Calm down [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Quote:
|
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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin