# Magic in Middle-Earth



## Artanis (Nov 21, 2004)

What is this that Men in Middle-Earth tend to call 'magic'? Personally I think it is correct to interpret 'magic' as an inherent, natural ability of one race, that is not easily comprehended by other races and therefore may appear as magic to them. The Elves have many skills which are regarded as 'magical' from the point of view of other people. So have the Druedain, and so have the Dwarves. Notably, only Men seem to lack any abilities that might be considered 'magical' by others. That's indeed interesting, and one may wonder why it is so. Even Hobbits do possess at least one ability which may be seen as 'magic':


> They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this an they have developed until to Men it may seem magical. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.


 But here Tolkien is using the word 'art' about the Hobbit skill of avoiding to be seen, and the word 'magic' to oppose this. Tolkien considered the Elves to be primarily artists, concerned with subcreation. It is interesting then to see that Galadriel distinguishes between 'good magic' and 'evil magic', while speaking to Frodo and Sam about the Mirror in Lórien:


> For this is what your folk would call magic. I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy.


 And then she goes on naming the Mirror as Elf-magic:


> But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?


She is of course picking her words so that her guests will understand her. However, it is not obvious to me that there is a clear difference between what Galadriel names as Elf-magic and what she considers as "deceits of the Enemy". Sauron and his 'magical' Rings of Power and Saruman with his 'magical' seductive voice are both examples of big time deceivers, though their powers without doubt are inherent and natural. But isn't the Mirror of Galadriel also deceitful? And we also do have 'good' characters performing this kind of 'magic'. Take Doriath, where we see Melian using her divine power to form the Girdle, which I think we may regard as a form of deception, a sort of bewildering of the mind and not a physical barrier. We may also include her means to catch Elwë as husband. And Galadriel herself is capable of deception too, as Boromir clearly suspects and voices:


> "Maybe it was only a test, and she thought to read our thoughts for her own good purpose; but almost I should have said that she was tempting us, and offering what she pretended to have the power to give"


 What is then the difference between 'good magic' and 'evil magic'? I think the answer lies in the intent of the action. If the motive behind is considered evil, then the magic performed is also considered an evil act. If 'magic' is used with the purpose of dominating other people's will, or with the purpose of going beyond the bonds of nature, then it is evil.

IIRC Tolkien made a distiction between 'magic' which worked within the physical world, like the drowning of the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen and Gandalf putting fire to a wet log of wood in the mountains, and the 'magic' which worked within people's minds. Here I have discussed only the latter, but I think what is said can be applied to the former also.

What are other people's view of 'magic' as seen in M-E?


----------



## Manwe (Nov 21, 2004)

Magic is an inherent fact in everything in Middle Earth. The people have magic of sorts. The elves can summon water and talk to trees. The dwarves can make beautiful, faultless buildings. The Men can tame completely wild horses and can fight with complete art. The wizards can do whatever the hell they want  . And whether it this Earth or Middle Earth the plants and animals definetly have a magic. Plants can trap sunlight, water and carbon dioxide and turn it into glucose (food) and oxygen. Ents can move and talk. Horses can run faster than most cars. Peregrin Falcons can dive at speeds over 200km/h. All of Middle Earth is magical. Whether it is good or evil is not a question. Magic is neither. It is not either the person who is evil (bar Sauron). It is the times and cicumstances they live in that decide whether the person and, therefore, the magic does evil or good things.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 22, 2004)

Artanis said:


> IIRC Tolkien made a distiction between 'magic' which worked within the physical world, like the drowning of the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen and Gandalf putting fire to a wet log of wood in the mountains, and the 'magic' which worked within people's minds. Here I have discussed only the latter, but I think what is said can be applied to the former also.


He did try to explain the way magic worked in an unsent fragment of correspondence usually called Letter 156, but after concluding that Men could not use magic, he wrote in the margin that "Numenoreans made magic swords?" (referring to the barrow-blades Tom Bombadil gave to Frodo and the Hobbits, which Aragorn later said the Orcs had thrown away because they recognized the swords "as work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor"). Aragorn's words clearly associated the smiths of Westernesse with magic.


----------



## Artanis (Nov 23, 2004)

Ah yes, the Barrow-blades. But the Númenoréans were not like ordinary Men, they were more like pseudo-Elves. Greater wisdom and power, no illness, prolonged lifespan, a light in their eyes ... I guess that because of their enhancement they were able to learn many arts and crafts from the Elves of Tol Eressëa.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 23, 2004)

Arty said:


> Notably, only Men seem to lack any abilities that might be considered 'magical' by others.



Well, the so called 'Middle-Men' (e.g. the Rohirrim) and the Men of Darkness could have considered the Numenoreans' long life span as some sort of magical amplification, even though it was not, at least not directly done by them.



> If 'magic' is used with the purpose of dominating other people's will, or with the purpose of going beyond the bonds of nature, then it is evil.



The Rings of Power, co-forged by the Mirdain, would then be considered 'evil', or 'wrong', in that they went against the way nature and time worked (they tried to radically slow down the decay of nature around them and the passage of time). How aware were the Elves of this? Could someone using a Ring of Power automatically be accused of using 'evil magic', even if it was for 'good' purposes?



> What are other people's view of 'magic' as seen in M-E?



I'd say magic is basically a means to effect certain processes without having to invest actual physical labour into achieving them, sort of like instant soup.  Though in Tolkien's creation magic is used subtly and cautiously, which gives it a very mysterious and exciting feel.



Manwe said:


> Horses can run faster than most cars.



They can!?


----------



## Manwe (Nov 24, 2004)

Sorry, I was comparing the speed shadowfax is said to do to the normal speed of our cars


----------



## Artanis (Nov 25, 2004)

Ithrynluin said:


> The Rings of Power, co-forged by the Mirdain, would then be considered 'evil', or 'wrong', in that they went against the way nature and time worked (they tried to radically slow down the decay of nature around them and the passage of time). How aware were the Elves of this? Could someone using a Ring of Power automatically be accused of using 'evil magic', even if it was for 'good' purposes?


But - is the purpose good when it means going against the will of the Gods? It may seem good when presented by Annatar the deceiver, while in fact it is an attack on the authority of the Valar. I think the Eregion Elves were aware of this, but chose to ignore it, being too eager of enhancing their knowledge, power and smithcraft. In contrast, the people of Gil-Galad and Elrond resisted the temptation.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 26, 2004)

*Magic here and now?*

Manwe describes the inherent magic in nature, but does mankind have any real craft magic? I would say yes.

Ithy quotes:


> If 'magic' is used with the purpose of dominating other people's will, or with the purpose of going beyond the bonds of nature, then it is evil.


Hypnotism falls under this definition (the first 'if'), but it is also used for good purposes. And how different from this is the art of persuasion? It is clear in Lord of the Rings that Saruman's voice is considered magical in its ability to bewitch. I can think of people today who have a similar ability, but more akin to Saruman's waning power than when at his full strength.

And look at science. Things like electricity - science can tell us how it works, but not _why_ it works; they don't know! Is that magic, albeit channelled? And how many substances are known to have effect because science has measured the results, but scientists do not know why the substance is effective? Is that sorcery? And that's before we even begin to look at the fringe stuff.

One final comment: A swedish mechanic, Krister Nylander, received a parking ticket for £90 that claims his snowmobile was illegally parked in Warwick, Britain last summer. Nylander lives on a farm in Bollstabruk, 205 miles north of Stockholm, and protests that neither he nor his snowmobile have ever been to Warwick. Euro Parking Collection claims that his snowmobile was parked illegally in Warwick for three hours on June 22. All information in the ticket is correct, such as the make and licence plate number.

