Enchantment or advancement. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Hookbill the Goomba · 03-12-2009, 05:16 PM

I a couple of threads (namely this one and this one) it has been noted that military advancement in Middle Earth isn't particually evident. Indeed, this seems to be a common thread in fantasy and myth.

Tolkien's world is steeped in myths and legends, especially Norse. In the worlds of these tales we rarely see technological advancement, but rather the seeking of enchantment. How many legends have the hero seeking a magic sword or jewel? A fair few. Even Caliburn and Excalibur from Arthurian myth have certain magical properties. The sword Tyrfing (or Tirfing?) from Norse is another.

Now look at modern fantasy. Indeed, this is what brought the thought to mind. In George R R Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire the greatest swords are 'Velerian Steel' which are forged with magic. Moreover, dragons, horns, and words are valued more if they are more magical and, in most cases, therefore older. In Michael Moorcock's Elric series, the hero bears the black sword (

) Stormbringer; another magical / possessed sword.

There are many more.

In Middle Earth we have Elvish blades, or better yet, ones forged in Valinor, are prised higher than things made much later. Indeed, Middle Earth seems to be on a downward slope when it comes to weapons development. Mordor opts for the quickly reproduced stuff to arm its legions. The elves are diminishing and only have time, it seems, to reforge Anduril.

Indeed, this old sword inspires more hope than any new one. But why? Is it the magical properties (which, in Middle Earth, seem to stretch only a little beyond glowing action) or is it something more?

To my mind, the old, enchanted swords have stories attached to them; famous hands wielded them, great deeds were done with them. It is the stories that inspire men more than the fact that it is an enchanted blade. I think this is why Tolkien does not go to great lengths to describe what magical properties elvish weapons may or may not have. Beyong glowing.

Gandalf prises Glamdring because it is from Gondolin, and the whole story that goes with it. Frodo prises Sting because Bilbo gave it to him and the stories of his adventures go with it.

But enchantment is not always a good thing. The Ring, for example, is magic and very bad. Very bad indeed. Not the metal itself, but what went into it, perhaps. The Nazgul have been enchanted, in a way, so that they are no longer living or dead. They are also very bad indeed.

Thinking about this caused me to wonder what point the enchantment or magic plays. Is it just for that shiver of wonder that the idea of magic encourages? Perhaps the magic almost represents the past, the stories and the people who were (and are) important to those in the story now? Without the memory of Sauron's fall and the fact that Isildur bore it, would Narsil be just another elvish blade?

What do you think?

Lalwendë · 03-12-2009, 05:28 PM

If I offered you a couple of swords to pick from and one was all shiny and ornate and new, while the other was battered and ugly and old, which would you pick? Now if I told you that the old one had killed such and such a dragon, that it had been wielded at an ancient battle, and so on, which would you choose then?

I think you're spot on, part of the 'magic' is in the stories and the history behind such things.

You could almost apply it to anything really - cars, churches, furniture... Older things have histories attached to them, which makes them intrinsically more interesting to anyone with a shred of romance in their soul. Even if the history is a sad or disturbing one it has the same effect - you might not choose that item if given a choice, if it had such a dark history, but you would still find it more fascinating.

Hookbill the Goomba · 03-12-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If I offered you a couple of swords to pick from and one was all shiny and ornate and new, while the other was battered and ugly and old, which would you pick? Now if I told you that the old one had killed such and such a dragon, that it had been wielded at an ancient battle, and so on, which would you choose then?

Great illustration, lal!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Even if the history is a sad or disturbing one it has the same effect - you might not choose that item if given a choice, if it had such a dark history

Although, The Ring has a very dark history and yet many still chose to take it. Maybe this has to do with what the stories say. Sauron used the Ring to gain great power. Others, knowing this, may desire that same power. To imitate him, or put right what he did. I think it is still partly the story that is the magnet, so to speak.

I'm pretty sure that in On Fairy Stories or some other essay, Tolkien talks about the magical 'pull' that stories have. I will find quotes in the morning, I think.

Lalwendë · 03-12-2009, 05:43 PM

Some people will be drawn to 'dark' things that have a sinister story attached to them - which is why they now often knock down houses where famous murders have happened as ghoulish people often go to visit them. Most people would avoid things like that with a wide berth, knowing the stories.

