Outrage?

[solarisa]

i doubt it. my opinion is lotr isn't...witchcraft...for example, sauron, he blackens nature, while galadriel tends it, and nature flourishes... i dunno, hp is about wands, and things against church. but our church doesn't ban it, on the contrary alot of my church friends are not fans, but avid readers. apart from the wands, etc. the story and morals inside is down to earth and a good read.

*i recommend hp!

**plus since churches havent banned lotr yet it's wasn't too big a problem, right??

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

I'm bound to turn off 'banning books' course, and stray from Tolkien up to and extent, but I have a minor bone to pick here.

The attitude towards death as the worst that can happen is Voldemort's position, and is shared by characters who do not yet know better. Though 'dementor's kiss' be a huge mistake on Rowling's part, unless, of course. she distinguishes soul from spirit and soul is supposed to mean the psychological image of the person, or midset that is being lost when dementor kisses one. (the distinction is never made clear, or not made clear yet, hope to see something in books to follow)

But Dumbledore, up to and including volume 5 (I haven't got to 6th yet, there may be more interesting things to come there, I'll come back later with them) constantly hints about death as being not the worst that can ever happen.
Dumbledore tells Ron and Harry by the end of Book I:

After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them

It is Ron and Harry's flaw not to follow suit:

So the Stone's gone?" said Ron finally. "Flamel's just going to die?"
"That's what I said, but Dumbledore thinks that -- what was it? -- 'to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
"I always said he was off his rocker," said Ron, looking quite impressed at how crazy his hero was.

It is Ron's and Harry's lack of understadning, not Rowling's (which seems to me siding with Dumbledore):

'But there can't be anything worse than the Avada Kedavra Curse, can there?' said Ron. What's worse than death?'
'Maybe it's something that can kill loads of people at once,' suggested George.
'Maybe it's some particularly painful way of killing people,' said Ron fearfully

Hint by opposite, the whole conversation seemed to me. The dialogue certainly has a taint of implying these kids do not know all there is to know, and therefore, death is not the worst, extending the logical chain to indicate death is not that bad, by and large

In book 5, when Dumbledore directly opposes Voldemort in the ministry, such and intercourse occurs:

There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!' snarled Voldemort.
You are quite wrong,' said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks

And, finally, there is a hint that there is something beyond the world, and the evaluative shade the conversation again bears indicates that it is good to get there. I refer to Harry's hope that his dead godfather Sirius may have stayed with him as a ghost, as he inquires Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, or Nearly Headless NIck, Gryffindor's resident ghost, if Nick have seen Sirius:

He will not come back,' repeated Nick. `He will have… gone on.'
`What d'you mean, "gone on"?' said Harry quickly `Gone on where? Listen - what happens when you die, anyway? Where do you go? Why doesn't everyone come back? Why isn't this place full of ghosts? Why -?T
'I cannot answer,' said Nick.
`You're dead, aren't you?' said Harry exasperatedly. `Who can answer better than you?'
'I was afraid of death,' said Nick softly. `I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't to have… well, that is neither here nor there… in fact, I am neither here nor there…' He gave a small sad chuckle. `I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead

I suppose all this must have found further development in Book VI, as I've said, I'll get back.

C'mon, get off it, I myself thought there was nothing worse than death when I was fifteen!

But any time Dumbledore and Harry are paired over the subject, they are almost Gandalf/Frodo-like figures, one wiser instructing the younger one in order for the latter to get the correct view of the world. It is not in an instant that Frodo comes to share Gandalf's opinion, is it? Same with Harry/Dumbledore.

And as for 'magic originates within the world' issue, just as good it does so. Otherwise, the 'book banners' would indeed have had grounds to have some grudge against Harry Potter series. To quote myself from Acceptance of Mythology thread:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

As a piece of literature, it is somehow closed on itself, therefore, inside its boundaries, one must rely on what is stated in it. Now, it is not said in it that all witches of HP performed some rites to draw their power from Enemy

On the other hand, what is said in it, and as far as the HP story goes is never unsaid, the magical powers of non-muggles in HP are not supernatural to the extent that those are not drawn outside of nature, but are something people are born with, as natural good sight, or musical talent. There is no free will involved in becoming a wizard for Harry Potter, he is natural born one. As this is concept, than common principles come in. As one can use his/her cleverness to good or bad ends, so one can use one's magical abilities.

People you looked up in a dictionary were quite ordinary men and women, who became sorceres and witches as a consequence of act of choosing

Which moves HP magic onto the same plane as ME one is - natural gift of Creator, used, according to choices performed with the free will, to be in accordance with His will or to disobey him

And further note - I won't return to this here topic unless I read book VI, as I'm afraid someone must have read it already and may spoil my fun quoting some more samples

[Turgon Philip Noldor]

I can't answer this question, not really at least. There is a difference between the LOTR and the Harry Potter. Harry Potter seems to make direct use of Witch Craft, and the Author makes it out to be a good thing. LOTR is deferent, J. R. R. Tolkien has magic in his book, but the book does not dwell around magic. I don't know enough about Harry Potter to say more then that, but I hope that helped the conversation if only a little bit.

[Elu Ancalime]

I think its a bit silly, banning books from school and public libraries. Religous places (churches, synagoges, mosques, etc) I guess have their own rules, since it is religon, but i think the main problem is that some kids get really into it, and play around like they're wizards battling monsters and read HP all the time. Then they get carried away and such.... But its usually either little kids who dont know any better and adults dont want any impression on them, or really (please excuse this term, at least here me out) honest-to-goodness-nerds that formulate their own Muggle religion and what not. Have I personally met someone like this? No, but I assure you there are. Sure, I think it would be really (mark me, really) cool to stop time and spend a year in Middle-Earth in the Fellowship or something. But I cant do that, so I have real things in my life....But anyway, the problem is when someone dosnt know when to take a break or a reality check or something. I admit, that after I 'discovered' Tolkien for about two or three years, i was in a sort of DIL-IM-A. (sp ) I read through all the Lost Tales, HoME, Silm, all that good stuff, all through Encyclopedia of Arda, so....Tolkien isnt exactly making new stuff, um....So I honestly did not involve myself in Tolkien for about six months (hehe not too long). And it was a nice little breather, but I found The Barrow Downs (forum anyway) and now I can disscuss Tolkien with other people!