Magic? Warwick is, after all, the site of Tolkien's 'fair Kortirion'!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 26, 2004)

Artanis said:


> What is this that Men in Middle-Earth tend to call 'magic'? Personally I think it is correct to interpret 'magic' as an inherent, natural ability of one race, that is not easily comprehended by other races and therefore may appear as magic to them...



Thank you, Artanis, for that wonderful post! In general, I think that historically, things that have been termed "magic" are the things the mechanisms of which "rustic" folk (for lack of a better term) do not understand. Indeed, Arthur C. Clark once said that technology seems magic to those who do not understand it.

And in Middle-earth, it seems that that is the case, using your examples of the elves explaining what appear to be their own natural abilities to non-elves. 

But there is another type of thing that people call "magic," and that comprises manifestations which occur outside the normal laws of nature: things which manifest at the invocation of spells, incantations, etc. There are those who believe devoutly that such things exist (indeed make up deep esoterica in many religions), usually borrowing or calling upon power from evil or good forces that exist outside of "normal" reality. Everything from voodoo to Wicca, and _very_ scary to most of us.

Does this really exist, or are we somehow manifesting our own powers? Do we have powers that we all could call upon if we only knew how with proper training, powers which lay dormant, or are still evolving, too weak at present to be dependable? In which case they would not be magic at all.

Barley


----------



## Walter (Nov 29, 2004)

Welcome and well met, Artanis... 

You have already summed up Tolkien's use of 'magic' very nicely in your first post.

Tolkien has indeed not used the term 'magic' consistently throughout his writings, as he admitted in one of his letters (#131 to Milton Waldman, probably written in 1951; printed also as a foreword to the Silmarillion).

In this letter he explains that on the one hand he has used magic somehow synonymously for 'machinery' as a means – or tool – to gain and/or maintain Power, and the result of a rebellion against the laws of the Creator. This form of magic he sees as a method to _"...making the will more quickly effective..."_ by the _"use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of development of the inherent inner powers or talents — or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills."_ and he concludes that: _"The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised."_

Machinery thus is opposed to the other form of magic, encountered by the elves and Tolkien explains that _"Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation."_

In Lórien, Tolkien has used Galadriel to point out to the Hobbits their _"...confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves."_, but he sees this confusion as something that is common to human stories.

Tolkien had already elaborated on this very confusion or lack of proper distinction in his essay _On Fairy-stories_ (delivered as a lecture in 1939), where he first explains fairy-story as a story that touches on or uses Faërie – the 'Perilous Realm' - and suggests that _"...Faërie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic -- but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician."_. Later in the essay he mentions again the art of the elves as an example for the form of magic which is opposed to the term 'magic' when used as a description for the operations of a magician. He then goes on using the term Enchantment for the magic as encountered in elvish craft and explains that:



> To the elvish craft, Enchantment, Fantasy aspires, and when it is successful of all forms of human art most nearly approaches. At the heart of many man-made stories of the elves lies, open or concealed, pure or alloyed, the desire for a living, realised sub-creative art, which (however much it may outwardly resemble it) is inwardly wholly different from the greed for self-centred power which is the mark of the mere Magician. Of this desire the elves, in their better (but still perilous) part, are largely made; and it is from them that we may learn what is the central desire and aspiration of human Fantasy - even if the elves are, all the more in so far as they are, only a product of Fantasy itself. That creative desire is only cheated by counterfeits, whether the innocent but clumsy devices of the human dramatist, or the malevolent frauds of the magicians. In this world it is for men unsatisfiable, and so imperishable. Uncorrupted it does not seek delusion, nor bewitchment and domination; it seeks shared enrichment, partners in making and delight, not slaves.
> 
> On Fairy-stories



Consequently, Tolkien saw the Elves _"...nearest to falling to 'magic' and machinery..."_ (Letters #131) when they made their _Rings of Power_, at first with Sauron's aid, but eventually all on their own.

As MichaelMartinez mentions above, there is a draft for another letter (#155 not #156, though) where Tolkien elaborates on magic, and which is quite interesting. Aside from – somewhat - narrowing the scope of magic in LotR as is _"...not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but ... an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such."_ he mentions the distinction between _magia_ as good magic and _goeteia_ as bad – evil - magic. In a footnote he explains: 



> 1. Greek _γοήτέίά_ (_γοής_, sorcerer); the English form _Goety_ is defined in the O.E.D. as 'witchcraft or magic performed by the invocation and employment of evil spirits; necromancy.'



Here he was using the – already much transformed – medieval distinction between _mageia_ and _goeteia_ instead of the original meanings (for some further discussion and the content of the draft see this thread: http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=12958). As can be seen from the text of the draft, Tolkien does not all 'magic' used by the enemy consider _goeteia_, but rather differentiates in pointing out that 



> Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his _magia_ he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his _goeteia_ to terrify and subjugate. Their _magia_ the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a _magia_, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely _artistic_ and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.
> 
> Letters #155


----------



## Walter (Nov 29, 2004)

As a somewhat off-topic addendum to my previous post:

James Frazer, in his _Golden Bough_ makes quite some efforts to examine and interpret magic as an early stage in human development with the purpose of explaining and influencing phenomena (which could not be explained or influenced by other thitherto known means). And as such he sees magic as a predecessor of what was later-on replaced, first by religion and later by science.

----

Regarding electricity I would like to mention that I think that science can very well explain why it works: Just for the very same reason as an apple falls down from the tree (not up into the sky) and water flows freely from a higher level to a lower level, the electrons, e.g. in a metal, can 'flow' freely from a state of higher level (potential - a state of inherent energy) to a lower level. They can do that because due to the curious structure of metals the electrons are not as closely connected to their atomic nucleus as e.g. in Ionic Crystals (like NaCl; salt), but rather can roam around freely in "bands" within the metal body. And just like I can use water to turn the wheel of a mill to have it work for me, I can use the electrons to make the thread within a bulb glow (because the thread is so narrow, that they have to 'squeeze' through and due to the friction the thread gets heated and starts to 'glow'; the glowing is something that could be compared to a human starting to sweat when it becomes too hot , only that the thread emits photons, light, instead of sweat...)

Electricity, just like everything else in our world, is just 'obeying' the laws of physics when it works the way it does. Only if we question those ("Why do we have those curious 'strong-', 'weak-', 'electromagnetical-' and 'gravitational-interactions' of 'matter'" or "What exactly is matter") we are still left in the dark and may remin there...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 29, 2004)

In response to a couple of things that have been mentioned, machinery (as defined by Tolkien) and hypnotism:

His remark hearkens back (at least in my mind) to Clark's statement that technology seems like magic to those who don't understand how it works, and by implication, _anything_ can seem "magical" when one doesn't understand it. Hence the huge belief in magic by children, the gullible, and less-advanced societies over our history (and still applies to those who wish to have power over people and circumstances).

Hypnotism is another thing. As it happens, I studied clinical hypnotism on a time with Melba Finkelstein, who was a protegé of Milton Erickson, one of finest hypnotists of the day in the field of psychiatry.

I was a very good hypnotist when I used it in family therapy, but I didn't use it often. I came to a number of conclusions about it, one of them being that it is too dangerous to use. What Saruman did with his voice was indeed a kind of "hypnotism" based upon inflection, choice of words, and dropping suggestions into conversation. With my own experience, I got to the place where I stopped using classical induction. I just calculated the best place to drop suggestions into the conversation in such a manner that to the client it seemed that he thought of them himself. Such control is very dangerous in the wrong hands. But hypnotism is not magic.

"Magic" is the concept of marshalling (or appealing to) forces that lie outside the bounds of normal power in order to bring about desired effects. Using these forces for evil is "black magic," and for good "white magic." Whether such a thing exists is open to debate. Is human society going into the toilet because of the effects of black magicians or is it because we can't overcome our savagery?

I suspect that there may be very rare human beings who can sense aspects of Reality that most of us don't and can take advantage of them. Whether (assuming such people exist) they are mutants, or rare folks expressing genes which are dormant in most of us is — so far — unknown. Comments anyone?

