Magic in Middle-earth

[Nukapei]

I've been thinking (never a good thing! ) about the difference between modern fantasy epics and Lord of the Rings, and one thing that really stuck out in my mind was their different approaches to magic. Whereas most modern fantasies are so chock-full of magic it's hard to breathe, Tolkien is much more subtle in his magic usage. The only things I could think about that were "magical" were the Rings of Power, and the Istari.

Then I got to thinking about Lúthien, and the way she used magic in helping Beren steal the Silmaril from Morgoth, including rescuing him from Sauron. Now I am confused. What role does magic play in Middle-earth? Obviously it can be wielded by semi-divine beings (like the Maia, and the Istari), and contained in an object to be wielded by those who control it (like Lúthien and her suit, and Frodo and the Ring), but what else? Is it the object or the person that has the magic?

[Neithan]

An interesting topic, nonetheless for having been discussed before. The nature of Tolkien's magic is very different than that of other fantasy books. I already posted something about the nature of magic in another thread so allow me to reproduce it here.

----------------------------------------------------

Magic, I believe, refers always to those things that the speaker does not understand. Therefore the word is used for many different things that are not really related at all. Here I will describe several different forms of "magic" as I see them.

Dwarf: the Dwarves are said to use magic especially when making secret doors. I think that Dwarf magic is nothing more than a type of technology as Mithalwen said earlier.

Ents: the drink that Treebeard gave the hobbits could be said to be magical, but it seems only natural that "tree people" would have such drinks.

Elves: they seem to have great skill in making things: the cloaks, the gems of the Noldor, the Ships of the Teleri, and the Palántiri stones for example. Those Elves who beheld the light of the two trees also had a power within them that repelled evil. Also they could sing songs of power, more on this in a minute.

Tom Bombadil: Tom was one with the land he inhabited, it's life was his. He was master of everything that dwelled in said land and everything he commanded happened.

Valar/Maiar: they shaped the world and their power flowed in every inch of it. Therefore they could, to some extent (depending on their personal power), command the matter of the world. They also sang songs of power.

Music and Magic: Although I can not claim to fully understand how this worked, music had power in Tolkiens world. The foundation of the world was the music of the Ainur, and Sauron had a contest with Finrod using songs of power. And Tom Bombadil used songs of a sort to. There were other examples of course but you get the idea.

This is not a complete list by any means (and you could probably have an entire thread for each type of magic and how they worked) but I was just trying to get the point across that what is referred to as "magic" is not one thing but many different things.

Also, I think that the different kinds of "magic" could be learned by the other races, so that "Dwarf Magic" could be learned by Elves for example. However there are exeptions to this, Tom Bombadil for example. Also there are some things that the Ainur could do that lesser beings could not because they don't have the power required.

---------------------------------------------------------

Luthien is a mix between an Elf and a Maia so her powers would reflect that.
Of course there is much more to discuss about magic than what is contained in that rather condensed and simplified version.

[Nukapei]

Umm . . . wow. Thanks, Neithan, for that concise and well-written post. That's very helpful! And, you're right, most of what we call "magic" is nothing more than technology or just what we don't understand.

And I'm sorry to repeat the subject. I looked, but couldn't find a thread on magic. And I always remember that Search option after I make a complete fool of myself by repeating a subject people just finished a big debate about last week! (I've actually been chewed out before for this, but it didn't seem to work!)

Thanks again!

[Neithan]

And I'm sorry to repeat the subject.

Just because it has been discussed before doesn't mean we can't say anything new on the subject. I am going to browse through some of the Magic threads for inspiration but in the meantime, if anyone wants give their own thoughts on magic or argue with or expand on what I said then they should go for it.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neithan

I am going to browse through some of the Magic threads for inspiration

To assist browsing, here are some of the highlights:

Magic v Power
The Istari’s Magic ……. And other beings?
Magic in Middle-earth
Music and Magic in Middle Earth
Differences in magic

Not all of the threads that have explored Tolkien's depiction of magic by any means, but a good selection nevertheless.

In addition, here are Tolkien's own thoughts on the nature of magic in LotR, from The Letters:

I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other 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 psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is 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 could 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 build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant 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.

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)

Traditionally, I believe, the terms magia and goeteia are used to distinguish between "Angelic magic" on the one hand and "Demonic magic" on the other. It appears from this passage, however, that Tolkien is using them to distinguish between that magic which affects the world physically, and that which does not but which is merely illusionary.