Bottom Line? Healthy Obsession, Steady Moderation. (hmm...rhyme)
________
Toyota Tundra Specifications

[Raynor]

Magic seems to accompany the other races as they fade; while both Sauron and the elves use magia and goeteia, they, as "mythological" figures, are bound to dissappear. The dwarves seem to have magic abilities (judging from their song in the Hobbit, their participation in the magic protection of the troll hoard, their moon letters and the magic doors of Moria).

Concerning the race of Men, Tolkien states in letter #155 that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such"; the only exceptions found to this are the swords of the Westernesse "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" and the healing power of Aragorn (but in both cases there is an "elven descendancy" element involved).

The hobbits are a branch of Men, so it is rather unlikely they have magic powers (more or less seriously, Tolkien notes in the first chapter of the hobbit that "there is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off").

In the fourth age, the presence of magic among Men is bound to be restricted to the use of whatever magical objects are left (glowing swords, elven ropes cloaks and boats, the palantiri and to a much lesser extent Galdadriel's blessed earth given to Sam).

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE=Raynor]Magic seems to accompany the other races as they fade; while both Sauron and the elves use magia and goeteia, they, as "mythological" figures, are bound to dissappear. /QUOTE]

Good point.

I see here Tolkien's kind of a sorrowed-romantic vision of the grand-days passing away. The age of mythology has come to pass over and we humans just run this world, ever more tehnocratically & byrocratically

It also reminds me of a similar vision by T.S. Elliot and his "The Hollow Men" (in the Waste Land, 1921). If you haven't ever heard of it, check it out!

[Aiwendil]

Raynor wrote:

Concerning the race of Men, Tolkien states in letter #155 that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such"; the only exceptions found to this are the swords of the Westernesse "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" and the healing power of Aragorn (but in both cases there is an "elven descendancy" element involved).

There's also Isildur's cursing of the Dead Men of Dunharrow (which again may be put down to Elvish descent" and Beorn's shape changing (which cannot be). I think there is enough evidence to show that the statement that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such" is not strictly true (and Tolkien seems to have come to this conclusion as well, as indicated by his note against that passage).

Still, I think you are right that magic is, as a general rule, not accessible to humans in the way it is to Elves.

[narfforc]

Because The Dead Men of Dunharrow broke their pledge to fight for Isildur at The Battle of the Last Alliance, they were cursed. Surely this was after the battle, when Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to do so was enhanced by the ring. If men had no ability with magic, how could The Witch-King of Angmar have been a powerful sorcerer, before he held one of the rings for mortal men doomed to die. Was not The Mouth of Sauron supposed to have been a Black Numenorean and also a powerful sorcerer?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to [curse] was enhanced by the ring.

Do you really think the Ring had a direct bearing on this curse? That's a new idea to me. Never occurred to me before; not that I discount it, I'm just interested to learn if others besides narfforc have made this connection?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Because The Dead Men of Dunharrow broke their pledge to fight for Isildur at The Battle of the Last Alliance, they were cursed. Surely this was after the battle, when Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to do so was enhanced by the ring.

According to The passing of the grey company, RotK, Isildur's words towards the king of the mountains occured before the actual war.

However, another would be exception to the "no magic for Men" rule is found in the Pukel-men (apparently a branch of hobbits), in refference to their transfer of power to artefacts (cf. The atani and their languages, HoME XII).

[davem]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Because The Dead Men of Dunharrow broke their pledge to fight for Isildur at The Battle of the Last Alliance, they were cursed. Surely this was after the battle, when Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to do so was enhanced by the ring. If men had no ability with magic, how could The Witch-King of Angmar have been a powerful sorcerer, before he held one of the rings for mortal men doomed to die. Was not The Mouth of Sauron supposed to have been a Black Numenorean and also a powerful sorcerer?

I don't think its that Men had no ability with magic, but that magic was not an innate ability - it was a 'power' they could take to themselves, against the will of Eru. This is what leads them to evil - they cannot use magic with 'authority'. Thus it will always tend to corrupt them, whatever their motivation in using it.

[Kath]

Nice to see people in here again!

I'm not sure davem that you could say men using magic always leads to corruption, especially if you take Raynor's example of the Pukel men. It may be that it's only when power is added to the mixture that it corrupts people. The Witch King and Isildur were powerful people, and could see how magic would enable them to gain more power and more control, whereas the Pukel men were (as I recall) simple people with interest in and power over their environment alone, so they would have no desire to move beyond it. Surely magic can only corrupt if there is the potential for corruption, and there need to be circumstances to create this potential.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

Nice to see people in here again!

I'm not sure davem that you could say men using magic always leads to corruption, especially if you take Raynor's example of the Pukel men. It may be that it's only when power is added to the mixture that it corrupts people. The Witch King and Isildur were powerful people, and could see how magic would enable them to gain more power and more control, whereas the Pukel men were (as I recall) simple people with interest in and power over their environment alone, so they would have no desire to move beyond it. Surely magic can only corrupt if there is the potential for corruption, and there need to be circumstances to create this potential.

