[Salocin]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]. 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.