Magic vs. Power

[Iarwain]

Most interesting, Kalessin. Not what I intended, but fascinating all the same. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Hm. Where to go from here. I suppose the original discussion could continue, but I'm beginning to think that it is finished. We could on the other hand begin a very interesting discussion of the nature of magic in the literary world, but that would be short lived due to the surveilance on this forum. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Wandering Aimlessly,
Iarwain

[burrahobbit]

When I was responding to you about my use of the word, Burrahobbit, I was not trying to say that Tolkien was wrong, I was just trying to say that my definition may differ from Tolkien's (it differs greatly), and that I am by no means talking as if I am Tolkien or that I am even using his definitions.

Sorry if I wasn't speaking clearly enough, I have a bad habit of that. What I meant was that your opinion doesn't matter when we have facts to deal with (that is, what Tolkien said).

[Iarwain]

Ahh, sorry I misunderstood! Very true, though opinions can be beneficial when one is looking at various facts. I agree, they can do equal damage and they can prevent progress. (Maybe I should keep mine quiet for a while [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Dain]

(Oops! As usual, I get impatient and miss a few pages. So...as of the end of the first page):

I think you've eventually happened upon the point I wanted to make in response to Burrahobbit's earlier comments about spells: even though Gandalf speaks some words pertaining to a spell he knows, if Sam said the same words would he be able to hold off the Balrog? Obviously not.

So rather than magic/spell-lore being something study-able by everyone, I see it more like learning different ways of focusing your powers (oops, that's a loaded term here). For example, if Gandalf once knew every door-opening spell, perhaps what he studied wasn't just the words, but different ways of using his innate ability to "make things open," each determined by who made the magical door in the first place and how they shaped their magic. Sort of like knowing how to pick various types of lock, in a way...

(After having read the 2nd and 3rd pages):

I'm confused about what people see as "learned" sorcery or magic. Are we just thinking incatations, potions and spells? Or is it rather learning how to use your "power" to do specific things, so that the sorceror would be harnessing an already existant power that was in themselves, rather than just in the words of the spell. That seems relavant to me, anyway...

As you might be able to tell, I've been thinking about magic lately. Actually, it's in relation to the new LotR RPG (seeing that some people have mentioned D&D here). They still don't want to completely limit players from using magic, of course, and while they do a fairly good job of keeping the magic very "Tolkien", they do allow men to become wizards, which is a bit wrong. Men (and Hobbits) seem to be the one race precluded from magic, except for the sorcerers (Nazgul, Nouth of Sauron) and perhaps other Numenorians.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[The Saucepan Man]

I'm confused about what people see as "learned" sorcery or magic. Are we just thinking incatations, potions and spells? Or is it rather learning how to use your "power" to do specific things, so that the sorceror would be harnessing an already existant power that was in themselves, rather than just in the words of the spell.

Yes, good question. In the case of Gandalf, the fire and light bewitchments that he learned quite possibly simply involved him harnessing his already inherent power. This goes back to the idea that I touched on earlier of him perhaps re-learning Maiar powers that he was unable to bring with him to ME in his Istari form.

In the case of the Nine, it could be that the Rings of Power given to them bestowed upon them some innate power that they were able to tap into in order to become sorcerors. But what of the Mouth of Sauron? As noted earlier, it is unclear whether he became a sorceror before or after he fell in with Sauron. It is quite possible that he learned his magic independently.

In any event, my own view is that magic can be learned whether or not the student has any inherent "magical" ability. And by "learned" magic, yes, I mean acquisition of the knowledge to cast spells using command words, ingredients, physical gestures or a combination of all three. OK, that means that (subject to the possible racial limitations discussed earlier) anyone with sufficient intelligence could learn to use magic. But the scarcity of "learing opportunities" nevertheless meant that sorcerors were rare indeed in ME.

(Yes, I know that this is a very AD+D view of magic, but that's where my ideas on magic mainly come from - and it makes sense to me. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] )

[Iarwain]

Question:

We've established that magic can be learned, but how is it at all possible to be learned by a mortal without higher aid?