I suppose the question is whether the abilities of the Pukel Men are innate or a product of 'study'. I think Tolkien was opposed to the practice of what we could call 'ritual' magic. Are they manipulating natural forces? Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines. All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

Of course, the Machine is actually a way of thinking & the objects produced are manifestations of that - attempts to actualise deisre. Tolkien sets Art against the Machine. Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world. So, yes, it is a question of the potential for corruption in the individual, but the use of magical objects is an outward sign of that inner corruption. I would note that the Pukel Men were hardly successful as a species.....

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose the question is whether the abilities of the Pukel Men are innate or a product of 'study'. I think Tolkien was opposed to the practice of what we could call 'ritual' magic. Are they manipulating natural forces? Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines. All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

Of course, the Machine is actually a way of thinking & the objects produced are manifestations of that - attempts to actualise deisre. Tolkien sets Art against the Machine. Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world. So, yes, it is a question of the potential for corruption in the individual, but the use of magical objects is an outward sign of that inner corruption. I would note that the Pukel Men were hardly successful as a species.....

Good stuff! You are putting so many interesting lines here to be appreciated, that it would require an essay to even try to comment a bit! But maybe a couple of things to begin with.

It's interesting to note, that Tolkien had received his learning during a time, when certain trends in anthropology & religious studies were the top of the pops'. For instance Frazer's "the Golden Bough" (anyone: read it someday, if you have time: lots of wonderful stories in it). That time, they talked about "symphatetic magic", eg. they had an idea, that earlier cultures were like the then modern western cultures, which were already having as their first aim the technological superiority over the nature (and the utopia of a technologies to make all their dreams come true). So all old beliefs, rituals and customs, were interpreted in this same manner; as ways of having an effect over nature, or manipulating it, by magic (and later by religion) - and just being overtly wrong when compared to science of their days.

That should have offended Tolkien, in quite a modern way indeed. But as I think the Tolkien connoisseurs' would agree, Tolkien disliked basically the idea of technologically manipulating the world (that is propably one of the main reasons why one can read a kind of sorrowness in the text, when Tolkien is telling us about the beginning of the age of men).

In this context, which i guess, is quite "natural" way of interpreting the issue, you put forward the even more interesting idea, that you count the rings also as these technologial pieces of craft (vs. nature, one must presume?), then the whole setting changes a bit, doesn't it? So "technological pieces", understood in the widest sense possible, could do something good, f.ex. the possibility of elves remaining in the Middle Earth, of Gandalf having the powers he had etc.?

(Well, it propably is a question of from whose standpoint you define good? But Tolkien was not a relativist!)

Looked from this point of view, there is a notion in Tolkien, that you could help things with technology - although it would end up in sacrifices'.

So beating technology requires technology, but if you use it to defy your technological opponent, you will be consumed in the fight?

This seems to be a good one! Let's open this up a bit more...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

According to The passing of the grey company, RotK, Isildur's words towards the king of the mountains occured before the actual war.

Thanks for the clarification, Raynor.

Originally Posted by Raynor

...Pukel-men (apparently a branch of hobbits)...

This is not apparent to me at all. From LotR and Unfinished Tales it seemed to me that they are akin to the indigenous prehistoric folk from any given place in western (and maybe not only western) Europe. Their magic is fascinating as in it seems to be well, animistic after a fashion, not against nature: more Art than Technology.

Originally Posted by davem

Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world.

So Lothlorien is part of the Machine? I can see how this can be so in principle, but there seems to be so much Art in this particular Machine that it minimizes (not the alteration but) the 'evil'. Perhaps this is best understood on a continuum.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So beating technology requires technology, but if you use it to defy your technological opponent, you will be consumed in the fight?

This seems to be what Sauron, Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (until he repented) thought, except for the last phrase of your question. The strategy of the Fellowship was, in fact, to not use the technology, and to destroy it.

Now, how does this compare to J.K. Rowling's use of Technology versus Art? Or is she dealing with an entirely different set-up? If so, what is it? Is it valid on its own terms? (That last question is really a devil's advocate question, since I readily enjoy her stuff).

[Aiwendil]

the Pukel-men (apparently a branch of hobbits)

This is not apparent to me at all. From LotR and Unfinished Tales it seemed to me that they are akin to the indigenous prehistoric folk from any given place in western (and maybe not only western) Europe.

I was always under the impression that the Pukel-men were Druedain - and that the Druedain were most certainly not Hobbits. The powers of the Pukel-men/Druedain are shown also in "The Faithful Stone". Here we have something that's quite obviously magical (and not merely in the way that Hobbits have "magic") and that also seems to be entirely good and natural. So to answer Davem's question, I would guess that the the abilities of the Pukel-men were innate. This is similar, I think, to Beorn's skin-changing - but then the Druedain provide an example that no one is likely to write off by excluding it from the Legendarium.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

So Lothlorien is part of the Machine? I can see how this can be so in principle, but there seems to be so much Art in this particular Machine that it minimizes (not the alteration but) the 'evil'. Perhaps this is best understood on a continuum.

I suppose we can think in terms of two Lothloriens (Lothlorii?). The one we enter in LotR is a (hyper)natural place, Faerie itself. It is not, as it later becomes a 'faux Valinor' (was that Child's or Lyta's term?). In LotR we follow the Company into Faerie, & see it especially through Frodo's eyes, as though seeing colours & experiencing trees for the first time - it is another reality, but an entirely natural one (ie not a false construct, a 'deceit'). It is living Art .

Its only later that Tolkien presents us with the story of Galadriel & Celebrimbor & her deisre to rule a land where there is no death. It is at this point that Lorien becomes in part a manifestation of the Machine, & Galadriel herself a manipulator of reality (ie of the primary world) through the power of Nenya. This is Art 'embalmed' & thus not truly alive. I'm drawn to the former Lorien, but almost repelled by the latter - it makes me feel like I'm being duped.....