Barley


----------



## scotsboyuk (Nov 30, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I
> "Magic" is the concept of marshalling (or appealing to) forces that lie outside the bounds of normal power in order to bring about desired effects. Using these forces for evil is "black magic," and for good "white magic." Whether such a thing exists is open to debate. Is human society going into the toilet because of the effects of black magicians or is it because we can't overcome our savagery?


 That is an interesting statement, for a number of reasons. What is 'outside the bounds of normal power'? 'Normal power' could be defined as the sume of all human knowledge and anything, which lies beyond that knowledge is 'magic'. This would seem to be a fair assumption if one uses the model of a primitive witnessing advanced technology.
For example:

A ancient Celt who witnesses his friend have a heart attack is in a discourse where he assumes that his friend is immediately dead. We, on the other hand, know this to be untrue, his friend is still alive because our knowledge of the matter is greater. We also have sufficient knowledge to know that if CPR is applied, the man who had the heart attack may be brought back to life. To the witnessing Celt this would seem like magic because it is beyond his knowledge of the world; the only way he can explain such an event is divine intervention or magic.

An man from the 18th century witnessing the same event would be unlikely to term this event as magical. His knowledge of the world may not be sufficient to allow him to explain the CPR, but it is great enough to allow him to think that it may be something other than magic, indeed if CPR were explaine dto him, he would stand a good chance of understanding what is was.

If we were to witness someone levitating, we would not assume it to be magic, we have sufficient knowledge of the world around us to offer several different explanations e.g. magnetism, super-conductivity, illusion, weightlessness, etc. These explanations may not be correct, but we would not think it magic. However, if we were to see someone walk through a solid wall, we would have very few explanations beyond trickery to offer, our knowledge is not sufficient to allow us to adequately explain a natural process for such an occurrence.

Magic, therefore, can be viewed, not as marshalling those forces 'outside the bounds of normal power', but as having a greater understanding of what constitutes the 'bounds of normal power' than someone else.



> I suspect that there may be very rare human beings who can sense aspects of Reality that most of us don't and can take advantage of them. Whether (assuming such people exist) they are mutants, or rare folks expressing genes which are dormant in most of us is — so far — unknown. Comments anyone?


 This comment links in with what I said above. Those who are able to perceive different aspects of reality than the majority of humanity may simply have a greater understanding of what constitutes reality, not necessarily a 'special power'.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 30, 2004)

scotsboyuk said:


> That is an interesting statement, for a number of reasons. What is 'outside the bounds of normal power'?...



By "normal," I mean the abilities we have when awake: what we can normally do with our bodies; the use of our conscious mind, and the data that it processes through the five senses.



> An ancient Celt who witnesses his friend have a heart attack is in a discourse where he assumes that his friend is immediately dead. We, on the other hand, know this to be untrue, his friend is still alive because our knowledge of the matter is greater. We also have sufficient knowledge to know that if CPR is applied, the man who had the heart attack may be brought back to life. To the witnessing Celt this would seem like magic because it is beyond his knowledge of the world; the only way he can explain such an event is divine intervention or magic.



This goes directly back to my quote of Arthur C. Clark: that technology seems like magic to those who don't understand it — the point being that one definition of "magic" is what someone not techologically sophisticated calls what he witnesses that he deems outside of what seems normally possible.



> If we were to witness someone levitating, we would not assume it to be magic, we have sufficient knowledge of the world around us to offer several different explanations e.g. magnetism, super-conductivity, illusion, weightlessness, etc. These explanations may not be correct, but we would not think it magic. However, if we were to see someone walk through a solid wall, we would have very few explanations beyond trickery to offer, our knowledge is not sufficient to allow us to adequately explain a natural process for such an occurrence.



Exactly. This is the conclusion of a technologically sophisticated person.



> Magic ...can be viewed, not as marshalling those forces 'outside the bounds of normal power', but as having a greater understanding of what constitutes the 'bounds of normal power' than someone else.



If I understand how something works, I do not call it magic! If by some rare arrangement I can read minds, that to many would be called magic, if indeed not the "devil's work!"



> ...Those who are able to perceive different aspects of reality than the majority of humanity may simply have a greater understanding of what constitutes reality, not necessarily a 'special power'.



That again goes back to Clark. He was talking about technology, but simply to have a deeper higher understanding of a situation enables one to deal with it in a more effective manner, so that that dealing seems magical to one who has no such understanding.

I am standing on the roof of a building watching two people below me. Each of them are on different streets walking toward the same intersection. I can see that they will meet at the intersection, but they don't know it, because the building blocks their views of each other. And if they are gullible (naive, innocent, etc.), I can call either one on their cell phone and tell them "You are going to meet a woman wearing a red dress in 10 seconds," they mY think I can read the future!

This reminds me of a harmless prank I played on my son when he was small.

My father had just had a remote-controlled garage door installed, and the three of us were standing at the end of the driveway, and I had the control in my hand, out of sight. I said to my son (who was about 5), "Say 'Open Sesame' and the garage door will open!" He didn't believe me, but I finally talked him into saying it, whereupon I pushed the button and the door opened! He was totally confounded! My Dad and I had a good laugh, and then I explained it all to my son, and let him operate the control to his heart's content.

Barley


----------



## scotsboyuk (Nov 30, 2004)

@Barly

Clark's analogy is interesting and valid, to a certain extent. What it doesn't take into account is intelligence, just because someone doesn't understand how something works doesn't mean to say that they will automaticlaly view it as supernatural.

Would an ancient Egyptian view a modern crane as 'supernatural', probably not, although an ancient Celt may have. Would Aristotle think nuclear weaponry magical? Probably not, although a medieval knight may have. Would Da Vinci think a helicopter magical? Highly doubtful since he deisgned the first one, but the average Italian peasant probably would have seen a flying machine as magical.

In the LOTR magic is a subtle force, vulgar displays of magical power are not in keeping with the tone of the books. One almost gets the sense that the magic we are told about is not magic at all, but something that we do not understand, but which is perfectly normal to those who use it.

Saruman's 'bomb' is a good example and brings us back to Clark's analogy. Wormtongue sees it as magic, but we of course do not consider it magic. However, isn't magic the control of natural forces? Gunpowder can be seen as a form of control of nature, refining and channeling its power. In my opinion this is what magic has always been throughout human history; those select few who have had the knowledge to channel and refine nature to their own ends. This magic still exists today, only the majority of the world's population now know how it works, at least on a basic level. The 'magic' still exists, but the mystery has disappeared. This is the essence of Clark's analogy, in my opinion, mystery. It isn't that primitives would be incapable of understanding modern technology, it is just that the knowledge behind the advanced technology of the day would have been jealously guarded by those few who had it. The air of mystery that was added to such knowledge would impart it with a 'mystical' quality making it all the more 'magical'.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 30, 2004)

scotsboyuk said:


> @Barly
> 
> Clark's analogy is interesting and valid, to a certain extent. What it doesn't take into account is intelligence, just because someone doesn't understand how something works doesn't mean to say that they will automaticlaly view it as supernatural.



Agreed! But I'm not talking about a person who _thinks analytically._



> Would an ancient Egyptian view a modern crane as 'supernatural', probably not, although an ancient Celt may have. Would Aristotle think nuclear weaponry magical? Probably not, although a medieval knight may have. Would Da Vinci think a helicopter magical? Highly doubtful since he deisgned the first one, but the average Italian peasant probably would have seen a flying machine as magical.



Exactly.



> In the LOTR magic is a subtle force, vulgar displays of magical power are not in keeping with the tone of the books. One almost gets the sense that the magic we are told about is not magic at all, but something that we do not understand, but which is perfectly normal to those who use it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## scotsboyuk (Nov 30, 2004)

@Barley

Thank you very much. 