[Neithan]

Thank you SpM for the links and the quote.
Just a quick thought before I plunge into the threads,

I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word

I think that Tolkien is acknowleging that the different kinds of "magic" are not necessarily related. It does seem that I will have to revise my ideas on how the magic of the Ainur works though.

[aiea]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Quote:
I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other 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 psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is 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 could 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).
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 build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant 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.

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)

I don't think you missed the most important part
The major difference it is
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-
and

The basic motive for magia is immediacy---reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect.

And then there is the contradiction on se because:
a magia, producing real results --- for specific beneficent purposes.

But who decide what is beneficent ?
"Own power" doesn't mean automatically evil... it is more dangerous when people believe they yet know what is beneficent for others...
So magia it is obtain in the most effective way a desired result... And it has to do with time.
I f i wish fruits i can force the tree results with some kind of magic fertilizer , hormones and my aim could be a very beneficial for others too (there is hungry people).
For other fruit eaters not for the tree !
And this fruit shall loose some natural magic force that is its "consonance" ,Harmony with the Whole.
But the real consonance with eternity with the whole is to do nothing !
The first magic was cast with the command word "EA"and it caused clash between forces,but it has inside the Will of Iluvatar that is Light, Good.,Love..
Every time one tries to do something one could to do with his personal,individual, exclusive way the will of Iluvatar.
The bigger the purpose the bigger the magic to made it effective. But Good and Evil are very dangerous labels.

The magic knowledge to did the 3 elven rings it is the same that did the One.
To preserve is a way to rule.
The little prince put the rose,"its "rose under a crystal bell to preserve it from winds and worms, but she asked to take off it because she shall die without rain...
But sparingly, for a short term it was a right magic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mirror of Galadriel and Palantirs.
You don't know what they show you.
It is all true, in the field of possibility.
But you have a strong Faith and Hope and Mission to look at it.
Denethor(no hope) and Saruman (no Faith) have seen that all the tentative to block Sauron militar forces shall be vain.
So to ally with him to try to preserve (Order (other 2 term than now i not remember) the new world or fall in desperation it is a "True" vision.
To hurry up to help Home is the right decision for Sam Gamgee if he not see all the context.
Revelation is always a shock to whom we seldom are ready!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7 rings worked very alike the 3. It shorten the the idea or desire and the result or effect. But for a man preserve himself means become a wraith. And to exercise power means be subject to a Real power.
The One (ring)is the imperfect image of the One (Eru)...
How a man could imagine Absolute Power without surrender to him ? So he needs
a surrogate, an Idol. And that works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The wizard staff
A symbol of the forces that they mastered in themselves:but a material symbol so them could use that kind of energies) believe that they had 5 different stones on them)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were not just the 20 rings,but many lesser rings.
Gandalf believed Bilbo ring for a minor one . These could give invisibility so them always worked with Light...

[Neithan]

O.K., this is kinda rushed but if I don't do this now then it will never get done.

As stated before several times (by me, Fordim, and Saucepan Man) magic is a word that is used to describe things which we do not understand. In this post I will be using it to refer to anything that the hobbits would describe as "magical".

Let's start with the power of the Ainur. The Ainur were spiritual in nature. That is, they were not incarnates. When we, as incarnates, want to effect the physical world in some way, moving an object for example, we use our physical strength to pick it up and put it somewhere else. The more physical strength we have, the more we can lift/move. The Ainur, when not clothed, have no physical form in which to interact with their environment, so their spirits have the ability to interact directly without the assistance of a body, this is what is referred to as their magic. Just as we use technology in conjunction with our physical strength to achieve great things, so could they use their knowledge with their inner strength to do things.
So now that we have the basics we can talk about the different forms and uses of the Ainur's magic. As the quote provided by Saucepan Man says, the magic that I have described above can be divided into two catagories, magia (physical) and goeteia (illusionary), or if you prefer the "powers of mind and hand" that the Wizards had. An example of magia would be the conjuring of fire, and example of goeteia would be the disguises of Luthien and Felegund in the story of Beren and Luthien. The quote gives a good account of the two types so I will not go further here.
There is also a third type of magic. This kind has no effect on the physical world. It is a mental power. I believe that Osanwe-Kenta describes the ability to look into another's mind and sometimes even change what is there. This can be blocked however by closing one's mind. Nothing can penetrate a closed mind. Incarnates find it more difficult to use this ability because the body dims the thoughts of others. Communication between the minds of two incarnates is very difficult but can be aided by affinity, urgency, or authority.

