taking IQ tests. As an example, tests such as "SMILE is to LAUGH as WILT is to COLLAPSE - true or false?" are to do with vocabulary, which is something that can be learned. Thus a 12 year old that reads a lot may well have a higher IQ than a 30 year old that has never bothered. I am generally unhappy with IQ tests being seen as a measure of intelligence, and only too aware of the profoundly flawed racial and cultural elitism that has attached itself to this method. None of which, of course, is actually central to the novel.

About magic and power, Tolkien wrote -

... With the aid of Sauron's lore they (Elves) made Rings of Power ('power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except when applied to the gods).

... but also they (rings) enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination ...

This quote from his letter to Milton Waldman seems to imply that Tolkien applies a traditional, pejorative Christian view to 'magic' as a form of the occult. He also says -

... and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of the developments of the inherent inner powers or talents, or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating ... The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised.

I have not used 'magic' consistently ... but the Elves are there to demonstrate the difference ... their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete ... And it's object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination ...

This, therefore is the heart of Tolkien's definition.

Now, I actually tend to disagree on a philosophical level with his idealised conception of Art as epitomised by the Elves. In my view, being more effortless, quick and complete is not necessarily being delivered of limitations. It is those limitations that in fact define self-expression as art. But this is a debate that takes us into the nature of divinity and other such interminable topics.

The key point is that magic is in effect characterised not by what it is, but what it serves. Technology that fuels an unjust repression is as much 'magic' in Tolkien's world as the Ring of Power.

This is what makes Lord of the Rings compelling as a narrative, and gives it great spiritual conviction. That heroism - or moral depth - is measured not in terms of power, or in what one can achieve through artefact. It is not measured in terms of victory, or the end justifying the means. The fact is that the moral protagonists in LotR fight only with what they already have - and all artificial enhancements or 'magic' inevitably corrupt and are, finally, self-defeating.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

burrahobbit

03-23-2003, 08:45 PM

Quite, Kalessin. You've said some things that I meant to (re: Algernon), and better than I would have if I'd tried.

I'd only like to add that...

You are right, there is a big difference between my definition of Magic and Tolkien's.

When talking about Tolkien's stuff, Tolkien's definitions win.

Meoshi

03-23-2003, 09:28 PM

All artificial enhancements corrupt? What about Galadriel using Nenya?

Iarwain

03-23-2003, 09:38 PM

But when we are talking in my terms, Burrahobbit, my definitions win. I choose the words with which to present my arguement, not an old philologist who died nigh on thirty years ago. Perhaps Tolkien did have a greater understanding of the words, their histories and their meanings, but that has absolutely NO relavence when I am merely trying to make a point without being picked on by someone who cannot get past the book definitions of some meaningless vocal representations and into the ideas that they represent. Just try, Burrahobbit, try to understand the thoughts that I am trying to present in our clumsy English language with all of its precarious inarticulacies.

burrahobbit

03-23-2003, 10:44 PM

The Books is for advanced discussions of crap Iarwain made up.

burrahobbit

03-24-2003, 01:24 AM

You seem to have completely missed the point, Iarwain. You have your opinions about things, and that is all well and good, but we are not here to discuss your opinions, but instead Tolkien's opinions. There are certain facts of the matter (as far as a fiction can be said to contain facts), and all of those facts come from one source, which is not Iarwain (and also is not burrahobbit or practically anything else). The only sourse that matters when you're talking about Tolkien's stuff is Tolkien. And, in case any of us were still confused, Iarwain is not Tolkien. (Neither is burrahobbit or Kalessin or anyone else.)The only definitions that we need to consider in this context are the ones that Tolkien put forth.

And in this context Tolkien said that that there is magic all over the place, even occult style magic.

Kalessin

03-24-2003, 05:06 AM

Calm down smilies/wink.gif

I choose the words with which to present my arguement, not an old philologist who died nigh on thirty years ago. Perhaps Tolkien did have a greater understanding of the words, their histories and their meanings, but that has absolutely NO relavence when I am merely trying to make a point without being picked on by someone who cannot get past the book definitions of some meaningless vocal representations and into the ideas that they represent

I think this dismissal of Tolkien is hardly necessary. Since we are discussing his work, and presumably we enjoy, appreciate and value his writing, then we should acknowledge that his intent and considered meaning is relevant to our interpretation of the work.

If he specifically says, for example, that Lord of the Rings is not Biblical allegory (as he does), then it's not really satisfactory to say "Well I think it is and since he's a dead old philologist it doesn't matter what he thought". Equally, Tolkien's definition of magic and power are central to this thread, since his understanding of these terms and how they apply in his work will have directly influenced the narrative, and it is this narrative that we are discussing.