[Nogrod]

[[QUOTE]QUOTE=Nogrod]]So beating technology requires technology, but if you use it to defy your technological opponent, you will be consumed in the fight? [QUOTE]

[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]
This seems to be what Sauron, Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (until he repented) thought, except for the last phrase of your question. The strategy of the Fellowship was, in fact, to not use the technology, and to destroy it.


I agree with this common reading myself, but what striked me in davem's message, and seemed to be opening interesting ways of interpreting the whole issue, were these sentences:

[QUOTE][QUOTE=davem]Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines. All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

So was it just an accident, that Gandalf kind of just happened to have the powers' he used to change the events in LotR? Were Imladri's & Lorien's being able to stay so long as to have their part in the making of the new world, just due to their being nice elves?

So how about, if all this was really a work of "machines" (we really would need to define now here, what the word 'machine' means, or change the word!), the work of a world that was becoming, using all these heroes as it's own tool? So, in the end, the Great Victory over the bad principle led straight to the hands of technology & "machines"? Navigating past Scylla led straight to the hands of Charybdis? Elves and Maiar needed rings to fight rings, and thence disappeared from the world that those rings primarily were the first sign of (with Palantiri)?

I'm not suggesting, this is a fool-proof interpretation, or even the most fruitful one. But certainly it gives some food for thought! At least to me it has given that.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't think its that Men had no ability with magic, but that magic was not an innate ability - it was a 'power' they could take to themselves, against the will of Eru. This is what leads them to evil - they cannot use magic with 'authority'. Thus it will always tend to corrupt them, whatever their motivation in using it.

I think it is a double-faceted issue. First there is the motivation; a nazgul falls to the dark side "sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with" (cf The shadow of the past); also, Bilbo was safe for a good while from the corruption of the ring (and later saved altogether) because he showed pity in possessing it. The other side would be the mere strength of mind of the user: the "pre-power" rings were just dangerous to Men, not corrupting, in and of themselves - also, Aragorn does resist Sauron's influence when he using the power of the palantir.

Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines.

Well, he does distinguish between kinds of magic, esspecially in relation to the one of the elves (cf Letter #131):

"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"

Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world

I think that the elven Art too alters the world, but it still remains "good", as noted above - they weren't "bulldozing the real world, nor coercing other wills".

All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

"It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills" - letter #155 .

Originally Posted by Kath

The Witch King and Isildur were powerful people, and could see how magic would enable them to gain more power and more control,

I don't think that Isildur desired more power and control through the ring (which would have been a sign of coruption, which I doubt, since in his scroll he is all too willing to leave the ring to his heirs). He considered the ring "of all the works of Sauron the only fair" (cf. Council of Elrond, FotR).

Surely magic can only corrupt if there is the potential for corruption, and there need to be circumstances to create this potential.

Yet this potential exists in all Ea (even for the valar, who could at least err as a result, cf Letter #212, or show possesiveness, such as in the rising of the Pellori Mountains, cf Myths Transformed), since evil/corruption have been sub-creatively introduced and futhermore there is the actual marring of Melkor.

Looked from this point of view, there is a notion in Tolkien, that you could help things with technology - although it would end up in sacrifices'

Concerning the real-world, he has a rather hard stance:

Originally Posted by Letter #75 to Christopher

There is the tragedy and despair of all machinery laid bare. Unlike an which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and so to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disability of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil. So we come inevitably from Daedalus and Icarus to the Giant Bomber. It is not an advance in wisdom! This terrible truth, glimpsed long ago by Sam Butler, sticks out so plainly and is so horrifyingly exhibited in our time, with its even worse menace for the future, that it seems almost a world wide mental disease that only a tiny minority perceive it.

[As far as outcome of the culmination of evil use of the machine, he has little doubt: (Letter #96)Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter - leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines.]

In his fantasy realm, his attitude is a bit more nuanced; he is more tolerant, in some cases, to the use and users of technology/Machine; Sauron "was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up", cf Letter #153; the elves of Eregion themselves, (even though compared to the catholics who would make tools, which given the circumstances, "are pretty certain to serve evil ends") are not necessarily to be blamed, even if aware of the consequences of their actions.

However, he also states (Letter #155):

"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 . 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 one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such."

[In matters of writting style, it is also stated in the Notion Club Papers, that "real fairy-stories don't pretend to produce impossible mechanical effects by bogus machines. " - a role which is no doubt left to magic itself ]

[davem]

I think that the elven Art too alters the world, but it still remains "good", as noted above - they weren't "bulldozing the real world, nor coercing other wills".

Well, they weren't 'coercing' perhaps, but they were controlling - there was no 'stain' on Lorien. We can only take this to mean no parasites, no fungi, nothing to mar its 'perfection'. As I said, the Lorien we are introduced to in LotR is a 'hyper-natural' place, almost a higher state of nature, a glimpse of Arda Unmarred, yet there is no sense that it has been 'forced' into being that way. We don't even question how it is that way, we simply accept it. It is not an 'alteration' of the primary world but rather another 'state' of it.

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur. She will not allow death to enter in to Lorien. The trees are not allowedto die, parasites are not allowed to exist, because she does not want them to. Her suppport of the Ringbearer is a surrendering to nature, an allowing it to be. Only then could she truly be herself.

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"

This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar. Certainly his condemnation of them as 'embalmers' would seem to contradict this statement.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Raynor] Well, he does distinguish between kinds of magic, esspecially in relation to the one of the elves (cf Letter #131):
"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"But what is this art - power dualism about? In this context one would have to read 'art' as conjoining with an overtly romantic vision of artistry, fancied by the late 19th century poets' & painters' that got hold of the wider public imagination, at least after the WW2, and with the ideas of power then attaching to the nuclear bomb, Stalin etc. (Tolkien, of course being academically schooled, should have been cognizant of these ideas quite earlier, with lots of fellows' being productive artists' at the time). But what I myself am interested in, is, whether this interpretation on Tolkien is correct to begin with.