On the question of levitation, I believe that a group of scientists recently 'levitated' a toad. Of course we know how they did it, through magnetism, but is this considered magic? Before we knew about magnetism this would have been classified as magic, but the knowledge of how it's done makes it unmagical.

I believe that science is magic, what else would you call it? Magic, in its traditional sense, was used to explain and manipulate the world around us; the exact same underlying principles of science. All we have done is to change the name from 'magic' to 'science'. An ancient wizard may have applied certain herbs and magic words to a patient in order to cure them of a disease; how does this differ from a modern doctor who uses drugs and soothing words to cure someone? As far as I see it, the only thing that has changed is the name, we are still very much practicing 'magic'.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 1, 2004)

> Saruman's 'bomb' is a good example and brings us back to Clark's analogy. Wormtongue sees it as magic, but we of course do not consider it magic.


This conversation was a PJ invention; it was the allies of Helm's Deep who called it a blasting magic.

There will always be magic; because there will always be enough of us about who want there to be.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 1, 2004)

@Eledhwen

Indeed, perhaps that is really what counts, a belief in magic. Tolkien's use of magic isn't so vulgar as to directly impress on people at every given opportunity that magic exists in Middle Earth, rather it is subtly and gently applied so as to make it a natural occurrence.

This sort of subtle magic certainly does exist in our own world, whether one calls it science, persuasion, illusion or whatever else.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 1, 2004)

Walter said:


> Tolkien has indeed not used the term 'magic' consistently throughout his writings, as he admitted in one of his letters (#131 to Milton Waldman, probably written in 1951; printed also as a foreword to the Silmarillion).
> 
> In this letter he explains that on the one hand he has used magic somehow synonymously for 'machinery' as a means – or tool – to gain and/or maintain Power, and the result of a rebellion against the laws of the Creator. This form of magic he sees as a method to _"...making the will more quickly effective..."_ by the _"use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of development of the inherent inner powers or talents — or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills."_ and he concludes that: _"The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised."_


Your citation is misrepresentative of what Tolkien wrote (and intended). Machinery does not "oppose" magic. The Machine is the domination of free will.



> Anyway, all this stuff (It is, I suppose, fundamentally concerned with the problem of the relation of Art (and Sub-creation) and Primary Reality.) is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine. With Fall inevitably, and that motive occurs in several modes. With Mortality, especially as it affects art and the creative (or as I should say, sub-creative) desire which seems to have no biological function, and to be apart from the satisfactions of plain ordinary biological life, with which, in our world, it is indeed usually at strife. This desire is at once wedded to a passionate love of the real primary world, and hence filled with the sense of mortality, and yet unsatisfied by it. It has various opportunities of `Fall'. It may become possessive, clinging to the things made as `its own', the sub-creator wishes to be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel against the laws of the Creator - especially against mortality. Both of these (alone or together) will lead to the desire for Power, for making the will more quickly effective, - and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of development of the inherent inner powers or talents - or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of domination: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other will. The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised.
> 
> I have not used `magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their `magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation. The `Elves' are `immortal', at least as far as this world goes: and hence are concerned rather with the griefs and burdens of deathlessness in time and change, than with death. The Enemy in successive forms is always `naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others - speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans- is a recurrent motive.
> . . .
> ...


In Letter 155, he said:


> I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and others show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult: and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations, etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real of really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but magia chould be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.
> Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' -- with destructive and evil effects -- because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia -- quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work -- is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or buuld pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills, but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.
> 
> Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while A. is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'.





scotsboyuk said:


> In the LOTR magic is a subtle force, vulgar displays of magical power are not in keeping with the tone of the books. One almost gets the sense that the magic we are told about is not magic at all, but something that we do not understand, but which is perfectly normal to those who use it.


Gandalf's confrontations with the Balrog (including his use of a "word of command" which dropped part of the mountain the then-unidentified Balrog) are pretty vulgar displays of force. So is his confrontation with the Nazgul on Weathertop (which can be seen for miles around).

Tolkien used such examples sparingly, but magic was both subtle and vulgar in the book.

Tolkien's magic has not been well understood in this discussion (at least, what he had to say about it hasn't been well understood). Magic was not something extraordinary to those who used it. It was a natural, inherent ability. The Hobbits called it "magic" because they didn't know what else to call it. Even Tolkien struggled with determining a proper name for it.

In Tolkien, the magic is good if the motive behind it is pure, because his magic includes both Angelic power and what he calls "sorcery" (which includes external sources of power as well as internal power). But magic is bad if its motive is evil (and again that includes Angelic power and "sorcery").


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 1, 2004)

@MichaelMartinez

I agree with you and I believe the points I made were broadly similar to some of your own. I just feel that the vulgar displays of magic we see from Tolkien are not in keeping with the spirit of LotR, they are rare and at moments of great importance and drama. 'Vulgar magic' isn't used by Gandalf every five minutes, it is something to be kept for 'special occasions' so to speak.

I believe that what Tolkien wanted to show us, was that great things can be achieved without the use of such direct magical interventions, but that the mystical, the divine if you will, does have its place too. The great achievments of Frodo are attribuatble to his own inner strength and that of his friends, but he also has help from the 'powers that be' too.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 1, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> Tolkien's magic has not been well understood in this discussion (at least, what he had to say about it hasn't been well understood).



But who's to say? None of us can claim to possess the be-all, end-all word of the late professor, so I believe an 'IM(H)O' would be in order in making such statements.



scotsboyuk said:


> I just feel that the vulgar displays of magic we see from Tolkien are not in keeping with the spirit of LotR, they are rare and at moments of great importance and drama. 'Vulgar magic' isn't used by Gandalf every five minutes, it is something to be kept for 'special occasions' so to speak.



But IIRC, we are never explicitly told the flashes of lightning on Weathortop came from Gandalf, though of course that is more than probable if not certain. And even when we see Ganadalf using 'magic', it is not used in a tacky way with sparks flying around, he does not flaunt it, it is very subtle and in good taste, so to speak, which is what lends Tolkien's magic an aura of credibility and believability. I think it's easier to relate to subtle 'users of magic' than to creatures arcane wielding godly powers in flamboyant show-offs. That is why I'd say that magic used in Middle-earth is not vulgar at all, or at least I don't perceive it as such.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 1, 2004)

Gandalf is 'wielder of the Flame of Anor', and every now and then, he wields it; though it seems to me that much of the 'magic' of Gandalf can be described as spiritual warfare (eg: Theoden/Wormtongue, Balrog, Saruman defeated) where he confronts evil with his own greater indwelling power. He is economical with his undoubtable strength, adopting the 'measure for measure' policy of the Valar, who did not send a power greater than Sauron to help defeat him.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 1, 2004)

@Eledhwen

Indeed, we see one of Tolkien's great themes in the point you raise; balance.


----------



## Walter (Dec 2, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> Your citation is misrepresentative of what Tolkien wrote (and intended). Machinery does not "oppose" magic. The Machine is the domination of free will.
> 
> 
> In Letter 155, he said:


Your citation (and your statement) is misrepresentative of what I wrote (and intended). To the best of my knowledge I never wrote that machinery opposes magic. What I did write is that Tolkien used the term magic for 'machinery' AND for 'art'...

But instead of merely quoting those parts of Tolkien's letters and of his essay/lecture _On Fairy-stories_ which are pertinent to the discussion of Tolkien's magic, I tried to summarize what he had said on the issue...

Now, I don't mind being critizised by such a diligent reader of Tolkien's legendarium as you are, but please understand, that I would appreciate if you would bother to read my posts before you critizise them...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 2, 2004)

It seems that there have been many legitimate definitions of the word "magic" on the posts so far. What about the kind of (traditional usage of the word) "magic" that is so prevalent in (to use a convenient nexus) the _Harry Potter_ stories: that is, effects implemented through the use of wands, incantations, potions, crystal balls, tea leaves, etc.? What are the mechanisms by which such manifestations take place — if they in fact do? If such mechanisms can be described and understood, would the processes still be called "magic?"

