Enchantment or advancement.

[Nogrod]

Nice to see a lively discussion!

Originally Posted by Alfirin

On the subeject of old famous items=magic items. I'ce always felt it was something along the lines of every person who uses something, like a sword or book leaves a little of themselves in it. When you make use of the item you somehow tap into all of those selves and they become part of you too

I think the modern theory of atoms states that everytime you're in contact with something you "exchange" atoms with that something whether it's the table you lean your hand on or the shirt you wear - or the dear person you touch (you see, it can also be romantic even if it's scientific! ). When you're reluctant to throw that dear sweater of yours into the lumps, couldn't it be that one reason for it is that you know the cloth is partly you yourself as you have worn it for so long and so much of you - purely materialistically on the level of atoms - is there, in it?

That basic idea has sent my thoughts on those old rugged sea-farers; fishermen and the like. I think you all have a mental image of how those old men look like all over the world. Just look at their skin. Weather-worn or -beaten we say. But how about you just think that they have partly become the sea themselves; the salted water, the wind, the rain... They look like that! I think that is quite poetic indeed, awesome and mysterious!

No, I'm not attempting here a scientific interpretation of how the Ring wears it's user down on atomic level and why one should thence not use it. I agree with many here that in the core of fantasy there is a kind of implicit agreement that not all things should be "explained away". As I said, I'm not looking forwards or even wishing to have a scientific theory over the Palantiri or things like that. But I do think we lovers of fantasy, fiction, arts and humanities disrepute the natural sciences too easily and think we have the creativity and imagination - and the most fulfilling and spectacular visions of the world. And that clearly is not the case.

Originally Posted by Lal

Isn't it interesting how physicists seem to coin some of the most poetic language to describe their findings? You could say "Ah, they're all nerds who gre up reading fantasy and sci-fi! No wonder!" but to me it suggests that these discoveries and theories are as close as we humans can come to magic in the real world.

I couldn't agree more!

Legate called for irrationality. Hmm... I'm not sure if I would like to live in an irrational world (on the level of how things work - just think of living in a perpetual "improbability drive" by Douglas Adams where your arm could change into a bowl of petunias any minute or a giant spermwhale might materialise out from nowhere) - or if I would like to read of one.* Even fantasy-worlds have their "rules" and consistant regularities. They would be totally unintelligible without that. We don't need to spell out those rules out in fantasy though and that's quite okay with me. But fantasy is not irrational.

Humans are able of irrational behaviour. Now that is a mystery and an awesome fact - and brings us back to the question of human mind of which we know only a tiny little bit so far. That unexplicability of our own minds makes the question fascinating - but not because it's unexplicable or irrational as such in principle, but because there is hope that some people thousand years from now may understand a little more than we do - and may have totally different view of how this world works far more radical anyone of us could dream of today. And that I'd call exciting!

A case in point is what Hookbill talks about the kabbalistic tradition - and the same would go about the pythagoreans with numbers (from whom the jewish mystics learned a lot). It is something our modern-day understanding thinks of as mystical or something; but it is a system of regularities, rules and laws! They only base themselves on different basic presumptions than the modern science does. So kabbalistic tradition is not irrational - on the contrary: kabbala could be criticised of being too rationalistic and mathematic!

The world being rational (like Hegel said) is still no hindrance to it being wonderful or awesome.

The power of a magnet was deemed magical before it was understood it was a natural phenomenon. But to me it doesn't at all diminish the awe that I can see an object drawing another one to itself from a distance away. I'm still fascinated by magnetism even if I "know" it's just a natural thing.

Oh my... I seem to have gotten far off from where I started and the inner logic of this post is collapsing any minute now so it's better I quit before it's too late...


* Okay, I love absurd theater and surrealism, but I'm not sure those are as irrational as we oftentimes think.

[Bêthberry]

I'm wondering how many posts it will take to get from this discussion of science and kabbala to mention of Deepak Chopra's body-mind medicine, quantum healing and consciousness as a means of considering this enchantment/advancement contrast.

*a cookie to those who know that reference

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm wondering how many posts it will take to get from this discussion of science and kabbala to mention of Deepak Chopra's body-mind medicine, quantum healing and consciousness as a means of considering this enchantment/advancement contrast.

It has already done that...
*thanks for the cookie*

So back towards the original question then...

Originally Posted by Hookbill

Without the memory of Sauron's fall and the fact that Isildur bore it, would Narsil be just another elvish blade?

It probably would. Though it being an old elvish blade would make a difference in contrast to a newer one - or one made by plain men.

But this is an interesting question indeed. When you buy "electronica" you're always told the product you consider is on the cutting edge of technology, the newest of the new, but when you go and buy wine or whisky they tell you the producer has been around from the middle-ages and nothing in the production-process has been changed since (which is not true but that's another matter).

So why are some things better old than new and vice versa?

Let's make further comparisons.