So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?

I would here vote for a more "down to earth" Tolkien, who saw the inevitableness of the advances of technologies and the requirement of sacrifices in front of them - that could actually bring forth good things, but quite a loss as well, f.ex. as a disappearance of "magic" with it. It's kind of a basic thing: when things change, they will be different: you lose something and you acquire something. And with a certain personality, you just take the new good things as given, and just make a slight sigh to the remembrance of the things past.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)? That's a question we could put to ourselves too....

[Raynor]

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur.

I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.

This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar.

From the Sil, we pretty much know that the vanyar "received song and poetry" - artful indeed, but it is not the Art we are talking about; the Teleri are enamoured of the sea, with the height of their Art were the swan ships of Alqualonde.

The noldor? Oh, the noldor.. . They learned mostly from Aule, the smith of gods, and thus became "the most skilled of the Elves" (cf. The begining of days, Silmarillion). In Of Eldamar and the princes of Eldalie, we are also told that the "Noldor were beloved of Aule, and he and his people came often among them. Great became their knowledge and their skill; yet even greater was their thirst for more knowledge, and in many things they soon surpassed their teachers"; they even made Manwe's sceptre, and of their chief objects, the silmarils, it is said in Letter #131: "by the making of gems the sub-creative function of the Elves is chiefly symbolized". To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.

So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?

Imo, letters #75 and #96, quoted above, pretty much points to the first option.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)?

Well, Estel, hope, would imply that of all His designs, the issue must be for his Children joy (cf Finrod's debate) - so I will go with the first option, again .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.

Well, two wrongs don't make a right. She is still attempting to dominate the world (or at least her little part of it). It may not be 'blamable', but it is an atttempt at dominance over nature. Yes, she's playing her part in the battle against Sauron, but in the end she surrenders & accepts that she cannot do that without a moral risk. The only guarantee of victory is to take the Ring - which is the end of the particular road she had chosen. In the end I think she realises that what she did was wrong & repents of it.

To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.

I think this would apply to the pre-Rebellion Noldor only

[Raynor]

She is still attempting to dominate the world (or at least her little part of it). It may not be 'blamable', but it is an atttempt at dominance over nature.

Yet domination is the realm of the Enemy, not of the elves; I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one .

The only guarantee of victory is to take the Ring

I doubt there is any power in Middle Earth who could wield the ring and achieve a _desireable_ victory - the only outcome is another Sauron.

I think this would apply to the pre-Rebellion Noldor only

It depends on which moment we decide the rebellion started; even if so, what Vanyar/Teleri object could match Celebrimbor's Ellesar(s)?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Yet domination is the realm of the Enemy, not of the elves; I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one

I wonder about Galadriel's words to Frodo, that what he saw in the Mirror 'is also in my mind'

I doubt there is any power in Middle Earth who could wield the ring and achieve a _desireable_ victory - the only outcome is another Sauron.

Yet she's clearly considered the possibility of taking it...

It depends on which moment we decide the rebellion started; even if so, what Vanyar/Teleri object could match Celebrimbor's Ellesar(s)?

We don't know what they got up to after the Noldor cleared off....

[Raynor]

I wonder about Galadriel's words to Frodo, that what he saw in the Mirror 'is also in my mind'

She was reffering to the Eye, which she most likely saw before in the mirror.

Yet she's clearly considered the possibility of taking it...

Yet how much of that consideration stemmed from herself, and how much was a mere influence of the ring (which apparently tempted even Gandalf)? The ring's influence is too general to describe her, Imo.

We don't know what they got up to after the Noldor cleared off....

A matter of personal opinion I guess .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

She was reffering to the Eye, which she most likely saw before in the mirror.

But why is the Eye 'in her mind'? Tolkien did state that the Elves of Eregion had 'flirted with Sauron'.

Yet how much of that consideration stemmed from herself, and how much was a mere influence of the ring (which apparently tempted even Gandalf)? The ring's influence is too general to describe her, Imo.
A matter of personal opinion I guess .

She wanted victory over Sauron, yet even before that she desired control over nature. Probably both.

[Raynor]

But why is the Eye 'in her mind'?

She plainly states that her mind is closed to Sauron; the explanation could be that the mirror images form directly in viewer's mind - or that she is merely concerned with Sauron.

Tolkien did state that the Elves of Eregion had 'flirted with Sauron'.

Yet Galadriel wasn't one of the 'flirters' since she saw through his disguise, which caused Sauron to turn against her and led to her departure.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

She plainly states that her mind is closed to Sauron; the explanation could be that the mirror images form directly in viewer's mind - or that she is merely concerned with Sauron.

That's one explanation.

Yet Galadriel wasn't one of the 'flirters' since she saw through his disguise, which caused Sauron to turn against her and led to her departure.

Again, that depends on how you interpret 'flirting with Sauron'. What, exactly does that mean? My take on it would be not that they were interacting with Annatar, but that they were 'flirting' with what Sauron symbolised - desire for power, control, domination - what else were the Rings for? They were 'flirting' with the Machine, & so was Galadriel. That's why she was tempted by the One Ring for a time. The 'later' Lorien is very close to the Machine. Its interesting that when the ultimate Machine (the One) is destroyed so is Lorien....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I would here vote for a more "down to earth" Tolkien, who saw the inevitableness of the advances of technologies and the requirement of sacrifices in front of them - that could actually bring forth good things, but quite a loss as well, f.ex. as a disappearance of "magic" with it. It's kind of a basic thing: when things change, they will be different: you lose something and you acquire something. And with a certain personality, you just take the new good things as given, and just make a slight sigh to the remembrance of the things past.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)? That's a question we could put to ourselves too....