I wonder if Bilbo would have left The Ring, had he known exactly what it was? I like to think he would, as his character wasn't the type that would be drawn to take it, more to run away from such a thing! He'd still have loved the story of it though.

Rumil · 03-12-2009, 05:41 PM

A couple of random points to throw in here..

LoTR seems to me to be set in a Dark Age/Early Mediaeval milieu (approximatelyish naturally). In Britain the people of those times sometimes looked back to the remains of Roman civilisation and wondered at the power of the Ancients (eg. central heating, aqueducts, municipal buildings, Hadrian's Wall etc etc) . Therefore some sort of respect and awe for artefacts of a bygone age seems appropriate.

Was it Arthur C Clarke that said any sufficiently advanced technology is viewed as 'magic' by those unfamiliar with it? I'm sure Tolkien would have hated the idea that eg. Sting was the product of high-tech rather than 'craft' but the effect is the same, both Sting and a light-sabre could cut deep into a wooden beam at a single stroke!

Hookbill the Goomba · 03-12-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumil

Was it Arthur C Clarke that said any sufficiently advanced technology is viewed as 'magic' by those unfamiliar with it?

Highly advanced technology is almost indistinguishable from magic. The opposite is also true.

Lalwendë · 03-12-2009, 05:52 PM

The Smiths of old (as in forgers of metals, not the band with gladioli-toting singer

) used to be thought of as great magicians by ordinary people who saw them turning rocks into weapons and could not explain it other than as magic.

There's the old folk story about Wayland's Smithy, where local people would leave their horses and come back next day to find them with iron shoes fitted...

Mnemosyne · 03-12-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumil

Was it Arthur C Clarke that said any sufficiently advanced technology is viewed as 'magic' by those unfamiliar with it? I'm sure Tolkien would have hated the idea that eg. Sting was the product of high-tech rather than 'craft' but the effect is the same, both Sting and a light-sabre could cut deep into a wooden beam at a single stroke!

Eh... really? Sting could cleave spiderwebs, because spiders were a threat in the land where it was forged, but as far as I know the enemies of the elves of the First Age weren't Evil Ents that required +3 Woodchopping Swords. One of the better things, IMO, about fantastic weapons is that they can be specialized like that, so that you don't have superweapons like lightsabers, sonic screwdrivers, etc., that people need to come up with increasingly creative methods to stop.

Which is rather beside the point.

What I find to be an irritating trend in non-realistic literature is this need to come up with scientific explanations for everything that is beyond the reader's understanding. It was cool when Anne McCaffrey did it, but I hope no one will disagree with me when I say that the "midichlorian" explanation of the Force killed a lot of the fun of Star Wars.

Where did this need to rationalize everything come from?

In Tolkien you don't get that: you get runes of virtue and songs so powerful they inspire visions and athelas and curses that have an effect. And you get old, powerful objects the like of which will never be made again--the Silmarils, which contain only a fraction of the light of the Trees, whose power is harnessed, again at a fraction of its true level, in Frodo's star-glass (which then passes over the Sea

)

The enchantment is more powerful than advancement, I would argue, because the Story has to continue. In one sense the continuity of artifacts like this is what makes them powerful.

One other area I would extend this inquiry into, and that's the healing arts of the Elves and of Gondor. Aside from the mention of athelas and possibly some singing, we never get any detail of what this knowledge was or how it worked. I've run across stories in fantasy that do try to give detail and it never works for me because I can tell that the writer is a modern-day person, using modern-day knowledge to diagnose someone ailing and then trying to mask that knowledge. (The quickest example that comes to mind is a piece of fan fiction in which Aragorn performed surgery on a man with cancer!)

So to what extent is less more when an author portrays items of wondrous power? Is an explanation of how it works more or less appealing than a tale of its history proving how effective it's been in the past?