There is also the role of music and the "word of command". Here is a quote from FotR when Gandalf fights the Balrog for control of the door,

Gimli took his arm & helped him down to a seat on the step. 'What happened away up there at the door?' he asked. 'Did you meet the beaterof drums?'
'I do not know,' answered Gandalf. 'But I found myself faced by something that I have not met before.I could think of nothing to do but to try & put a shutting spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly takes time, & even then the door can be broken by strength...
Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door, & the orcs themselves were afraid & fell silent.It laid hold of the iron ring, & then it percieved me & my spell.
What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge.The counter spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control & began to open.I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door broke in pieces.'

When Gandalf speaks of "spells" and says that he knows many of them, what I think he means is that he knows many ways in which to use his power to gain the desired effect. Just as we do with technology, for example if we wanted to contact someone we have regular phones, cell phones, email, text messaging, and other ways in which to do so.
Now we come to the "word of command". When an Ainu uses his/her magic, presumably only thoughts are required. So they are channeling their power through their thoughts, words help focus thoughts hence it is sometimes easier to work out a problem if you are speaking your thoughts out loud or writing them down. The word of command works in much the same way, the casters thoughts become more focused and so their magic gets an extra boost. Music is the next level, it brings you to a higher plain of thought and also gives you not only words but also purposeful rythm to focus your thoughts.

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.
This is what we know about the staffs:

1) That the Wizards seemed to use them when casting spells.

2) That Saruman seemed to lose a part of his power when his staff was broken.

3) That Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

Well, my first thought was that the staffs could just be for show, to give people "something else that would seem to explain" their powers, like Gandalf did with the smoke when Bilbo disappeared at his party. But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power. I think it more likely that, since the Istari are said to be going to Middle Earth "with the consent of Eru" then Eru tied these staffs to their powers. Gandalf could still use quite a bit of his magic without a staff because as they became more corrupt the staffs became more bound to them. So Gandalf could do more without his staff. Another explanation could be that Eru intervened and allowed Gandalf to use magic. All of this is far-fetched but it is the best explanation that I could come up with. You can criticise the theory all you want but until someone comes up with a better theory that takes into account all of the evidence I am sticking by it.

So that about covers the Ainur, time to move on to Elves. First I must explain that the powers mentioned above do not apply only to the Ainur. They can be learned by other races. Incarnates find it more difficult to perform this kind of magic because their spirits are bound to their bodies and also because they have much less potent spirits (presumably Ainur who become incarnated find it somewhat more difficult to perform magic "around" the body as well). The High Elves were tutored by the Valar and so were much more learned than other types, this combined with the fact that those who saw the light of the Trees had some small portion of the power of the Ainur within them, made them much more adept at this type of magic than other races. The Sindarin were the next in line. They did not have the power of those who had beheld the light of the Trees, but they did have Melian to teach them. They learned many things from her and their "magic" was that they could use this knowledge, mainly to create wonderful items (something that the High Elves could also do), but they could also use the "Ainur magic" to a small extent. Last there came the Silvan Elves. These had an amazing knowledge of the woodlands of Middle Earth that came from the long ages that they lived there. They used this knowledge to create many things.

Men also could learn to do these things though their spirits were weaker and their knowledge was limited by their shorter lifespans.

Dwarves, like I said before, used mainly their knowledge and technology to do the things that they did. They may also have had some spiritual ability mixed with it.

A note on things like miruvor and lembas, they were basically created by using herbs or whatever that had medicinal properties there need not have been any "spellwork" involved.

Note: I organized this post by race which may be misleading, there is no reason that one race could not learn the magic that is primarily used by another.

PS- I avioded using any "technical" terms so that anyone would be able to understand what I am saying. Also I summerized from Osanwe-Kenta because I didn't want to make this post longer by stuffing it full of quotes.

PPS-

Originally posted by Fingolfin II
I think the bit about Hobbits that SpM was referring to was somewhere in the start of The Hobbit.