There seems, however, in Tolkien's Letters and Ring story, a sense of loss of something very good and beautiful, and the onset of something qualitatively inferior, and less good.

I see your point, Raynor, that Galadriel is trying to preserve a reality, in Lorien, that is the ideal and original reality, as expressed in Valinor. However, I see davem's point as well, that such an endeavor is vain in Middle Earth, and as such, not only doomed to fail (as she well knows .... "the long defeat" ....), but a mis-use; a technological effort, in as much as it is against the state of things. So even though the "state of things" in Middle Earth is cursed by Melkor's taint, it is nevertheless the way things are, and to try to stop them is to part from wisdom. Galadriel, as powerful as she was, was able to achieve the thing for a longer period of time, but only because Sauron's Ring still existed. Does that not clarify the futility of Galadriel's Art in the case of Lorien ... that it was based upon the existence of the One Ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

[davem]

I think this is the point - Galadriel's motives may be right, her heart may be in the right place, but her methods are ultimately those of the Enemy. That's her tragedy in a way, & makes her acceptance of her doom (& the doom of Lorien) so poignant, coming as it does out of a realisation of her folly & a repentance for it.

[drigel]

Was her repentance directed towards her methods? Or rather was it directed towards the pride that drove her to ME in the first place? And once there, after an age, to rule? One needs to live in Blessed Realm to have a standard to shoot for, otherwise all you have is a Girdle that keeps everyone out. Whether her magic is parallel, or derives from the same source as Sauron's, her desire to rule and make order (to me) is what needs to be compared, if there is any comparison to make. But, this makes her poignancy much more of a human condition for me.

It seems to me, especially in the 2nd and 3rd ages, that she does see the end clearly. For her, a few thousand years is a fleeting thing. And if Sauron wasnt around marring things, her purpose in Lorien would be less clear. I dont see her regretting using her abilities, nor do I see her regretting the use of Nenya. Her regret reaches back before the sun and the moon rode the sky, when she was a young, fiery, ambitious, talented elf who was adventerous, and got caught up with some doomed Noldor. What was happening in Lorien was the last grasps that delayed an end that was hastened by what Sauron was doing.

all my opinion of course

[Bêthberry]

I cannot tell you all how many times, seeing this thread in my "New Subscribed Threads", that I have read the thread title as "Outage". And for a moment I sit there in confusion wondering who or what was outed.

Reading through this analysis of Galadriel has been intriguing, and it sets me off on a related idea, which I throw out here, for what it is worth. Do correct me--gently -- if I misinterpret the points here.

There seems to be some agreement that Galadriel's intentions were nostalgic, that is, a looking backward and longing for something viewed as better in the past. And, general agreement that while her intentions might have been admirable her method erred. Can we extrapolate this to many readers' interpretations of LotR?

It seems to me that many readers enjoy Tolkien because he offers a nostalgic vision of a past world that was better than our sordid present one--higher, finer, free of dross. It upholds an idealism of values and behaviour which, as many readers also point out, are absent from modern literature. (Critics, too, but I won't go there for this thread!) Obviously I am generalising here.

So, if we are to view Galadriel as tragically in err for her nostalgia, is there anything else in Tolkien which would "correct" or equally suggest that readers are in err for a nostalgic reading of Tolkien? (I'm using this term 'err' not proscriptively but simply descriptively for the sake of the argument here, as everyone knows that I don't subscribe to the theory that there is only one way of reading a text.) I am here suggesting that Galadriel is used as a model for a prime 'reader' of Middle-earth and that when we decode her reading as tragically wrong, we step back and see if this decoding can be applied--applicability!--to our own readings of Middle-earth. (Or those of some of us.)

Is it possible that Tolkien gives us a text which invites us to fall into the elvish habit of nostalgia, to enjoy it and revere it and be inspired by it, but in the end he provides subtle suggestions that such nostalgia is a false or misplaced longing? Does Tolkien undercut the major response he seems to create in his readers? Are we to repent of our reading?

I'm not saying he does, just throwing out some thoughts which the discussion here brought to mind as possibilities.

[littlemanpoet]

drigel: That Galadriel's methods included Art based upon the Technology of the Ring, shows how far she has fallen in her pride. So yes, it's most deeply the pride that she repents from, but also the method, for by not taking the Ring from Frodo, she places herself at the mercy of chance ('if chance you call it').

It occurs to me that Galadriel, for all her wisdom and power, has not seen certain things until Frodo shows them to her in his more intuitive wisdom. I call it intuitive because he was not entirely aware of what he was doing by offering her the Ring. For example, I doubt that Galadriel realized how far she had fallen until she was forced to examine herself in response to Frodo's offer.

Bêthberry: Galadriel's Art/Technology is not the only instance of this nostalgia in LotR. Other examples of it are Treebeard and the Ents, and indeed the entirety of the Rohirrim story-line, which is (in part) a 'might-have-been' but for the Norman conquest.

In our reading? Are you suggesting that we tend to read LotR according to late 20th century lenses and need to let it speak to us in a new 21st century way? And that Tolkien suggests this very thing in the course of the story? The end of the War of the Ring ushers in a completely new Age of Man (read Humanity). But the social norms don't change, only the demise (or diminishing) of Art (magic). Somehow I don't find in Tolkien an acceptance of this without much regret and mourning.

[drigel]

LMP well put. I wasnt implying that see saw all, merely the inevitable Defeat, and pre-Frodo - it was probably a vision where she would diminish, and, like her people, "...dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten". Post-Frodo, she "..will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel". What caused me to make the initial post was it seemed the sins of the ring maker were being thrown at the ring wielder. She (to me) didnt start the drama, but she did see how her ring could help affect her strategy of defiance towards Sauron.