03-12-2009, 05:16 PM	#1
Hookbill the Goomba Alive without breath Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla Posts: 5,912	Enchantment or advancement. I a couple of threads (namely this one and this one) it has been noted that military advancement in Middle Earth isn't particually evident. Indeed, this seems to be a common thread in fantasy and myth. Tolkien's world is steeped in myths and legends, especially Norse. In the worlds of these tales we rarely see technological advancement, but rather the seeking of enchantment. How many legends have the hero seeking a magic sword or jewel? A fair few. Even Caliburn and Excalibur from Arthurian myth have certain magical properties. The sword Tyrfing (or Tirfing?) from Norse is another. Now look at modern fantasy. Indeed, this is what brought the thought to mind. In George R R Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire the greatest swords are 'Velerian Steel' which are forged with magic. Moreover, dragons, horns, and words are valued more if they are more magical and, in most cases, therefore older. In Michael Moorcock's Elric series, the hero bears the black sword ( ) Stormbringer; another magical / possessed sword. There are many more. In Middle Earth we have Elvish blades, or better yet, ones forged in Valinor, are prised higher than things made much later. Indeed, Middle Earth seems to be on a downward slope when it comes to weapons development. Mordor opts for the quickly reproduced stuff to arm its legions. The elves are diminishing and only have time, it seems, to reforge Anduril. Indeed, this old sword inspires more hope than any new one. But why? Is it the magical properties (which, in Middle Earth, seem to stretch only a little beyond glowing action) or is it something more? To my mind, the old, enchanted swords have stories attached to them; famous hands wielded them, great deeds were done with them. It is the stories that inspire men more than the fact that it is an enchanted blade. I think this is why Tolkien does not go to great lengths to describe what magical properties elvish weapons may or may not have. Beyong glowing. Gandalf prises Glamdring because it is from Gondolin, and the whole story that goes with it. Frodo prises Sting because Bilbo gave it to him and the stories of his adventures go with it. But enchantment is not always a good thing. The Ring, for example, is magic and very bad. Very bad indeed. Not the metal itself, but what went into it, perhaps. The Nazgul have been enchanted, in a way, so that they are no longer living or dead. They are also very bad indeed. Thinking about this caused me to wonder what point the enchantment or magic plays. Is it just for that shiver of wonder that the idea of magic encourages? Perhaps the magic almost represents the past, the stories and the people who were (and are) important to those in the story now? Without the memory of Sauron's fall and the fact that Isildur bore it, would Narsil be just another elvish blade? What do you think? __________________ I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket...

03-12-2009, 05:28 PM	#2
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	If I offered you a couple of swords to pick from and one was all shiny and ornate and new, while the other was battered and ugly and old, which would you pick? Now if I told you that the old one had killed such and such a dragon, that it had been wielded at an ancient battle, and so on, which would you choose then? I think you're spot on, part of the 'magic' is in the stories and the history behind such things. You could almost apply it to anything really - cars, churches, furniture... Older things have histories attached to them, which makes them intrinsically more interesting to anyone with a shred of romance in their soul. Even if the history is a sad or disturbing one it has the same effect - you might not choose that item if given a choice, if it had such a dark history, but you would still find it more fascinating. __________________ Gordon's alive!

03-12-2009, 05:43 PM	#4
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Some people will be drawn to 'dark' things that have a sinister story attached to them - which is why they now often knock down houses where famous murders have happened as ghoulish people often go to visit them. Most people would avoid things like that with a wide berth, knowing the stories. I wonder if Bilbo would have left The Ring, had he known exactly what it was? I like to think he would, as his character wasn't the type that would be drawn to take it, more to run away from such a thing! He'd still have loved the story of it though. __________________ Gordon's alive!

03-12-2009, 05:41 PM	#5
Rumil Sage & Onions Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Britain Posts: 894	Old School A couple of random points to throw in here.. LoTR seems to me to be set in a Dark Age/Early Mediaeval milieu (approximatelyish naturally). In Britain the people of those times sometimes looked back to the remains of Roman civilisation and wondered at the power of the Ancients (eg. central heating, aqueducts, municipal buildings, Hadrian's Wall etc etc) . Therefore some sort of respect and awe for artefacts of a bygone age seems appropriate. Was it Arthur C Clarke that said any sufficiently advanced technology is viewed as 'magic' by those unfamiliar with it? I'm sure Tolkien would have hated the idea that eg. Sting was the product of high-tech rather than 'craft' but the effect is the same, both Sting and a light-sabre could cut deep into a wooden beam at a single stroke! __________________ Rumil of Coedhirion

03-12-2009, 05:52 PM	#7
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	The Smiths of old (as in forgers of metals, not the band with gladioli-toting singer ) used to be thought of as great magicians by ordinary people who saw them turning rocks into weapons and could not explain it other than as magic. There's the old folk story about Wayland's Smithy, where local people would leave their horses and come back next day to find them with iron shoes fitted... __________________ Gordon's alive!