We were both right, I just checked out The Hobbit and it basically says the same thing that was in the Prologue to LotR.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

It's also entirely possible that "magic" refers to two different things. The Lorien elves used advanced camoflauge, extremely nutrional food, and other types of technology Tolkien could have easily seen or even used in the Great War. What the Fellowship saw as magic, could easily have been a form of modern invention, like the Dwarves, or the Numenoreans.
Examples include:

Orthanc- Unbreakable Numenorean stone
Mythryl- invincible rings
Blasting-Fire- All too well described by Peter Jackson's movies
Fireworks


Real "magic" probably refers to what we consider to be magical. That is, the powers of the Eldar in the old days and the Valar, both in Creation and Middle-Earth

Wizardry- Used by both wizards and elf-lords
Rings
Alien life to ME- Mallorns, the white tree
"Genetic" Engineering- Orcs, Trolls, Fel Beasts, Uruks, Wargs
Phial of Galadriel
Undeath- Natural (Oathbreakers, ghosts) or artifical (Nazgul, wraiths)
Elf-ships

[Gurthang]

Originally posted by Neithan

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.

I've been in a discussion about Gandalf's staff before. If you want to read it, it is this thread.

My thoughts on the wizard's staves is that they are merely tools. In themselves, they are really nothing special. But in the hand of a master (being a wizard), they can be used to more effectively administer magic. So if the staff is broken, it doesn't make the wizard less powerful, it just lessens his ability to transfer his power to the physical.

Originally posted by Neithan

Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

He still had the Ring of Fire. He could have used that in much the same way that he was using his staff. It gave him a way to turn his power into 'magic'.

Now, one thing that I think has been overlooked: Dragon magic. It is known that Dragons can cast spells with their eyes, simply by looking at a person and enchanting them. But where does that ability fall in with the other forms of magic that Neithan listed above?

The spell casting ability of Dragons is very unique, in that the casting is very physical (the Dragon has to actually look to enchant), but the effect is closer to an illusionary effect, meaning it effects the victim's minds. This is very strange. It seems completely backwards. With elves, wizards, and men, the casting is spiritual, and the result is physical. With Dragons, the casting bound to the physical, but the results are on a spiritual/mental level.

This creates a dilemma in the magic theory that we have created. I'd personally have to put Dragon magic in its own category. It seems closer to the 'true magic' that we think of than any of the other examples.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I ask forgiveness in advance, as I know this post wanders all over the place...

Tolkien, obviously, knew very well what a ‘spel’ was: a discourse or narrative told by someone. In the case of the magical spells “cast” by his characters, then, they are not doing anything ‘un’ or even ‘supernatural’ they are just telling particular kinds of stories or narratives.

I like your treatment of the word "spell" here, Fordim. It reminds me of the times I spent listening to my husband deliver lectures to students. He convinced them to enjoy learning, and many of his students were aghast after the fact that medieval literature could be so interesting and even relevant! In this way, he is a magician, since your average college freshman might not utter the terms "Freshman Composition" and "fun" in the same breath.

Just as the ‘magic’ that lies behind the Lorien cloaks or the One Ring are really just forms of ‘technology’ that we don’t understand, so too are the spells cast really just forms (or even dialects) of language that we don’t know. In effect, when Gandalf casts his spell on the door he is speaking a ‘stone-language’ and ‘convincing’ the door to remain shut.

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself. And what of Sauron's seeming "mastery" of the Stone? I'd say it is nothing more than an amplification and transmission of his basic nature, and all he does through the Stone is in keeping with the blindness and malice of his black soul. One wonders what "spel" was possessed and used by Fëanor when he created the stones; Gandalf himself wonders at the possibility of using the stone to look back at the West and see Fëanor at work. He wonders at the initial nature of the stone and not at how it might be used for his own benefit, as do Saruman and Denethor. And the fact that Aragorn has a rightful claim to its use is interesting as well, as it must tie in to the "spel" laid upon the Stones when they were gifted to Elendil. Art deeper than we ourselves possess, indeed!

Neithan: But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power.

It is my conjecture that Gandalf spoke matter of factly when he says "Your staff is broken." The actual breaking simply reflects the state in which Saruman already finds himself. Saruman might have been maintaining an illusion with his voice and appearance for the benefit of Theoden and the assembled group, but Gandalf simply speaks a truth that uncovers a veil thrown rather feebly by Saruman, and the staff, which was, in fact, already broken, is now obviously broken to all who look upon it. Perhaps also, the staff is what we might call a "convincer." If the fearsome nature of a wizard brandishing his staff and uttering a "spel" is not convincing enough, he can use it to knock the unbeliever over the head!