It seems to me that what we called "magic" is the term used for those processes whose mechanisms we do not at present understand. Comments?

Barley



scotsboyuk said:


> ...I just feel that the vulgar displays of magic we see from Tolkien are not in keeping with the spirit of LotR, they are rare and at moments of great importance and drama. 'Vulgar magic' isn't used by Gandalf every five minutes, it is something to be kept for 'special occasions' so to speak.
> 
> I believe that what Tolkien wanted to show us, was that great things can be achieved without the use of such direct magical interventions, but that the mystical, the divine if you will, does have its place too. The great achievments of Frodo are attribuatble to his own inner strength and that of his friends, but he also has help from the 'powers that be' too.



Why make a distinction between "vulgar" and "subtle" and then make subjective value judgments? In point of fact, we have the story in final form _exactly as Tolkien intended,_ the point seeming to be (if indeed he ever contemplated it at all) that the use of "magic" is to be applied precisely as the situation demands.

Barley


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 2, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> ... the point seeming to be (if indeed he ever contemplated it at all) that the use of "magic" is to be applied precisely as the situation demands.
> 
> Barley


 Isn't that what I said, albeit in a roundabout sort of way?

Regarding your comments on the 'processes' I would agree with you and I believe I have already touched upon this very point earlier. The science we employ today can be viewed as magic if one doesn't understand the process behind it; how does one speak to someone a thousand miles away instantaneously? If one doesn't understand the process behind a telephone then one could claim that the act of dialing the numbers is an invocation and that the telephone itself is a 'wand' of sorts, or some for of channel for the magic being employed.

Would such an analogy be applicable to the magic Tolkien describes?


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 3, 2004)

Ithrynluin said:


> But who's to say? None of us can claim to possess the be-all, end-all word of the late professor, so I believe an 'IM(H)O' would be in order in making such statements.


The practice of offering chopped up citations without properly summarizing Tolkien's point (or even addressing his thoughts on The Machine) is a pretty clear indication of a lack of understanding.

Does anyone alive today understand it as Tolkien did? No. But then, we can still remain faithful to the author's written commentaries, even if that requires noting inconsistencies and contradictions (of which there were several, where magic is concerned).

The very existence of those inconsistencies and contradictions really makes it impossible for anyone to reconstruct Tolkien's point-of-view without resorting to arguments of a magnitude similar to Andrew Wiles' solution to Fermat's Last Theorem (which, at the time it was announced, only about 100 people in the entire world were qualified to understand). 



> But IIRC, we are never explicitly told the flashes of lightning on Weathortop came from Gandalf, though of course that is more than probable if not certain.


There are other incidents: Gandalf's use of magic against Sauron's wolves in Eregion; Gandalf's flashes of light directed at the Nazgul in Minas Tirith; etc.

He practiced magic on several levels. He even applied some of his "magic" to his fireworks for no purpose other than to amuse the Hobbits.

If your point is to stress that Gandalf was not an AD&D-style wizard, then I agree wholeheartedly. But his magic was suited to the situation, and sometimes the situation was serious, and sometimes it was jovial.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 3, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> The practice of offering chopped up citations without properly summarizing Tolkien's point (or even addressing his thoughts on The Machine) is a pretty clear indication of a lack of understanding.
> 
> Does anyone alive today understand it as Tolkien did? No. But then, we can still remain faithful to the author's written commentaries, even if that requires noting inconsistencies and contradictions (of which there were several, where magic is concerned).
> 
> The very existence of those inconsistencies and contradictions really makes it impossible for anyone to reconstruct Tolkien's point-of-view without resorting to arguments of a magnitude similar to Andrew Wiles' solution to Fermat's Last Theorem (which, at the time it was announced, only about 100 people in the entire world were qualified to understand).



That is all fine and well. My point was that putting an indicator of opinion (IMO, I believe, To the best of my knowledge...) next to a sentence that gives a pretty firm and certain stance on a certain aspect of Tolkien's subcreation, would be a good idea, especially when the subject discussed contains many 'inconsistencies and contradictions', as you yourself say.



> There are other incidents: Gandalf's use of magic against Sauron's wolves in Eregion; Gandalf's flashes of light directed at the Nazgul in Minas Tirith; etc.
> 
> He practiced magic on several levels. He even applied some of his "magic" to his fireworks for no purpose other than to amuse the Hobbits.
> 
> If your point is to stress that Gandalf was not an AD&D-style wizard, then I agree wholeheartedly. But his magic was suited to the situation, and sometimes the situation was serious, and sometimes it was jovial.



Agreed. His (and others') magic certainly is suited to the situation, but it was never 'vulgar' to my mind's eye.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 3, 2004)

Ithrynluin said:


> That is all fine and well. My point was that putting an indicator of opinion (IMO, I believe, To the best of my knowledge...) next to a sentence that gives a pretty firm and certain stance on a certain aspect of Tolkien's subcreation, would be a good idea, especially when the subject discussed contains many 'inconsistencies and contradictions', as you yourself say.


Since those are matters of fact, putting an indicator of opinion next to them makes no sense.

I am very good about pointing out where I am expressing an opinion. I have noticed, however, that some people who disagree with the facts are very insistent on labelling them as my opinions.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 4, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> The practice of offering chopped up citations without properly summarizing Tolkien's point (or even addressing his thoughts on The Machine) is a pretty clear indication of a lack of understanding.


Is this a comment on a previous post? If so, which?



MichaelMartinez said:


> Does anyone alive today understand it as Tolkien did? No. But then, we can still remain faithful to the author's written commentaries, even if that requires noting inconsistencies and contradictions (of which there were several, where magic is concerned).


We also enjoy speculating, even where there is no proof in Tolkien's written works. These are not necessarily opinions, more "I wonder if..." Also, there are still those alive today who knew JRR Tolkien personally and have added to the sum of knowledge. I'm on this forum to have fun, as well as to understand Tolkien better.

By 'commentaries' do you mean Appendices and letters? This would be a very boring site indeed if all the posts consisted of people showing off how well they could pull out a quote from this or that tome. 



MichaelMartinez said:


> The very existence of those inconsistencies and contradictions really makes it impossible for anyone to reconstruct Tolkien's point-of-view without resorting to arguments of a magnitude similar to Andrew Wiles' solution to Fermat's Last Theorem (which, at the time it was announced, only about 100 people in the entire world were qualified to understand).


Eh?  



MichaelMartinez said:


> > But IIRC, we are never explicitly told the flashes of lightning on Weathortop came from Gandalf, though of course that is more than probable if not certain.
> 
> 
> There are other incidents: Gandalf's use of magic against Sauron's wolves in Eregion; Gandalf's flashes of light directed at the Nazgul in Minas Tirith; etc.


How does this prove anything about Weathertop?



> IMHO


In MY humble opinion, if Tolkien himself did not say that Gandalf's use of force was 'vulgar', then when you say that it was vulgar, it is your _opinion_, humble or otherwise.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 4, 2004)

@MichaelMartinez

Your comparison of Fermat's Last Theorem and understanding Tolkien is flawed. Fermat's Last Theorem rests upon mathematical principles, which we take to be unchanging, that is that mathematics will provide the same answer to Fermat's Last Theorem today, as it would have done in the Fermat's time. The problem arises in finding that answer, not the interpretation of it. If one comes up with another way of proving Fermat's Last Theorem then fine, but the original proof is still there, unchanged.