I am not sure which "meaningless vocal definitions" you are referring to, but my quotes were from Tolkien's letter to a publisher and I think provide a useful insight into the the nature and role of magic and power in his work - and the "ideas that they represent". If you want a separate discussion on either occultism or the technicalities of magic as an empirical phenomenon (or not) per se, that's fine, I am sure there is an interesting range of views to explore - however, if the question is how these issues appear and apply in Tolkien's works, that what Tolkien wrote and why is pretty relevant smilies/smile.gif.

One interesting aspect is that, as pointed out, Tolkien is working from a general premise that magic is a means of enhancement through artefact or articificial means, or that such means are used to gain domination. Yet there are occasional cases where such artefacts or means appear to be used for good ends. However, I think these are by a vast margin in the minority.

In LotR, the clearest example of Tolkien's view is exemplified by Pippin's experience with the Palantir. Pippin is solidly good and virtuous being from that most virtuous race of hobbits, and yet - he finds himself inexplicably tempted by the Palantir, to the extent that he steals it from Gandalf. He is then traumatised by using it, and has to be in effect 'forgiven' by Gandalf. In fact, Gandalf concludes (in hope, perhaps) that the enemy will gain no advantage from the incident.

Two of Tolkien's clear themes - that evil is self-defeating, and that agents of domination can corrupt even the most worthy soul - are at work here, as is the interpretation of magic and power that exist throughout the work.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

Iarwain

03-24-2003, 04:20 PM

I appologize, everyone. Let me try, once again, to explain what I am trying to say. Tolkien said that there was magic in middle earth. He said this in the books and he said it frequently. It is ture then, it has to be true, that there is magic in Middle-Earth, magic, that is, by Tolkien's definition. The word is, however, very loose in definition, and therefore other ideas about the nature of "magic" are possible. When I was responding to you about my use of the word, Burrahobbit, I was not trying to say that Tolkien was wrong, I was just trying to say that my definition may differ from Tolkien's (it differs greatly), and that I am by no means talking as if I am Tolkien or that I am even using his definitions. I'm stuck in a predicament, you see, where everyone around me is taking my use of a single word to mean something that I do not consider it to mean. I'm sure now that none of you will ever be able to understand anything further that I say in this thread, because of the confusion over word usage and definition. It's really too bad...

Salocin

03-24-2003, 04:33 PM

I did not include Beorn, because he is not evidence of the existence of "learned magic". I agree that his magical powers were probably inherent.

All I am saying is that I think being a sorceror constitutes more than just skin changing, although that is the only power we are explicitly told of, and that that is the only power I believe he has inherently. Any other sorceries he knows would have to be learned ones.

But when we are talking in my terms, Burrahobbit, my definitions win. I choose the words with which to present my arguement, not an old philologist who died nigh on thirty years ago.

I think this dismissal of Tolkien is hardly necessary. Since we are discussing his work, and presumably we enjoy, appreciate and value his writing, then we should acknowledge that his intent and considered meaning is relevant to our interpretation of the work....
...Tolkien's definition of magic and power are central to this thread, since his understanding of these terms and how they apply in his work will have directly influenced the narrative, and it is this narrative that we are discussing.

The only definitions that we need to consider in this context are the ones that Tolkien put forth.

I believe there is a slight misunderstanding here (maybe I am the one misunderstanding). It seems to me Iarwain is saying that he will define the terminoligy in his discution, not that he will define Tolkien's terminology. I think we all know Tolkien did not use "power" and "magic" as we are here, but Iarwain clearly stated at the begining of the topic that these were merely temporary definitions to be used in this topic for lack of better ones. We have now been shown that Tolkien, at least in some cases, would refer to the type of magic I tried to define as craftsmanship (and a little of the inherent magic in elves), as art.

And in this context Tolkien said that that there is magic all over the place, even occult style magic.

I do not see were where he said there was occult style magic, please clerify Burrahobbit.

Iarwain

03-24-2003, 04:46 PM

And Salocin saves the day!!!! smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

Thank you, oh so much! I'm glad that someone finally understands. smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

03-24-2003, 06:59 PM

It seems to me Iarwain is saying that he will define the terminoligy (sic) in his discution (sic), not that he will define Tolkien's terminology. I think we all know Tolkien did not use "power" and "magic" as we are here, but Iarwain clearly stated at the begining of the topic that these were merely temporary definitions to be used in this topic for lack of better ones. We have now been shown that Tolkien, at least in some cases, would refer to the type of magic I tried to define as craftsmanship (and a little of the inherent magic in elves), as art.