Thanks also for the link to davem's illuminating post, Fordim!

from davem's post on the other thread: This is interesting, as it seems to show two kinds of magic at work - spell-casting, & the word of Command. It seems that casting spells is easier than speaking a word of Command. It appears the latter is reserved for extreme circumstances.

Somehow this distinction makes perfect sense in many realms. It would, for instance, take a whole lot more energy to force a chemical reaction that was not thermodynamically favorable than it would be to bring one about that was possible and only needed a bit of a push to reach its proper delta S I think the term is (thermodynamics class was sometime in the 1980's...showing my age and creaky brain here...). Anyway, my point is that since nature and reality is large and tends toward one thing, the attempt to wrench it away from its natural state and turn it another way must be taxing indeed and carry with it many unforeseen and dire consequences. In yet another flight off the deep end, I have heard Wiccans tell of curses cast in order to bring an evil fate on another person. Such spells were said to rebound ten times upon the caster if they were not justified. I'd say this fate befell Sauron not only in the drowning of Numenor, but for once and all when his whole "Ring strategy" backfired spectacularly.

It all seems to tie in to being "with Nature" or "against Nature." I hope I've actually said something useful in this post, as it has been all over the place and for that, I apologize.

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lyta

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself.

Perhaps the 'art' to which Gandalf refers isncludes Osanwe (or should that be 'sanwe'?). Maybe the stones amplify the individual's innate ability to communicate by thought, but therein lies the danger of them - simply, by amplifying that ability they make the individual more vulnerable to a more powerful mind. The individual using a stone is 'stretching' himself, & in doing so making himself more open to anyone at the other end. Perhaps it is necessary to withold ones 'unwill' to a greater extent when using these 'amplifiers'?

Another question which occurs is whether such use would strengthen or actually weaken the individual's innate capacity for thought communication if used regularly. Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'?

One could extend the idea - was the use of 'unnatural' magic (ie magic which has to be learned & mastered, rather than 'magical' abilities the individual is born with) equally 'weakening' for the individual. I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.

I would conjecture that Gandalf is warning against the dangers of dependence on technology, on the 'Machine'. Easy access to power is seductive but eventually it corrupts - by weakening the individual if not by 'corrupting' them. The danger of any 'power' which is not in born is simply that - if its not innate then the ability to control it isn't innate either....

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nukapei

I've been thinking (never a good thing! ) about the difference between modern fantasy epics and Lord of the Rings, and one thing that really stuck out in my mind was their different approaches to magic. Whereas most modern fantasies are so chock-full of magic it's hard to breathe, Tolkien is much more subtle in his magic usage. The only things I could think about that were "magical" were the Rings of Power, and the Istari.

Well, we came up with many occurences of magic.

Originally Posted by Nukapei

Then I got to thinking about Lúthien, and the way she used magic in helping Beren steal the Silmaril from Morgoth, including rescuing him from Sauron. Now I am confused. What role does magic play in Middle-earth? Obviously it can be wielded by semi-divine beings (like the Maia, and the Istari), and contained in an object to be wielded by those who control it (like Lúthien and her suit, and Frodo and the Ring), but what else? Is it the object or the person that has the magic?

(Underlining mine)

What role does magic play in Middle-earth? - it's just there. It doesn't come out of the blue to help a certain being accomplish something; it's just, erm, not being used at certain times, if you'll forgive this rough terminology.

Is it the object or the person that has the magic? - I'd say both. However, some objects could be said to be simply advanced technology, things refined by deep knowledge and superb skill of the maker.


The Rings of Power confuse me. They require all three things above: the magic (or should I say inner power/will/abilities?) of the wielder, great skill, and their own magic.

It's late and I need to sleep. Someone help me with this please.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

What role does magic play in Middle-earth? - it's just there. It doesn't come out of the blue to help a certain being accomplish something; it's just, erm, not being used at certain times, if you'll forgive this rough terminology.

Sometimes it doesn't hurt to go to the dictionary.

1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces
2. mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment.
3. a quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, esp. in a way that gives delight
4. informal something that has such a quality

I think we are talking about the first definition, though Tolkien's works can create the third and fourth in the reading.