Tolkien was a man, who wrote books, and in doing so would have instilled something of himself in them. Understanding Tolkien is like trying to understand any other human being i.e. not governed by mathematical constants or procedures. One can form an opinion of Tolkien's works and attempt to come to an understanding of those works, just as one can with every other piece of literature in human history. Tolkien need not have imparted one specific meaning to something, or even any meaning at all. trying to understand him in the way one would understand mathematics seems both pointless and a waste of time.

I apologise for the off-topic nature of this post.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 4, 2004)

scotsboyuk said:


> @MichaelMartinez
> 
> Your comparison of Fermat's Last Theorem and understanding Tolkien is flawed. Fermat's Last Theorem rests upon mathematical principles...
> Tolkien was a man, who wrote books, and in doing so would have instilled something of himself in them. Understanding Tolkien is like trying to understand any other human being i.e. not governed by mathematical constants or procedures. ... trying to understand him in the way one would understand mathematics seems both pointless and a waste of time. I apologise for the off-topic nature of this post.



Don't apologize, SB, you're right on target! 

For mathematically grubby laymen like myself, I herewith supply a taste of what's going on here, what it is that Martinez is apparently trying to apply to analyzing Tolkien (the reason for which totally escapes me):

===============================

"I have discovered a marvelous proof to this theorem, that this margin is too narrow to contain", so had scribbled Pierre de Fermat, about 350 years ago, in the margin of a mathematics book he read. That theorem came to be known as Fermat's Last Theorem, and the attempt to prove it had baffled many mathematicians, both professionals and amateurs.

The equation x2+y2=z2 has many solutions where x, y, and z are integers, i.e. ,32+42=52, or 52+122=132. Such a solution is called a Pythagorean triplet, because according to Pythagoras' Theorem such a triplet represents the sides of a right-angled triangle. On a Babylonian clay tablet dated about 3,500 years ago (about 1,000 years preceding Pythagoras) there was found a list of fifteen Pythagorean triplets. It is reasonable to assume, according to the size of the numbers on the list, that its creator had a systematic way of finding Pythagorean triplets, but we do not know his method. A technique to create the infinite list of all Pythagorean triplets appears in Euclid's famous book, the Elements, which was written in the fourth century BC..."

Well enough of that. As far as trying to use this to analyze Tolkien, I see no relevance whatsoever.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 4, 2004)

'Find x' always seemed to be a form of magic to me  

Of myth, CS Lewis said "Its value is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by 'the veil of familiarity.' "(The Dethronement of Power: Tolkien and the Critics)

Greg Wrights says in 'Tolkien in Perspective' that "The astounding popular reaction to Tolkien's work now moving into the 21st century, may in fact be part of a post-modern response to the extreme rational bent of modernism. Tolkien's readers, like the author himself, have not personally embraced a vision of a spiritually impoverished present. Rather, his readers seemingly embrace the hope of recapturing a spirituality which truly believes that *all things are possible: that our possibilities are not bounded by what scientists * (or our parents)* tell us can or can't happen/*" (my emphasis). 

There is no religious spirituality in The Lord of the Rings, and in the story, the supernatural is synonymous with the magical. Indeed, the only call to a higher power in the whole book is done in Elvish, and that only to Earendil, empowering the glass of Galadriel. Religion is part of Lewis' 'veil of familiarity', and Tolkien understood this, revising his book to remove all traces of it, so that the myth and its magic could do its work.

I find nothing vulgar in Tolkien's magic. He is very careful not to overdose the reader with any magical solution, and strongly condemned Zimmerman's storyline for an animated LotR for its overuse of such mechanisms. This indicates to me the thought that Tolkien put into the magical aspects of his story. Any magic was always in keeping with the character. Galdalf, for instance, keeper of Narya the Great, Elven Ring of Power was a great wielder of fire. Elrond and his line were all healers (as was Aragorn, also of Luthien). Galadriel had an older power, which could see far and also hide much. The evil characters all had 'magical' power in their voices (among other weapons). Melkor and Sauron could both use fair speech to bend others to their will. Saruman and his slave Grima Wormtongue crippled the Kingdom of Rohan by that same power, which was still strong enough to sway the onlookers at Gandalf's confrontation of him, and to convince Treebeard that he was 'safe'.

Trees could walk and talk; magical in comparison with modernity, but that could be argued as just a strange species, were it not for the 'scion of the Eldest of Trees' found by Aragorn on Mindolluin, 'sapling of the line of Nimloth the fair; and that was a seedling of Falathilion, and that a fruit of Telperion of many names, Eldest of Trees.' dormant for hundreds of years until the King's return - a truly magical event.

Even the rocks and minerals of the land held their own kind of magic; gems shone with an inner light; metals turned into swords had personalities (Anglachel) or recognised an enemy and shone at their approach. Even Merry's blade was wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor, and so brought about the mortality of the Witch King so that Eowyn could slay him.

In none of the above do I find vulgarity, but a subtlety beyond the ability of most storytellers; the genius of Tolkien.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 4, 2004)

@Eledhwen

That all depends on what one regards as vulgar. I think Tolkien's use of magic is not vulgar in the sense that it is not used gratuitously, but there are instances of 'vulgar magic', in the sense of 'fantastical' physical manifestations of raw magical power.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 4, 2004)

OED: Vulgar: 1. Lacking sophistication or good taste > making explicit reference to sex or bodily functions. 2. (dated) characteristic of or belonging to ordinary people. Origin: Middle English, from Latin vulgaris, from _vulgus_ 'common people'

You would need quite a leap to fit the above definition into yours. Maybe we should be using a different word than 'vulgar'. Also, the 'raw'power you describe seems more akin to Mount Doom, or an atom bomb than to Gandalf, who caused no peripheral damage and used only as much power as was necessary for the occasion. Maybe you have been swayed by the film, where Gandalf is more aggressive, even pugnacious.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 4, 2004)

@Eledhwen

Perhaps a term other than 'vulgar' would be more appropriate, but, to me at least, it gives a good acocunt of certain invocations of magic. When magic is direct, to the point and unashamedly open about its nature, then I think 'vulgar' is a term that can be used to describe it, not as a means of criticism, but as a way of indicating a 'rawness' to it. Dictionary definitions often don't represent every context a word may be employed in.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 7, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> We also enjoy speculating, even where there is no proof in Tolkien's written works. These are not necessarily opinions, more "I wonder
> if..."


Yes, but as has not yet become apparent to you, some people also enjoy misrepresenting facts as opinions and so forth.



> ...Also, there are still those alive today who knew JRR Tolkien personally and have added to the sum of knowledge. I'm on this forum to have fun, as well as to understand Tolkien better.


Regrettably, not everyone shares your admirable goals.



> By 'commentaries' do you mean Appendices and letters?


No, I was referring to his essays (many of which were incomplete), letters, author's notes, and story fragments in toto.



> This would be a very boring site indeed if all the posts consisted of people showing off how well they could pull out a quote from this or that tome.


The citations would be vastly improved and much more interesting (and valuable to all) if they were not presented in such a badly edited fashion as I pointed out above.



> How does this prove anything about Weathertop?


The point was intended to illustrate the "vulgar" uses of magic by Tolkien's lead magician/wizard. Had I wanted to press the Weathertop issue, I would have quoted Gandalf at the Council of Elrond.



> In MY humble opinion, if Tolkien himself did not say that Gandalf's use of force was 'vulgar', then when you say that it was vulgar, it is your _opinion_, humble or otherwise.


Your *humble* opinion is noted.



scotsboyuk said:


> @MichaelMartinez
> 
> Your comparison of Fermat's Last Theorem and understanding Tolkien is flawed. Fermat's Last Theorem rests upon mathematical principles,...


No, Fermat's Last Theorem was a marginal note claiming he had proven a mathematical principle in an "elegant" fashion which, regrettably, was too lengthy to fit into the margin of the book.