This doesn't seem quite right. If the rest of Middle Earth lives and works according to certain standards dealing with magic, why and how should black numenorians be able to escape their limits? Someone said previously that Hobbits were not capable because of their "inherent goodness". This is a little corny, is it not? Can a race really be generally good or bad? there are always exceptions, always. I think we've encountered a bit of Middle-Earth stereotyping here, have we not? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Iarwain

[The Saucepan Man]

Whoever said that learned magic (without inherent power) was restricted to Black Numenoreans? And whoever said it was restricted to evil beings? Au contraire, the description of the corruption of the Nine in the Silm suggests that they could have become sorcerors while still having "good" wills.

As for any racial limitations on the ability to learn magic, I will stick with what I said earlier:

I agree that it is difficult to imagine Hobbits or Dwarves becoming sorcerors. Perhaps they just never had the inclination to do so and, in the case of Hobbits at least, had no access to those able and willing to teach them.

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Iarwain]

So right now we have a list of possible mortal sorcerers:

1. the Morgul king (and other nazgul)
2. the Mouth of Sauron
3. Beorn and other Beornings

If there are any others, please add on to this list. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Number 1 can be explained by the fact that their rings allowed them to gain knowledge and power sufficient to become sorcerers. However, 2 and 3 are slightly shady, we do not know how they obtained their knowledge or power.

Iarwain

[Dain]

Well, "sorcery" seems to indicate dark magic in Tolkien, so I'm not sure we'd call Beorn a sorceror. If his only power is skin-changeing (no, no, not a furrier, Bilbo!) then he's just something strange--does Tolkien talk about Beornings much outside The Hobbit?

As for the Mouth, he was a Numenorean, right? So he may have learned from Sauron from the beginning, or from the people Sauron influenced/tought while he was there causing their downfall. I think sorcery is a dark art that you can study and learn, if you have access to teachers or texts, which the Mouth probably had. I also think it is perhaps easier for men to learn this evil sorcery-magic than other types of magic.

I think that there is a difference between sorcery and real, good magic like the elves posses, and the dwarves to some extent, and is manifested mostly in their crafts. I still think its more a matter of using and controlling your innate powers and connexions to the magic of Arda as a whole, at least for this type of art/craft magic. It's possible to study, but it's not as simple as learning a recipe or a spell-phrase. And I'm not sure you can be a sorceror without becoming evil. "Good" magic is subtle--as the elven rings certainly are.

For example, I think Aragorn has magic, but he never studies or says any spells, it's just in him, and he uses it without thinking (perhaps that's what you, Iarwain, meant by "power" in the first place"?). Gandalf has a lot of spells and flashy magic, but when he really shows his power is not when he's blasting orcs with pinecones, but when he's staring down the Witch-King or the Balrog, and he just has this aura of might, rather than any particular spells. I think that's where the real magic in Tolkien is.

It is very confusing, and it's late. Good luck with the discussion, I won't be back for a while... [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Salocin]

Um, well, okay. So this thread is actually just about what you guys think about magic and power, and nothing to do with Tolkien, right?

Wrong! We are trying to figuer out how magic works in ME. To do so we had to make our own deffinitions of aspects of ME magic we think we see. For example Iarwain clearly stated in the first post that for this topic we would use "power" to represent the magic inherently posessed by elves, valar, maia, etc. and "magic" would reffer to what we have since been calling "occult magic".

Anyways, what's the deal with scattering (sic) through out your quote from me? You could at least put a note at the end saying you added those.

Back to page 3:

Reading the new opinions Dain has brought to this topic, I just had a new idea (by the way, this is ignoring any inate abilities like skin changing). Maybe every person has a certain amount of "power" which, in under most circumstances, is defined by race and lineage. For example:elves would have a lot, hobbits would have next to none, Numenorians would have more than a normal human, Aragorn would have quite a significant amout (being desended from elves and, far down the line, a miai). In order to "harness" that power the would use spells, items or other like things. Let me refraise that: The power would allow them to use certain spells and items. Some items would increase the power by some function (Witch King).

[Iarwain]

Perfect summation of the purpose of this thread, Salocin. However I'm not sure I agree with the second part of your post. I agree with your general theory, but I don't believe that Aragorn would have any unnatural power over his surroundings or to make or use magical items. We must remember that, although he is part maia, that blood has been diluted for dozens of generations. And, even though Elros was halfelven, he was in reality only an extremely distant ancestor. I don't think that Aragorn's heritage would, then, have much to do with his "power", though perhaps we can use it to account for his ability of foresight.