The first definition has to be qualified, though, in that those who wield magic in Middle Earth might not consider it mysterious, and would consider it natural. The above definition 1 was written for mundane reality, where any magic that might exist is mysterious or supernatural. It applies well enough to Earth, more awkwardly to Middle Earth.

There is a trite phrase 'mind over matter' which might be applied. One might say magic is use of the mind to sense or manipulate matter without use of the body's tools of hands, muscle and the like, or to extend the senses beyond normal.

I have great faith in everyone's ability to nitpick the above. For example, by this definition a magnifying glass might extend the senses and thus fit the description of magical. However, that's a start.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Is it the object or the person that has the magic? - I'd say both. However, some objects could be said to be simply advanced technology, things refined by deep knowledge and superb skill of the maker.

We have already mentioned cases where the magic seems clearly in the object... the west gate of Moria and the palantír. Still, even then, an outsider directs and activates the magic, through a word in the case of the gate, or by gazing into the palantír. The phial of Galadriel might be another example of an item with specific purpose that might be triggered by an individual with no special talents or abilities.

In principle, one might then say that much other magic comes from the individual. Maybe so, but...

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

The Rings of Power confuse me. They require all three things above: the magic (or should I say inner power/will/abilities?) of the wielder, great skill, and their own magic.

Many of the examples of magic are centered on Gandalf. He wields not only a ring, but also a staff. I interpret both Gandalf's ring and staff as very general purpose tools that focus, shape, amplify (or choose another word) the 'inner power/will/abilities' of their wielder. As such, a staff or ring might be considered different from the gate or palantír. Anyone speaking the correct word might open the gate. Even a hobbit could trigger operation of a palantír.

How many examples do we have of magic without an amplifying artifact? Aragorn can heal with athelas. Is the power in Aragorn, in the athelas, or both? Does Aragorn amplify the athelas or does athelas amplify Aragorn?

I can recall Aragorn making three prophecies, that Theoden would return to Edoras, that Gandalf should beware Moria, and that he and Eomer would draw swords together after they parted after Helm's Deep. While Aragorn was carrying Andúril while he made all three prophecies, I have no real reason to think there was any item amplifying his ability to prophecy.

I'd be interested if people could give a few other examples of magic being wielded by individuals with no amplifying devices such as a ring, staff or leaf. I'd like to think magic can be used without such props. Finding examples is a problem, though.

Many of the items mentioned above such as the gate, staffs, rings, phial and palantír were presumably created by someone or other. All such making takes place off stage. The impression I have is that some of the "inner power/will/abilities" of the creator of an item is pushed into the item. Someone might want to say a bit more about that.

I will add that to this point we have been focused primarily on the sort of magic that a wizard or elf lord might wield. There are other things happening. We might think of the oath sworn to Isildur at Erech, and his curse upon the oath breakers. We might ask if Aragorn, whose life was entangled in prophecy, had a fate or destiny that was supported by some form of magic. We might ask if speaking the name of a valar amplifies an oath, or might become something akin to prayer. We might talk of Beorn and other shape shifters. If we've mentioned Aragorn's healing and prophecy, what other people who are not elf lords, wizards or Nazgûl might have other similar abilities? Eowyn in slaying a fell beast also seemingly changed the weather. What is it that brought snow to Caradhras, or covered the land with darkness during the War of the Ring? Should we speak of that flock of crows that might have been looking for the Fellowship as they went south from Rivendell?

There is a good deal magic in the books. We might not want to focus too narrowly.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by blantyr

Many of the examples of magic are centered on Gandalf. He wields not only a ring, but also a staff. I interpret both Gandalf's ring and staff as very general purpose tools that focus, shape, amplify (or choose another word) the 'inner power/will/abilities' of their wielder. As such, a staff or ring might be considered different from the gate or palantír. Anyone speaking the correct word might open the gate. Even a hobbit could trigger operation of a palantír.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by blantyr

How many examples do we have of magic without an amplifying artifact?

Elves communicating telepathically. Making prophecies.

I'm not sure if doing magic through music could fit under this - music is kind of a magnifying artifact.

Many ainur have some magical "special powers" in addition to their power (for example, Vana's gaze makes flower bloom).


A similar question would be about objects that are magical without anyone having to trigger the magic. Silmarilli? They shine all the time. Gondolin swords that glow in the presence of enemies? You need the enemies, true, but the sword doesn't have to be held or anything like that.