How does it feel to be in a house which has been there for a thousand years compared to a house that has been built just last year? There is a marked difference there. But what is it?

How does it feel to look at a spoon at the museum someone used five thousand years ago compared to one you bought from Ikea last fall?

How does it feel to write with a typewriter from the eighties (with the correction-memory of twenty characters) compared to using your Microsoft Word with your PC?

How would it feel to lose your mobile phone and go back depending on a lined telephone stationed in your home?


So is it just pure utilitarianism? When you want to get something accomplished you pick the state of the art thing but when you just need to get kicks out from something you turn to the old ones?

And here the idea of enchanted things comes to the fore. An enchanted thing is better than it's modern-day equivalent because unlike other old things, it's vested with powers or history advanced technology can't beat. So it looks like an argument saying old things can do the things you want to do with them better than the modern ones?

Or should we bring forwards this general idea of a "fall from grace" here? So in the earlier times everything was better and now all is crap? People used to live in paradise but now they are estranged from that holy or primordial union with God / nature / natural relation with the world... what have you?

That's a tough one.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

When you buy "electronica" you're always told the product you consider is on the cutting edge of technology, the newest of the new, but when you go and buy wine or whisky they tell you the producer has been around from the middle-ages and nothing in the production-process has been changed since (which is not true but that's another matter). . . .

So is it just pure utilitarianism? When you want to get something accomplished you pick the state of the art thing but when you just need to get kicks out from something you turn to the old ones?

Oh what a conundrum! I'm sure there are some who combine both pure utilitarianism--wanting "to get something accomplished"--with "getting their kicks" by plying sweet young things with whiskey and wine. Here possibly the enchantment vs the enhancement would depend upon wither one was on the receiving or the wielding end of the sword.

*flicks cookie crumbs off your shoulder*

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Let's make further comparisons.

How does it feel to be in a house which has been there for a thousand years compared to a house that has been built just last year? There is a marked difference there. But what is it?

How does it feel to look at a spoon at the museum someone used five thousand years ago compared to one you bought from Ikea last fall?

How does it feel to write with a typewriter from the eighties (with the correction-memory of twenty characters) compared to using your Microsoft Word with your PC?

How would it feel to lose your mobile phone and go back depending on a lined telephone stationed in your home?


So is it just pure utilitarianism? When you want to get something accomplished you pick the state of the art thing but when you just need to get kicks out from something you turn to the old ones?

And here the idea of enchanted things comes to the fore. An enchanted thing is better than it's modern-day equivalent because unlike other old things, it's vested with powers or history advanced technology can't beat. So it looks like an argument saying old things can do the things you want to do with them better than the modern ones?

Or should we bring forwards this general idea of a "fall from grace" here? So in the earlier times everything was better and now all is crap? People used to live in paradise but now they are estranged from that holy or primordial union with God / nature / natural relation with the world... what have you?

That's a tough one.

I think the inference Tolkien makes is that there was indeed a 'fall from grace', and things turned to crap afterwards. Even Aragorn is a temprorary restoration of the faded greatness of the Edain. Whether he would admit it or not, Tolkien gravitated to the stoic Elvish sense of conservatism, even while admitting that the Elves were hopelessly stuck in the past to their detriment.

As far as newer technology as opposed to old world craftsmanship, I think we all know Tolkien sided with the latter. Saruman's use of gunpowder is referred to as 'devilry', and Dwarves like Thorin bemoan the loss of skills held by their forefathers. There is a certain glamor to the notion that what was made in previous centuries surpasses modern jerry-rigged contraptions, although the chances of entire cities burning down like London in 1666 have been mitigated by advances in engineering. It's all a matter of opinion, I suppose.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As far as newer technology as opposed to old world craftsmanship, I think we all know Tolkien sided with the latter. Saruman's use of gunpowder is referred to as 'devilry', and Dwarves like Thorin bemoan the loss of skills held by their forefathers. There is a certain glamor to the notion that what was made in previous centuries surpasses modern jerry-rigged contraptions, although the chances of entire cities burning down like London in 1666 have been mitigated by advances in engineering. It's all a matter of opinion, I suppose.

I do agree with this. It looks like Tolkien was the conservative here - and not without justification when looked from one angle.

It's just self-evident to anyone of us that you can find coats and shoes of your grand-parents that are 50+ years old and are perfectly fine - but the coat you bought from the mall last year is already breaking down - there are an infinity of examples here.

We should also make a difference between modern technology (and science) and the capitalistic market economy which aims for maximum sales compromising quality for selling more. We who buy crap happily are the fools here.

But what you talk about devilry is one of the basic things people do. Everything people are used to before their twenties to thirties they tend to look as natural and everything developed after that they look as "devilry" or as something "un-natural" and to be avoided.