People spent 300 years (give or take) trying to "reconstruct" that proof, and no one has ever succeeded (not even Andrew Wiles, who had to use branches of mathematics unknown to Fermat to prove Fermat's idea).



> ... which we take to be unchanging, that is that mathematics will provide the same answer to Fermat's Last Theorem today, as it would have done in the Fermat's time.


See above.



> Tolkien was a man, who wrote books, and in doing so would have instilled something of himself in them. Understanding Tolkien is like trying to understand any other human being i.e. not governed by mathematical constants or procedures.


Tolkien was a man who composed a complex literary theory and then put it into practical application. Understanding Tolkien requires understanding his theory (which is not documented, only inferred by a few commentators) and comparing the works he published in his lifetime to that theory.

Since Tolkien didn't bother to write down the theory for anyone to learn, the comparison to Fermat stands.

Plenty of people form opinions about Tolkien's works. I have never had a problem with that.

It's all these personal attacks that people insist on dragging into the discussions when I (or others) fail to cave in to their obviously superior analyses of Tolkien that make things so tedious.



Eledhwen said:


> OED: Vulgar: 1. Lacking sophistication or good taste > making explicit reference to sex or bodily functions. 2. (dated) characteristic of or belonging to ordinary people. Origin: Middle English, from Latin vulgaris, from _vulgus_ 'common people'


This is exactly the kind of poor citation that I referred to above. You guys just sloppily chop whatever you feel suits your purpose out of a larger text and then present that fragment as if it were somehow a fair and complete representation of the original source.

Really, if you cannot find sufficient support for your point of view from a complete text, then why bother chopping it up? It's not like someone cannot counterpost a much better citation when you do that.

For example:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vulgar

Look at the section drawn from Princeton University's Wordnet (scroll down the page past the first few definitions):



> *vulgar*
> 
> adj 1: lacking refinement or cultivation or taste; "he had coarse manners but a first-rate mind"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "an untutored and uncouth human being"; "an uncouth soldier--a real tough guy"; "appealing to the vulgar taste for violence"; "the vulgar display of the newly rich" [syn: coarse, common, rough-cut, uncouth] 2: of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses" [syn: common, plebeian, unwashed] 3: being or characteristic of or appropriate to everyday language; "common parlance"; "a vernacular term"; "vernacular speakers"; "the vulgar tongue of the masses"; "the technical and vulgar names for an animal species" [syn: common, vernacular] 4: conspicuously and tastelessly indecent; "coarse language"; "a crude joke"; "crude behavior"; "an earthy sense of humor"; "a revoltingly gross expletive"; "a vulgar gesture"; "full of language so vulgar it should have been edited" [syn: coarse, crude, earthy, gross]
> 
> ...


Now, your fragment from the OED is reasonably included in this much expanded definition.

However, the Webster's entry opens with:



> *vulgar*
> 
> \Vul"gar\, a. [L. vulgaris, from vulgus the multitude, the common people; of uncertain origin: cf. F. vulgaire. Cf. Divulge.] 1. Of or pertaining to the mass, or multitude, of people; common; general; ordinary; public; hence, in general use; vernacular. ``As common as any the most vulgar thing to sense. '' -- Shak.


And it was this sense Tolkien had in mind when he wrote "...from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician." Scotsboyuk, when you wrote "In the LOTR magic is a subtle force, vulgar displays of magical power are not in keeping with the tone of the books" I saw nothing of the sense of either "lacking good taste" or "sex" or "bodily functions" in your words.

Rather, you specifically stated that magic in LoTR "is a subtle force", and I pointed out examples showing that it is NOT a subtle force. It is indeed a raw, *vulgar* force (that is, it is COMMON).

At most, Eledhwen, only a small leap is required from your use of the word (unclear to me) to mine.

Gandalf was not a peripheral parlor magician. He was a being of great power who could drop tons of rock on a Balrog, destroy an ancient stone bridge, and wage an 11-day battle which culminated on the peak of a mountain with fire and lightning.

Why try to downplay his abilities? He was of the same order of beings (the Valar) who literally gave shape to the universe, including the creation of the stars and planets from whatever primordial materials Iluvatar provided them with.

Now, while that is hardly COMMON, it is certainly not SUBTLE.


----------



## Walter (Dec 7, 2004)

Let me see if I got that correctly:

1) None of the participants in the thread, except MichaelMartinez, has understood Tolkien's intentions for - and his use of - magic...

2) Understanding Fermat's Last Theorem is a prerequisite for understanding the _complex literary theory_ which Tolkien _composed and then put it into practical application._ And thus, _understanding Tolkien requires understanding his theory (which is not documented, only inferred by a few commentators_...), like MichaelMartinez...I presume...

3) Tolkien used both, subtle and vulgar magic, but for the vulgar magic, he had exactly the definition of _vulgar_ in mind, which MichaelMartinez quoted above and which is taken from Webster's dictionary...

Is that it?


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 7, 2004)

Dear Michael,
Every single quoted definition of 'vulgar' you highlighted included the word 'common'. My OED quote condensed that into a much shorter post, to point out that the words 'magic' and 'common' (and by association, 'vulgar') don't really go together in a description of Gandalf.

Humbly yours, Eledhwen


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 7, 2004)

Walter said:


> Let me see if I got that correctly:
> 
> 1) None of the participants in the thread, except MichaelMartinez, has understood Tolkien's intentions for - and his use of - magic...


Apparently so.



> 2) Understanding Fermat's Last Theorem is a prerequisite for understanding the _complex literary theory_ which Tolkien _composed and then put it into practical application._ And thus, _understanding Tolkien requires understanding his theory (which is not documented, only inferred by a few commentators_...), like MichaelMartinez...I presume...


Apparently so.



> 3) Tolkien used both, subtle and vulgar magic, but for the vulgar magic, he had exactly the definition of _vulgar_ in mind, which MichaelMartinez quoted above and which is taken from Webster's dictionary...


Apparently so.

@MichaelMartinez

I really do not want to sound vulgar here (pun very much intended), but I fail to see the point of your diatribe on the shortcomings of everyone else's opinions. I thought the idea of this forum was to share one's ideas and opinions on Tolkien, not to have it infered that one's opinions and ideas are not as important as another member's.
Whether someone has a great deal of knowledge of Tolkien or not, I still value their opinions.

Your point about 'personal attacks' seems rather childish to say the least, perhaps you misinterpreted someone _holding a different opinion to your own_ as a personal attack.

Your analysis of my point regarding Fermat's Last Theorem is flawed. Fermat's proof must have rested upon mathematical principles, principles that do not change. Whether his proof was a marginal note or otherwise, does not change the underlying fact that it would have been formulated using unchanging mathematical principles, those very same principles would still work today. What exactly does Fermat's Last Theorem have to do with understanding Tolkien? I have no idea; in fact if relevance to understanding Tolkien were petrol, Fermat's Last Theorem wouldn't have enough to power an ant's motorbike around the outside of a penny.

As for Tolkien's literary 'theory', could it be that Tolkien's 'literary theory' was simply to write a good story?


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 7, 2004)

*Mod's comment.*

Can everybody please take the time to think carefully before continuing to post in this thread. I do not wish to close it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 7, 2004)

*Re: Mod's comment.*



Gothmog said:


> Can everybody please take the time to think carefully before continuing to post in this thread. I do not wish to close it.



In an effort to get this thread back on track, I requote a prior post:

===============================

It seems that there have been many legitimate definitions of the word "magic" on the posts so far. What about the kind of (traditional usage of the word) "magic" that is so prevalent in (to use a convenient nexus) the Harry Potter stories: that is, effects implemented through the use of wands, incantations, potions, crystal balls, tea leaves, etc.? What are the mechanisms by which such manifestations take place — if they in fact do? If such mechanisms can be described and understood, would the processes still be called "magic?"