Originally Posted by blantyr

Aragorn can heal with athelas. Is the power in Aragorn, in the athelas, or both? Does Aragorn amplify the athelas or does athelas amplify Aragorn?

Athelas doesn't work that way in any other preson's hands. Likewise, Aragorn was only able to heal Faramir with the help of Athelas.

Originally Posted by blantyr

Many of the items mentioned above such as the gate, staffs, rings, phial and palantír were presumably created by someone or other. All such making takes place off stage. The impression I have is that some of the "inner power/will/abilities" of the creator of an item is pushed into the item. Someone might want to say a bit more about that.

What about Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw? Nimrodel (the river)?

However, I absolutely agree with what you said. Melian says about Anglachel, "The heart of the smith still dwells in it" - something that's applicable to many other items.

Originally Posted by blantyr

We might ask if speaking the name of a valar amplifies an oath, or might become something akin to prayer.

I think that names of people and things carry the spirit of those people. When you say a Vala's name, it's as if you bring their presence. Examples:

-Frodo's shout "Elbereth Gilthoniel" scares the Nazgul on Weathertop from immediate actions

-Gondorians avoid naming Sauron and Mordor

-The name "Bombadil" brings courage to Frodo in the Barrow

Originally Posted by blantyr

Eowyn in slaying a fell beast also seemingly changed the weather.

I'd say that the weather changes because of the overall victory, not only Eowyn's over the Wi-Ki. The weather changes according to the events, but the events don't change the weather.

Originally Posted by blantyr

What is it that brought snow to Caradhras, or covered the land with darkness during the War of the Ring?

I can only speculate about the first, but we know the second - Sauron woke up his volcano.

Originally Posted by blantyr

There is a good deal magic in the books. We might not want to focus too narrowly.

I second that.



I'm beginning to doubt my words that ME is filled with magic. The more I think about it, the less magical everything appears. From the perspective of a hobbit, Elves could be magical simply for having long hair. From the perspective of Elves the Valar are magical because of many things, and the ability to create something from nothing... well, the Imperishable Flame. And to the Valar, hobbits might seem magical, because they are able to enjoy the life that they have, which is very simple compared to the other nations/races (or, as Gandalf said, you can learn everything about them in a month, and they'll surprise you in a hundred years). But from every race's perspective, their abilities are not unusual. Elves/Valar/Numenorians/etc could consider the something radiating from them just traces of (high) birth, willpower, inner strength, nobility, toughness, wisdom, possibly some mighty ancestor...

Which means that there really is no magic. And when there is none, but it is felt, it's magical. So the magic is in the inexistence of magic?

headdesk.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Which means that there really is no magic. And when there is none, but it is felt, it's magical. So the magic is in the inexistence of magic?

headdesk.

No, now you're going too far the other way.

Thinking of all the examples I can–

There's occasional "proper" spell-casting, sometimes with incantations and the works; there's a sort of "techno-magic", or "crafting" magic; there's the ability to influence natural forces; and there's "psychic powers" such as foresight or telepathy. These all could be termed "magic" of sorts. Thing is, they all shade into each other quite a bit, and also into the realm of the mundane, so that much of the time it's not clear exactly what you're seeing (if anything).

And no, I don't think that's just Tolkien being sloppy– it's just that, unlike many modern fantasy authors, he was neither drawing on RPG-ing experience, nor writing with one eye on the fanboy-market.

That sounds a bit catty, I know, but I'm not trying to knock current authors. It's just that people don't write in a vacuum, and authors in the present day have learnt that fans tend to expect them to set out strict rules about who can use what power how many times a day, and rank all magic-users (or whatever) in relation to each other, etc, etc.

[Galadriel55]

Nerwen, I wish my computer would let me rep you.

[blantyr]

It might be useful to bring in the concepts of fëa and hröa, roughly 'soul' and 'body'. It might be possible to say that magic is the soul manipulating or sensing the world directly rather than through the body.