Um, well, okay. So this thread is actually just about what you guys think about magic and power, and nothing to do with Tolkien, right? Hmm ... just don't let the moderators see you smilies/smile.gif. Anyway, count me in.

The whole concept of 'magic' generally is very interesting. An ancient phenomenon, in these times it attracts and repels those of a particular pagan or Christian sensibility respectively.

In Harry Potter it is a whimsical, postmodern device for exploring the wish-fulfilment of children constricted by insecurity and the mundane. In Le Guin's Earthsea series it is the harnessing of unseen energies in the context of a spiritual and supra-physical balance (a kind of Taoist reading). In the Jewish Kabbala mysticism abounds and manifests in the fiery gyroscopes and innumerable eyes of Metatron. In the Perrault fairy tales it is the deus ex machina by which wicked and benevolent witches alike sway the adventure. For the Aztecs, it was the product of hallucinogenic flora that liberated priest-castes from the senses and the body.

It is also adjectival - for example, this thread is 'magical'. It is intuitive, archetypal and yet subjective, and cannot really be constrained by a tight technical definition. However precise your definition is, whatever happens outside that definition is itself magic. It slips beyond understanding like a serpent, or through our fingers like sand.

The only definition of magic that works is itself. Magic is magic. To be firmly rooted, to be something we can explain or frame, makes it something else.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Iarwain

03-24-2003, 07:35 PM

Most interesting, Kalessin. Not what I intended, but fascinating all the same. smilies/smile.gif

Hm. Where to go from here. I suppose the original discussion could continue, but I'm beginning to think that it is finished. We could on the other hand begin a very interesting discussion of the nature of magic in the literary world, but that would be short lived due to the surveilance on this forum. smilies/smile.gif

Wandering Aimlessly,
Iarwain

burrahobbit

03-24-2003, 07:42 PM

When I was responding to you about my use of the word, Burrahobbit, I was not trying to say that Tolkien was wrong, I was just trying to say that my definition may differ from Tolkien's (it differs greatly), and that I am by no means talking as if I am Tolkien or that I am even using his definitions.

Sorry if I wasn't speaking clearly enough, I have a bad habit of that. What I meant was that your opinion doesn't matter when we have facts to deal with (that is, what Tolkien said).

Iarwain

03-24-2003, 07:47 PM

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood! Very true, though opinions can be beneficial when one is looking at various facts. I agree, they can do equal damage and they can prevent progress. (Maybe I should keep mine quiet for a while smilies/wink.gif )

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Dain

03-25-2003, 05:52 AM

(Oops! As usual, I get impatient and miss a few pages. So...as of the end of the first page):

I think you've eventually happened upon the point I wanted to make in response to Burrahobbit's earlier comments about spells: even though Gandalf speaks some words pertaining to a spell he knows, if Sam said the same words would he be able to hold off the Balrog? Obviously not.

So rather than magic/spell-lore being something study-able by everyone, I see it more like learning different ways of focusing your powers (oops, that's a loaded term here). For example, if Gandalf once knew every door-opening spell, perhaps what he studied wasn't just the words, but different ways of using his innate ability to "make things open," each determined by who made the magical door in the first place and how they shaped their magic. Sort of like knowing how to pick various types of lock, in a way...

(After having read the 2nd and 3rd pages):

I'm confused about what people see as "learned" sorcery or magic. Are we just thinking incatations, potions and spells? Or is it rather learning how to use your "power" to do specific things, so that the sorceror would be harnessing an already existant power that was in themselves, rather than just in the words of the spell. That seems relavant to me, anyway...

As you might be able to tell, I've been thinking about magic lately. Actually, it's in relation to the new LotR RPG (seeing that some people have mentioned D&D here). They still don't want to completely limit players from using magic, of course, and while they do a fairly good job of keeping the magic very "Tolkien", they do allow men to become wizards, which is a bit wrong. Men (and Hobbits) seem to be the one race precluded from magic, except for the sorcerers (Nazgul, Nouth of Sauron) and perhaps other Numenorians.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

The Saucepan Man

03-25-2003, 07:49 AM

I'm confused about what people see as "learned" sorcery or magic. Are we just thinking incatations, potions and spells? Or is it rather learning how to use your "power" to do specific things, so that the sorceror would be harnessing an already existant power that was in themselves, rather than just in the words of the spell.

