Interesting thread.
There seems to be a working definition of the word ‘magic’ here, meaning something that is not understood. I feel a need to distinguish between something that can be explained by ordinary skills and physics and something where the mind through an act of will suspends the normal rules of physics. ‘Spell craft’ might not be the ideal choice of wording, but for sake of clarity I’ll use it rather than argue about the definition of ‘magic.’
Now, a good deal of what goes on in Tolkien’s fiction might well be explained by physics and skill without the need to say some sort of spell craft or spell craftsmanship is present. Lembas might be nutritious, tasteful and long lasting due to ingredients and recipe. The elven boats given the Fellowship might just be well ballasted with well designed hull curves and solid construction. The cloaks might just be carefully woven and dyed just the right color. When Gandalf lit the fire in the mountain pass above Moria, he might have had a little lighting fluid and a piece of flint at the bottom of his staff. When Gandalf rescued Faramir on the Pelennor Fields, he might have been using a laser pistol that he carries for special occasions. A lot of stuff might be attributed to physics and technology rather than spell craft.
My personal choice in reading Tolkien is to embrace the spell craft. I think we can agree that the laser pistol conjecture is absurd? I like that the spell craft and craftsmanship of Middle Earth is generally subtle, that it might not be noticed if you aren’t looking, that even if you are looking it might not be certain that it is there. Still, when reading the books, when Gandalf says ‘You shall not pass!’ or Aragorn speaks a prophecy, the hair on the back of one’s neck ought to tickle a bit. I for one wouldn’t find it as much fun to read the books assuming no sort of spell craft is present.
At the same time, I think Saruman knew how to make and use gunpowder. Especially as he was not present at Helm’s Deep, I’d think that the explosions were physics rather than spell craft. Still, I’m not sure. It is quite possible that we might never be sure. I can applaud Tolkien’s ability to be ambiguous, to make one wonder, or to allow each reader to jump to the conclusion he is most comfortable with. This might be said to be a good thing. At the same time, it makes it unlikely that this thread and similar threads are likely to come to a firm rigid conclusion with all questions answered.
I might also distinguish between a need to have firm rules and well understood definitions of spell craft in a role playing game while it is quite possible to leave things ambiguous in a novel. I’m currently involved in a role playing game with reasonably well defined rules regarding spells. The author of said rules and the game master running our game had to provide answers to a lot of the questions raised in this thread. Still, I doubt very much that they could defend all of their answers in an adversarial debate. It seems appropriate, if one is to use spell craft in a role playing game, that players understand what they can and cannot do with their spells. Rigid and fixed rules seem advisable, though the dice often add a degree of uncertainty.
For an author of fiction, especially when one is portraying subtle Tolkienesque spell craft, rigid fixed predictable rules might make things too mechanical, lessen the sense of wonder, or distract the reader into the mechanics of the spell rather than the characters or the story. An author can be more ambiguous than a game master. He doesn’t have to prove he has dotted each I and crossed each T. Still, an author has to be consistent enough not to turn off the reader. One must maintain suspension of disbelief.
I might come back and say I agree with this person’s spin, and can quibble with that person’s. Lots of interesting observations and conjectures in this thread.
|