Frodo bent his head. 'And what do you wish?' he said at last.
'That what should be shall be,' she answered. 'The love of the Elves for their land and their works is deeper than the deeps of the Sea, and their regret is undying and cannot ever wholly be assuaged. Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron: for they know him now. For the fate of Lothlorien you are not answerable, but only for the doing of your own task. Yet I could wish, were it of any avail, that the One Ring had never been wrought, or had remained for ever lost.'

This shows me that she knew her use of the technology would only at best be a long postponement of the inevitable, as all the Eldar (at least) knew by that time.

After all,

The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls.

I would add (with toungue in cheek) also that Galadriel, with all her machinations faults and witchcraft, was a very key instrument in the bigger strategy of the defeat of Sauron, so one could say that her use of technology/magic and her desire for order and rule were meant to be thus.

Beth thats an intriguing thought. I would almost say Romanticism is rearing her head at the idea. But, I would say that, at this time, I dont have (or remember) a longing for the good old days, but something somewhere in my genes apparantly does, which marks the genious of the works.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I think this is the point - Galadriel's motives may be right, her heart may be in the right place, but her methods are ultimately those of the Enemy.

But that is exactly what makes the difference - the motives, because, as Tolkien states in Letter #155, both the good side and the evil one use the same means of magic.

Its interesting that when the ultimate Machine (the One) is destroyed so is Lorien

She had to depart, sooner or later; she realised the age of Men has come at last and it was about time she left.

So even though the "state of things" in Middle Earth is cursed by Melkor's taint, it is nevertheless the way things are, and to try to stop them is to part from wisdom.

I disagree with the "larger" meaning of your words - we are bound to fight the marring, which is the most formidable attack on Eru's creation. The marring is present everywhere; while in some places it is stronger (due to various factors in the past) and one could move to a "better" place, you can't escape it altogether - so you have to "fight" it, by whatever means available. Galadriel's influence on her surroundings is far less Machinistic than the very machines Men are bound to use in the history of their progress; her relation is one of cherishing, not of antagony.

[davem]

Is it possible that Tolkien gives us a text which invites us to fall into the elvish habit of nostalgia, to enjoy it and revere it and be inspired by it, but in the end he provides subtle suggestions that such nostalgia is a false or misplaced longing? Does Tolkien undercut the major response he seems to create in his readers? Are we to repent of our reading?

We wonders.... Was this diichotomy set up deliberately by Tolkien, or was it a reflection of his own inner conflict.

(Sorry for the long quote - this is from Verlyn Flieger's 'A Question of Time' pps 111 - 112)

But its just here that Tolkien falls foul of his own ambivalence about the passage of time. For all his stated philosophical position, he cannot help imbuing his narrative with a mixed message, a rueful rationale for change covering a deep nostalgia for what has passed and is passing, in spite of all its Hobbit jollity, its mushroom and pipeweed, its victories and celebrations, The Lord of the Rings is suffused with a sense of transience and loss. The Shire changes, the Ents never find the Entwives, Frodo loses his Ring, his finger, and himself and cannot really go home. “However the fortunes of war go," Theoden says to Gandalf, "may it not so end that many fair things pass from the earth?" (Two Towers 155). It does so end, and all the renewal and rejoicing do not put back what was lost. Theoden speaks for Tolkien, but so does Gandalf, when he replies to Theoden: "To such days we are doomed,"
The fact is that like his Elves, Tolkien hoarded memory, He, too regretted the past; he, too, was unwilling to face change and wanted to arrest history, to keep hold of the past in the present. He, too, wanted escape from what he called "the Robot Age," escape from the 'grim Assyrian' absurdity of top-hats, or the Morlockian horror of factories" (“On Fairy-Stories" 148, 150). And so, in a sense, he subverts his own message, surrounding his Elves and their lands with an aura of such golden nostalgia that their appeal is almost impossible to resist. But he also knew that real escape is impossible. We are where we are, and we cannot go back to where we were; we can only long to. Tolkien is susceptible to the Elven impulse and yet capable of seeing its fallacy, subject to the confusion of the heart that feels one thing and the head that knows another. And so there is a concealed sting in Lorien's beauty. Its timelessness is not the unspoiled perfection it seems. Rather, that very perfection is its flaw. It is a cautionary picture, closer in kind to the Ring than we'd like to think, shown to us in all its beauty to test if we can let it go.
The Lord of the Rings is, among many other things, a story about the ability to let go. The Ring is the obvious example, the clearest picture of the possessiveness engendered by possessions, and the corruption that grows with the desire to keep. It is easy to see the Ring as evil, and while Frodo's inability to give it up is both unexpected and inevitable, what happens to him appears to be an extraordinary tragedy, not something the reader can readily identify with. The timeless beauty of Lorien is the deeper example. It is more difficult to recognize as such, because, unlike the Ring, Lorien and everything about it in the narrative make us want to keep it, make us want, like Frodo, to stay there. We love Lorien, as, quite clearly, its author loved it. The beauty of Tolkien's Elves and their Elven lands blinds us to their significance in his world and his narrative.
Nonetheless, this very sense of passing and loss that on one level Tolkien mourned, on another level he celebrated. For to be capable of living is also to be capable of dying, and without death there can be no rebirth. Elves preserve. Men grow and die and grow again. It is in this respect that the Contrast between Elves and Men is of such importance to Tolkien's vision. But while the contrast itself is apparent to any reader of Tolkien's work, it is a safe bet that many readers mistake its overt purpose and consequently ap. predate the wrong values in each culture, valuing immortality above mortality and Elves above Men.

[drigel]

We wonders.... Was this diichotomy set up deliberately by Tolkien, or was it a reflection of his own inner conflict.

I think we are, in a roundabout way, doing what the author intended - to contemplate the nature of mortality of man.