Yes, good question. In the case of Gandalf, the fire and light bewitchments that he learned quite possibly simply involved him harnessing his already inherent power. This goes back to the idea that I touched on earlier of him perhaps re-learning Maiar powers that he was unable to bring with him to ME in his Istari form.

In the case of the Nine, it could be that the Rings of Power given to them bestowed upon them some innate power that they were able to tap into in order to become sorcerors. But what of the Mouth of Sauron? As noted earlier, it is unclear whether he became a sorceror before or after he fell in with Sauron. It is quite possible that he learned his magic independently.

In any event, my own view is that magic can be learned whether or not the student has any inherent "magical" ability. And by "learned" magic, yes, I mean acquisition of the knowledge to cast spells using command words, ingredients, physical gestures or a combination of all three. OK, that means that (subject to the possible racial limitations discussed earlier) anyone with sufficient intelligence could learn to use magic. But the scarcity of "learing opportunities" nevertheless meant that sorcerors were rare indeed in ME.

(Yes, I know that this is a very AD+D view of magic, but that's where my ideas on magic mainly come from - and it makes sense to me. smilies/tongue.gif )

Iarwain

03-25-2003, 11:51 AM

Question:

We've established that magic can be learned, but how is it at all possible to be learned by a mortal without higher aid?

This doesn't seem quite right. If the rest of Middle Earth lives and works according to certain standards dealing with magic, why and how should black numenorians be able to escape their limits? Someone said previously that Hobbits were not capable because of their "inherent goodness". This is a little corny, is it not? Can a race really be generally good or bad? there are always exceptions, always. I think we've encountered a bit of Middle-Earth stereotyping here, have we not? smilies/wink.gif

Iarwain

The Saucepan Man

03-25-2003, 12:10 PM

Whoever said that learned magic (without inherent power) was restricted to Black Numenoreans? And whoever said it was restricted to evil beings? Au contraire, the description of the corruption of the Nine in the Silm suggests that they could have become sorcerors while still having "good" wills.

As for any racial limitations on the ability to learn magic, I will stick with what I said earlier:

I agree that it is difficult to imagine Hobbits or Dwarves becoming sorcerors. Perhaps they just never had the inclination to do so and, in the case of Hobbits at least, had no access to those able and willing to teach them.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

Iarwain

03-25-2003, 06:41 PM

So right now we have a list of possible mortal sorcerers:

1. the Morgul king (and other nazgul)
2. the Mouth of Sauron
3. Beorn and other Beornings

If there are any others, please add on to this list. smilies/smile.gif

Number 1 can be explained by the fact that their rings allowed them to gain knowledge and power sufficient to become sorcerers. However, 2 and 3 are slightly shady, we do not know how they obtained their knowledge or power.

Iarwain

Dain

03-25-2003, 07:45 PM

Well, "sorcery" seems to indicate dark magic in Tolkien, so I'm not sure we'd call Beorn a sorceror. If his only power is skin-changeing (no, no, not a furrier, Bilbo!) then he's just something strange--does Tolkien talk about Beornings much outside The Hobbit?

As for the Mouth, he was a Numenorean, right? So he may have learned from Sauron from the beginning, or from the people Sauron influenced/tought while he was there causing their downfall. I think sorcery is a dark art that you can study and learn, if you have access to teachers or texts, which the Mouth probably had. I also think it is perhaps easier for men to learn this evil sorcery-magic than other types of magic.

I think that there is a difference between sorcery and real, good magic like the elves posses, and the dwarves to some extent, and is manifested mostly in their crafts. I still think its more a matter of using and controlling your innate powers and connexions to the magic of Arda as a whole, at least for this type of art/craft magic. It's possible to study, but it's not as simple as learning a recipe or a spell-phrase. And I'm not sure you can be a sorceror without becoming evil. "Good" magic is subtle--as the elven rings certainly are.

For example, I think Aragorn has magic, but he never studies or says any spells, it's just in him, and he uses it without thinking (perhaps that's what you, Iarwain, meant by "power" in the first place"?). Gandalf has a lot of spells and flashy magic, but when he really shows his power is not when he's blasting orcs with pinecones, but when he's staring down the Witch-King or the Balrog, and he just has this aura of might, rather than any particular spells. I think that's where the real magic in Tolkien is.

It is very confusing, and it's late. Good luck with the discussion, I won't be back for a while... smilies/frown.gif

Salocin

03-26-2003, 04:33 PM

Um, well, okay. So this thread is actually just about what you guys think about magic and power, and nothing to do with Tolkien, right?