Iarwain

P.S. Dain, thus the "possible" at the top of my list. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I didn't imagine Beorn as a "sorcerer", if forced to account for his skinshifting abilities I would probably say that he was a maia.

[ March 26, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Salocin]

Aragorn was able to use the palantir beter than almost anyone. He was deffenitly beter with it than Saruman, Denthor, Pippin [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] , Gandalf, and, debatably, Sauron. This was obviously because of his undiluted Royal Numenorian blood.

For some strange reason I don't accually own a copy of the Hobbit, but didn't Gandalf tell Bilbo that Beorn was a sorceror, magician, or something like that?

[ March 27, 2003: Message edited by: Salocin ]

[Maerbenn]

Tolkien says so in Letter #144:

Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man.

[Salocin]

Exactly. When ever I have been citing Beorn as an example of a sorceror or of learned magic I have been refering to the powers he had besides skin changing. I agree that skin changing is an inherent (and probably inheretable) ability, but I still think he had other powers that we are not told about. I think he learned these as a magician. Does any one else find it strange that Beorn arives in the nick of time at the Battle of Five Armies? How did he even know the battle was going on? I see one of two possibilities:
1) The eagles told him on their way (I is still unclear who told the eagles. Many contend it was Radagast, but I don't see why he would know. Another possibility is that an eagle scout (no pun intended) saw it and quickly returned to let Gwaithier know.)

2)He has some sort of magical powers that let him know, either by enchantments, or instinct, or "hearing" it in nature.

I would personaly like to believe the second one. As far as I can see it would make more sense from a time perspective. If the eagles told him they would have done so while they were leaving to go help. He would probably have started imediatly, but even so it would have taken him at least (taking into acout Beserk strength and endurance and the distance he could cover as a humongous bear) 2 days. He arive less than 12 hours after the eagles though, which means he deffenetly heard about it before the eagles did.

All in all, this is my justification for why Beorn should be considered a mortal (and human no less) with magical powers. It is interesting to note that with him their is no possibility of having been bestowed power by Sauron, as is possible with the Wotch King and the Mouth of Sauron. It is also improbable that he could have gained the ability to learn magic from a powerful item as the Witch King may have done.

[Iarwain]

Since I'm sensing that this thread is about to fall into slumber, I think I'll make a summation of what it has shown me, what issues have been resolved and what remains undecieded.

We have decided, I believe, that the majority of "magic" in Middle-Earth can be traced back to someone's extension or use of their own innate power. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, as we see in the Lord of the Nazgul, Beorn, and other mortal magicians. We have also determined that magic in Middle-Earth can be learned to a certain degree and by certain people, we see this most clearly in the use of the rings of power. A few issues that remain unresolved, include the absolute nature of the innate power displayed by the various Ainur, and what part the Great Music played in the existence of power in Middle-Earth. From this discussion I personally have learned that power in Middle-Earth may follow a faint system of rules, but this framework has many inconsistencies and exceptions. Power is, as always, a relative term, and it remains up to the individual to interpret both its extent and nature.

Iarwain

[burrahobbit]

The framework is rigid and has no inconsistencies. The inconsistencies come from inside of your head where you made things up that Tolkien never said.

[Iarwain]

This original post was beyond rude, so it is gone.

Burrahobbit, I'm glad you've found the key. Perhaps someday I will be so fortunate.


Iarwain

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Meoshi]

Another interesting incident of magic in ME; The Wizard Tu(or whatever his name was), who became leader of the Avari in Cuivinien after the Valar departed with the Eldar. I know that the character was discarded later, but why would an elf be considered a wizard? Since all elves have inherant powers, what made him so special?

[Salocin]

That is probably why Tolkien discarded him. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Bill Ferny]

The framework is rigid and has no inconsistencies.

Proof positive that fundamentalism isn’t limited only to religion. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Iarwain]

I'm sure this post is at least a year late, but reading Burrahobbit's last post reminded me of something I read once by C.S. Lewis.

He said that people often read Shakespeare (as an example), and take certain regularities in his construction or rhyme schemes to be rules according to which he wrote. I suppose the identifications of "inconsistencies" on my part merely shows the lack of understanding we all share in relation to this very important subject.

Cleaning the mud off my boots,
Iarwain

[HerenIstarion]

See this and this and this also