I am here suggesting that Galadriel is used as a model for a prime 'reader' of Middle-earth and that when we decode her reading as tragically wrong, we step back and see if this decoding can be applied--applicability!--to our own readings of Middle-earth. (Or those of some of us.)

Nice! I would suggest rather that Galadriel is used in LOTR as a model for a prime reader for the psychology of High Elves. You get a lot of history with Elrond and Cirdan. But with Galadriel, sigh, you get as close to Valimar as a mortal can be.

[Lalwendë]

Maybe this explains the Gift of Death - that Men are not doomed to resisting change, they never have to fight the urge to live in a pickled version of the distant past, as it simply will not happen to them; they will die long before that 'doom' affects them. I think in Tolkien's work we see that change is inevitable. It might not be nice, but it is going to happen whether we like it or not. The Gift of Death allows Men to escape this tragedy; Aragorn will not live to see all his efforts in the War of the Ring fall, eventually, to nothing. And perhaps this is why Elves are naturally expected to live in the Undying Lands, as once there, they are protected from death and decay and change.

We visit this secondary world just as that 'magic' is about to decline and fade. I wonder if our own world ever had any of that magic anyway? We'll never know, but we can be sure that there was plenty of suffering in all periods of history, and in Tolkien's world there is plenty of suffering too. Not only is there the suffering of our 'heroes' like Frodo, but there is the suffering of the peoples enslaved by Sauron, the Ents who know they are going to die out, Hobbits made to starve when the Shire is taken over - it might be a fantasy world, but it's no Utopia.

Galadriel in Middle-earth is really a big fish in a small pond, and she is no fairy princess, she is an Elf who has ambitions. She wants to create and rule her own realm, and it is to these desires that Celebrimbor panders when he tries to woo her with gifts such as the Elessar and Nenya. They are gifts of power and potency, not trinkets. She knows that when the Rings lose their power she has two choices: go back to the Undying Lands and be one of many fish in a pond, or stay in Middle-earth but lose her realm, and become as one of the 'common Elves' who she rules.

[Raynor]

I think in Tolkien's work we see that change is inevitable. It might not be nice, but it is going to happen whether we like it or not. The Gift of Death allows Men to escape this tragedy; Aragorn will not live to see all his efforts in the War of the Ring fall, eventually, to nothing. And perhaps this is why Elves are naturally expected to live in the Undying Lands, as once there, they are protected from death and decay and change.

I think it is easy to see the elves as mourning for a lost condition and wanting to linger in Middle Earth, where they are superior just by their nature. But do these really describe them (completely), esspecially the noldor? Does Galadriel maintain a "Machinistic" kingdom, steadfast in time? I don't picture it as such..

The noldor are described as the most skilled of the elves (surpassing even their teachers - Aule, the smith of gods and his followers); the manifestations of their sub-creative talents are the most extraordinary of all elven Art.

Is ME change something that elves (completely) dread? I doubt it (from Dangweth Pengolodh, HoME XII):

But to the changefulness of Ea, to weariness of the un-changed, to the renewing of the union: to these three, which are one, the Eldar also are subject in their degree. In this, however, they differ from Men, that they are ever more aware of the words that they speak. As a silversmith may remain more aware than others of the tools and vessels that he uses daily at his table, or a weaver of the texture of his garments. Yet this makes rather for change among the Eldar than for steadfastness; for the Eldar being skilled and eager in art will readily make things new, both for delight to look on, or to hear, or to feel, or for daily use: be it in vessels or raiment or in speech.

It can further be said that the elves would dread the steadfastness defining the 'undying' lands, rather than the change of ME - or at least in the matters of language, which brought them much delight (same source):

Speech is fully living only when it is born; when the union of the thought and the sound is fallen into old custom, and the two are no longer perceived apart, then already the word is dying and joyless
[However]
Yet long since, AElfwine, the fashion of the World was changed; and we that dwell now in the Ancient West are removed from the circles of the World, and in memory is the greater part of our being: so that now we preserve rather than make anew. Wherefore, though even in Aman - beyond the circles of Arda, yet still with Ea - change goes ever on, until the End, be it slow beyond perceiving save in ages of time, nonetheless here at last in Eressea our tongues are steadfast; and here over a wide sea of years we speak now still little otherwise than we did - and those also that perished - in the wars of Beleriand, when the Sun was young.

A steadfast language = dead language (at least from their point of view).

According to Letter #181, the elves represent "the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men. That is: they have a devoted love of the physical world, and a desire to observe and understand it for its own sake and as 'other' - sc. as a reality derived from God in the same degree as themselves - not as a material for use or as a power-platform. They also possess a 'subcreational' or artistic faculty of great excellence". Their ennoblement of the Men race (at least through the union of the blood lines) is part of a divine plan. In the same text quoted above, Dangweth Pengolodh, it is stated that:

Others perceiving that in nothing do Men, and namely those of the West, so nearly resemble the Eldar as in speech, answer that the teaching which Men had of the Elves in their youth works on still as a seed in the dark

And in Myths Transformed it is stated that "in their association with the warring Eldar Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature". Legolas notes that those exiting Lothlorien are "changed" - for the better.

My conclusion would be that the elves had a certain critical role in ME: to raise Men to a higher level, a point illustrated by the above refferences; yet in Middle Earth, the marring of Melkor threatens to accelerate not only the waning of the elven hroa due to the fire of their spirit but also their means of existence (general decay nature, which affects even the gift of the valar, lembas, whose corn can neither grow under the shadow of 'normal' plants, nor can it withstand the evil winds bearing the influence of Melkor). In order to conclude their mission to its fullest success, the elves need protection against such factors, a protection given by the power of their rings. I see Galadriel's realm as one in which the elves are allowed to manifest their sub-creative skills in all matters of life, to successfully resist Sauron and to ultimately fulfill a critical part of Eru's plan: the raising of Men to a higher level of their potential.