Wrong! We are trying to figuer out how magic works in ME. To do so we had to make our own deffinitions of aspects of ME magic we think we see. For example Iarwain clearly stated in the first post that for this topic we would use "power" to represent the magic inherently posessed by elves, valar, maia, etc. and "magic" would reffer to what we have since been calling "occult magic".

Anyways, what's the deal with scattering (sic) through out your quote from me? You could at least put a note at the end saying you added those.

Back to page 3:

Reading the new opinions Dain has brought to this topic, I just had a new idea (by the way, this is ignoring any inate abilities like skin changing). Maybe every person has a certain amount of "power" which, in under most circumstances, is defined by race and lineage. For example:elves would have a lot, hobbits would have next to none, Numenorians would have more than a normal human, Aragorn would have quite a significant amout (being desended from elves and, far down the line, a miai). In order to "harness" that power the would use spells, items or other like things. Let me refraise that: The power would allow them to use certain spells and items. Some items would increase the power by some function (Witch King).

Iarwain

03-26-2003, 10:16 PM

Perfect summation of the purpose of this thread, Salocin. However I'm not sure I agree with the second part of your post. I agree with your general theory, but I don't believe that Aragorn would have any unnatural power over his surroundings or to make or use magical items. We must remember that, although he is part maia, that blood has been diluted for dozens of generations. And, even though Elros was halfelven, he was in reality only an extremely distant ancestor. I don't think that Aragorn's heritage would, then, have much to do with his "power", though perhaps we can use it to account for his ability of foresight.

Iarwain

P.S. Dain, thus the "possible" at the top of my list. smilies/smile.gif I didn't imagine Beorn as a "sorcerer", if forced to account for his skinshifting abilities I would probably say that he was a maia.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Salocin

03-27-2003, 02:39 PM

Aragorn was able to use the palantir beter than almost anyone. He was deffenitly beter with it than Saruman, Denthor, Pippin smilies/biggrin.gif , Gandalf, and, debatably, Sauron. This was obviously because of his undiluted Royal Numenorian blood.

For some strange reason I don't accually own a copy of the Hobbit, but didn't Gandalf tell Bilbo that Beorn was a sorceror, magician, or something like that?

[ March 27, 2003: Message edited by: Salocin ]

Maerbenn

03-27-2003, 03:50 PM

Tolkien says so in Letter #144: Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man.

Salocin

03-29-2003, 09:31 AM

Exactly. When ever I have been citing Beorn as an example of a sorceror or of learned magic I have been refering to the powers he had besides skin changing. I agree that skin changing is an inherent (and probably inheretable) ability, but I still think he had other powers that we are not told about. I think he learned these as a magician. Does any one else find it strange that Beorn arives in the nick of time at the Battle of Five Armies? How did he even know the battle was going on? I see one of two possibilities:
1) The eagles told him on their way (I is still unclear who told the eagles. Many contend it was Radagast, but I don't see why he would know. Another possibility is that an eagle scout (no pun intended) saw it and quickly returned to let Gwaithier know.)

2)He has some sort of magical powers that let him know, either by enchantments, or instinct, or "hearing" it in nature.

I would personaly like to believe the second one. As far as I can see it would make more sense from a time perspective. If the eagles told him they would have done so while they were leaving to go help. He would probably have started imediatly, but even so it would have taken him at least (taking into acout Beserk strength and endurance and the distance he could cover as a humongous bear) 2 days. He arive less than 12 hours after the eagles though, which means he deffenetly heard about it before the eagles did.

All in all, this is my justification for why Beorn should be considered a mortal (and human no less) with magical powers. It is interesting to note that with him their is no possibility of having been bestowed power by Sauron, as is possible with the Wotch King and the Mouth of Sauron. It is also improbable that he could have gained the ability to learn magic from a powerful item as the Witch King may have done.

Iarwain

04-02-2003, 06:15 PM

Since I'm sensing that this thread is about to fall into slumber, I think I'll make a summation of what it has shown me, what issues have been resolved and what remains undecieded.

We have decided, I believe, that the majority of "magic" in Middle-Earth can be traced back to someone's extension or use of their own innate power. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, as we see in the Lord of the Nazgul, Beorn, and other mortal magicians. We have also determined that magic in Middle-Earth can be learned to a certain degree and by certain people, we see this most clearly in the use of the rings of power. A few issues that remain unresolved, include the absolute nature of the innate power displayed by the various Ainur, and what part the Great Music played in the existence of power in Middle-Earth. From this discussion I personally have learned that power in Middle-Earth may follow a faint system of rules, but this framework has many inconsistencies and exceptions. Power is, as always, a relative term, and it remains up to the individual to interpret both its extent and nature.

Iarwain