Not all souls would be created equal. From the valar to the dúnedain there might be a gradation of souls that can to a greater to lesser extent manipulate the world. Maia can do more than noldor who can do more than sylvan, etc… Perhaps ordinary humans, dwarves, orcs or other creatures have some ability as well, but not all that much.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Thinking of all the examples I can–

There's occasional "proper" spell-casting, sometimes with incantations and the works; there's a sort of "techno-magic", or "crafting" magic; there's the ability to influence natural forces; and there's "psychic powers" such as foresight or telepathy. These all could be termed "magic" of sorts. Thing is, they all shade into each other quite a bit, and also into the realm of the mundane, so that much of the time it's not clear exactly what you're seeing (if anything).

And no, I don't think that's just Tolkien being sloppy– it's just that, unlike many modern fantasy authors, he was neither drawing on RPG-ing experience, nor writing with one eye on the fanboy-market.

I'm not sure Tolkien was all that sloppy. There may be broad patterns. They are just more complicated than some modern writers use.

If rings and staves are general purpose tools, while palantír and Moria's west gate were dedicated to specific tasks, we might distinguish users of magic in the same way. Gandalf has a wide variety of abilities, using "proper spell casting" while Aragorn's healing and prophecy are more narrow and dedicated. Aragorn doesn't use "incantations and the works". I'm not sure I like the phrase 'psychic powers'. That is more a science fiction phrase than fantasy. Still, James Schmitz in one of his Telzey Amberdon books distinguished between the Type One Psi with a wide variety of abilities and the Type Two Psi with one or two narrow abilities. We might have a similar distinction here, that people like Tom Bombadil, Gandalf and Lúthien are far more versatile than Aragorn.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'm not sure if doing magic through music could fit under this - music is kind of a magnifying artifact.

Music might be considered similar to incantations or gestures, part of "the works," another tool that people like Tom Bombadil or Lúthien use to shape their abilities. The specialist people with narrowly focused abilities would be less likely to use such techniques.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

A similar question would be about objects that are magical without anyone having to trigger the magic. Silmarilli? They shine all the time. Gondolin swords that glow in the presence of enemies? You need the enemies, true, but the sword doesn't have to be held or anything like that.

Agreed. Not all crafted items require someone to wield or activate them, though many do…

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Athelas doesn't work that way in any other preson's hands. Likewise, Aragorn was only able to heal Faramir with the help of Athelas.

Hmm… It would seem both Aragorn and athelas need each other to work fully?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

What about Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw? Nimrodel (the river)?

However, I absolutely agree with what you said. Melian says about Anglachel, "The heart of the smith still dwells in it" - something that's applicable to many other items.

Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw might be considered crafted items. Most enchanted items seem to be made by elves. I have the impression that dwarves in the old days could also project parts of their souls into things of their making. Would the blades the hobbits acquired on the Barrow Downs be made the same way? Might the dúnedain be able to craft artifacts using essentially the same techniques as the elves?

I heard a different tale of Nimrodel. There was an article in Tolkiengateway that claims elves can reject the call of Mandos, that they can choose to become ghosts. If fëa and hröa are parted through death, the fëa can linger where it lived. If putting on the Ring allowed Frodo to see into the realm of spirits, might he have put it on and seen Nimrodel?

I'm not claiming the above conjecture as canon, but it seems to fit.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I think that names of people and things carry the spirit of those people. When you say a Vala's name, it's as if you bring their presence. Examples:

-Frodo's shout "Elbereth Gilthoniel" scares the Nazgul on Weathertop from immediate actions

-Gondorians avoid naming Sauron and Mordor

-The name "Bombadil" brings courage to Frodo in the Barrow

Agreed. I note that the examples you give involve mighty names. I don't know that this sort of naming would work for beings less than Valar or Maia. Still, naming names might bring benefit, might work as something vaguely like prayer.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'd say that the weather changes because of the overall victory, not only Eowyn's over the Wi-Ki. The weather changes according to the events, but the events don't change the weather.

I can only speculate about the first, but we know the second - Sauron woke up his volcano.

I'm not entirely confident I understand the weather either. In part, it might respond to the will of the mighty. I have imagined the wind from the west that blew back the smoke of Mount Doom prior to the Pelennor battle might have involved a contest of wills between Sauron and the Valar. In part, the weather might act vaguely like the crowd at a sporting event, changing to reflect events going on down below.

The storm at Caradhras? I had another thought, a wild conjecture. The mountain apparently long had a reputation for cruelty. It is as if some malicious spirit dwelled within the mountain. A balrog for instance? I have also thought that Saruman might have wanted the Fellowship to try to pass the Gap of Rohan. I really don't know.