At the same time it's true we have lost some skills we had in earlier times. It was both fun and terrifying when there were news in Finnish media in the end of the nineties that we had to go for the US and Canada to look for expertise on building many-family wooden houses (like wooden block of flats). We Finns! The people of the primordial forest who have lived all alone looking after just our own things and everyone having all the possible skills there would be - and who have built everything from wood from the times immemorial! And now we people of the forest didn't know anymore how to build big houses from wood! That was a shame...

So skills do vanish. How many of you remeber the telephone numbers of your friends and relatives by heart? I used to remember a couple of dozen phone-numbers back in the eighties but now I mainly just (still) remeber some of those I remembered back then... The cellphone remembers the newer ones for me. But I do not.

The so called "Gregorian chant" was invented around 600 AD in view of even the most uneducated guys in the backrow being able to sing along after one strophe. Nowadays only a trained musician can do that as the melodical phrases are just too long for our modern capabilities.

But as you imply, we're pretty happy about some advances and new skills we have learned. Blood transfusion or cancer treatment could be cases in point where we wouldn't like to be treated in a way people were a thousand years ago. Any wannabe mother should also think how she would like to give birth; in a modern hospital or in a medieval envirovment?

So a matter of opinion to be sure, but I'm not sure how relative that opinion is...

The prof was for the conservative ideas and that was his world. And we should see the grandeur in that world-view. People long ago were really good at some things we can't think we could excell today - but we do and see many things better our ancestors did as well.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

All right, just a side comment for clarification to not further disrupt the ongoing discussion.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Legate called for irrationality. Hmm... I'm not sure if I would like to live in an irrational world (on the level of how things work - just think of living in a perpetual "improbability drive" by Douglas Adams where your arm could change into a bowl of petunias any minute or a giant spermwhale might materialise out from nowhere) - or if I would like to read of one.* Even fantasy-worlds have their "rules" and consistant regularities. They would be totally unintelligible without that. We don't need to spell out those rules out in fantasy though and that's quite okay with me. But fantasy is not irrational.

It is probably just about the use of words. What I meant by "irrationality" was rather "what would seem irrational to our current understanding of our world". So, simply, going along with the laws of the other world.

However, to note, one could say that often it's even subtler than things like that people can use magic to fly or that fire has personality. Basically, any literature is fantasy because it trespasses the laws of this world. In one way or another.

But sometimes - okay, perhaps the word is "mystery" - one does not want to know even all the laws of the fantasy world. In the sense that you want to take it "as it is". To show an example, even the mentioned kabbalah is a way of explanation of the world. But it's just another way, in our case, it's absolutely the same as when I explain the laws of the world based on modern physics. That's what I was talking about as well: sometimes, one doesn't want to search for the laws of the world, but just "live it". Sometimes. I am a seasoned world-builder and have created many fantastic worlds and one who does that usually likes to and describes the laws of that world, often. However, a reader more often than the writer can just accept the world as it is and does not need any explanations, mythical or otherwise, why the sun is green and how magic works. It has, of course, different levels of understanding, but whatever - that all would be for a longer debate and I am not going to start about it here. But I just hope it's clear what I had in mind. To return to the example cited above, we did not want to know how the Force works (midichlorians), it just is.

[Eönwë]

Just thought I'd make an interjection here.

I think that Tolkien, rather than having a hate for modern things, had a hate for mass-produced things. In the old days, people would spend years learning how to make each individual thing, learning a craft, whereas now it is all made by machines. The only physical job we need people for today is to do building and similar tasks. And soon that will probably be overtaken by robotics as well, and we as people will only have to either check that the machines that are checking whether machines are working are working () or just do the purely creative things that machines can't do. And that is the one thing machines can't do- be creative and make new things. They can only work on what they have been given.

Anyway, let's say, in the times before machines, a swordsmith would spend many years learning his craft from another smith, being apprenticed to someone more experienced. They would get better at it, and then, they would create their masterpieces. The craftsman, the smith, would work on his sword, slowly and expertly first carving out a mould, then sharpening the blade and perfecting it. And those that were truly great would be reknowned throughout the land. The swords would contain some emothional, sentimental value because someone's hard work into it and they spent their time and effort making just that sword, perfecting it just for you.

Now compare that to the mass-produced products of today. Would you rather buy a sword crafted by the reknowned smith Telchar of Nogrod at his peak or one made by machine RX67-B? (even if that machine only produced, say, one sword per year)

Even today, there are all sorts of novelty and personalised items, because people like the feeling that something was made especially for them, rather than something mass produced by the millions. Because it is something unique, something that has some thought in it and isn't just automatic. The same goes for hand-made stuff. This is so out of the ordinary today that if someone makes something for someone with their own hands it is looked upon as much better than the equivalent that could be bought, even if the bought product is technically "better".

I think that Tolkien felt that as more things were becoming mechanised and made in factories, we, as people, were losing our ability to craft and were becoming slaves to the machines who do anything that we don't know how.

How many of us would be able to do all the things we do now or make all the things we make now without our technology? Most of the crafting knowledge is lost now that we have turned to machines to do the work for us.