It seems to me that what we called "magic" is the term used for those processes whose mechanisms we do not at present understand. Comments?

Barley


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 7, 2004)

@Barley

If we do define magic as being those processes, which we do not understand, then I suppose we must extend that definition to exclude those processes that we may not understand, but that we can guess at. For that definition of magic to work one must be completely ignorant of how the 'magic' works.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 8, 2004)

scotsboyuk said:


> @Barley
> 
> If we do define magic as being those processes, which we do not understand, then I suppose we must extend that definition to exclude those processes that we may not understand, but that we can guess at. For that definition of magic to work one must be completely ignorant of how the 'magic' works.


That would beg the assumption that your guess is anywhere near the mark. Science used to say that geese were born from barnacles (ok, it was a _long_ time ago, but the principle holds).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 8, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ...Science used to say that geese were born from barnacles (ok, it was a _long_ time ago, but the principle holds).



Oh boy — do I wish we could discuss religion — I would have some things to say!

Barley


----------



## scotsboyuk (Dec 8, 2004)

@Eledhwen

Valid point you raise there, and I broadly agree with it. I think I should perhaps narrow my definition of 'guess', in this context, to mean an educated guess, based on solid proof of underlying factors. We might not know exactly how Gravity istransmitted yet, but we do have a good theory of it based on other factors, we do know about.

What interests me, is why Tolkien didn't make the magic in his works as 'flashy' or as 'obvious' as is the case with some other authors.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 8, 2004)

scotsboyuk said:


> @Eledhwen...What interests me, is why Tolkien didn't make the magic in his works as 'flashy' or as 'obvious' as is the case with some other authors.



I quite liked the understatement of it — it made it seem much more convincing and _real_ than the comic book convention of shouting SHAZAM! and having a blue lightning bolt come crashing down just to make a plateful of lembas or a mug of beer appear.

Barley


----------



## Walter (Dec 9, 2004)

Gothmog said:


> Can everybody please take the time to think carefully before continuing to post in this thread. I do not wish to close it.


Closing such threads - which are getting hot and steamy - usually helps these situations about as much, as closing the valves does help the situation of the pressure getting too high in a steam-engine...



Barliman Butterbur said:


> What about the kind of (traditional usage of the word) "magic" that is so prevalent in (to use a convenient nexus) the Harry Potter stories: that is, effects implemented through the use of wands, incantations, potions, crystal balls, tea leaves, etc.? What are the mechanisms by which such manifestations take place — if they in fact do? If such mechanisms can be described and understood, would the processes still be called "magic?"


Tolkien's magic is related to Rowling's magic in a similar way as Tolkien's elves are to Shakespeare's fairies...

If we put aside for now the machinery, what remains of Tolkien's magic is - IMO - mostly art and as such always subtle and sophisticated, never vulgar (regardless which definition of vulgar we prefer) or laborious.

Now of course we find a few exceptions where we encounter magic similar to the magic we find in Harry Potter, but that can be found mostly in the earlier parts of his legendarium (or those tales which were - in concept - dedicated to children like _Roverandom_, _The Hobbit_ or the earlier parts of _The Lord of the Rings_).

And on some occasions magic is mostly "implied" by the reader than explicitly mentioned by Tolkien, those are - again IMO – often allusions to old myths rather than examples of Tolkien's magic. Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, to name but one, reminds me of the myths of gods fighting primeval monsters like Marduk fighting Tiamat, or Zeus Typhoeus (alas – Xena doesn't come in that tale) or Thorr the Miðgarðsormr. Magic it is only as much as, for example, the shaping of the world by the Valar and Maiar is... 



> It seems to me that what we called "magic" is the term used for those processes whose mechanisms we do not at present understand. Comments?


That is by and large congruent with Frazer's definition of magic as a predecessor of first religion and later science, I mentioned in a previous post. Maybe check out the (much abbreviated) version of _The Golden Bough_, which is available online (http://www.bartleby.com/196/).



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Oh boy — do I wish we could discuss religion — I would have some things to say!


But that would only lead us further away from the topic of this thread...



scotsboyuk said:


> What interests me, is why Tolkien didn't make the magic in his works as 'flashy' or as 'obvious' as is the case with some other authors.


Because he had a different understanding of magic, which can be gathered to some degree from the parts of his letters and of _On Fairy-tales_ cited earlier in this thread.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 9, 2004)

I'm reading a novel about Arthur Pendragon at the moment, and the magic has more pots and pans than Harry Potter. It distracts from the story and gets boring. Harry Potter itself, of course, has the flashy magic - wands and all, but in that context it seems to work. Tolkien's Middle-earth is itself infused with magic, and its ultimate source is the Ainur and the blessed realm. The setup does not lend itself to clumsy magic, and only Gandalf gets to zap his enemies (the goblins in the Misty Mountains, Weathertop, the Pellennor, etc) with powers no doubt enhanced by his Ring. This restraint, avoiding HP style duels, keeps Middle-earth believable as well as mysterious.


----------



## Walter (Dec 9, 2004)

Gothmog said:


> Can everybody please take the time to think carefully before continuing to post in this thread. I do not wish to close it.


Closing such threads - which are getting hot and steamy - usually helps these situations about as much, as closing the valves does help the situation of the pressure getting too high in a steam-engine...



Barliman Butterbur said:


> What about the kind of (traditional usage of the word) "magic" that is so prevalent in (to use a convenient nexus) the Harry Potter stories: that is, effects implemented through the use of wands, incantations, potions, crystal balls, tea leaves, etc.? What are the mechanisms by which such manifestations take place — if they in fact do? If such mechanisms can be described and understood, would the processes still be called "magic?"


Tolkien's magic is related to Rowling's magic in a similar way as Tolkien's elves are to Shakespeare's fairies...

If we put aside for now the machinery, what remains of Tolkien's magic is - IMO - mostly art and as such always subtle and sophisticated, never vulgar (regardless which definition of vulgar we prefer) or laborious.

Now of course we find a few exceptions where we encounter magic similar to the magic we find in Harry Potter, but that can be found mostly in the earlier parts of his legendarium (or those tales which were - in concept - dedicated to children like _Roverandom_, _The Hobbit_ or the earlier parts of _The Lord of the Rings_).

And on some occasions magic is mostly "implied" by the reader than explicitly mentioned by Tolkien, those are - again IMO – often allusions to old myths rather than examples of Tolkien's magic. Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, to name but one, reminds me of the myths of gods fighting primeval monsters like Marduk fighting Tiamat, or Zeus Typhoeus (alas – Xena doesn't come in that tale) or Thorr the Miðgarðsormr (Tolkien mentioning the _nameless things gnawing the earth_ can be seen as an allusion to the _unnamed serpents gnawing the roots of the world-ash Yggdrasil_). Magic it is only as much as, for example, the shaping of the world by the Valar and Maiar is... 



> It seems to me that what we called "magic" is the term used for those processes whose mechanisms we do not at present understand. Comments?


That is by and large congruent with Frazer's definition of magic as a predecessor of first religion and later science, I mentioned in a previous post. Maybe check out the (much abbreviated) version of _The Golden Bough_, which is available online (http://www.bartleby.com/196/).



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Oh boy — do I wish we could discuss religion — I would have some things to say!


But that would only lead us further away from the topic of this thread...



scotsboyuk said:


> What interests me, is why Tolkien didn't make the magic in his works as 'flashy' or as 'obvious' as is the case with some other authors.


Because he had a different understanding of magic, which can be gathered to some degree from the parts of his letters and of _On Fairy-tales_ cited earlier in this thread.


----------



## Gothmog (Dec 9, 2004)

Walter said:


> Closing such threads - which are getting hot and steamy - usually helps these situations about as much, as closing the valves does help the situation of the pressure getting too high in a steam-engine...


I agree with you, which is why I try to avoid such actions whenever possible


----------

