Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: no magic

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Author > no magic   
since gandalf is an Istari and not an wizard then there is no such thing as wizard...or is there? i read somewhere that tolkien put as less magic as he could in his books because he didnt want life to be too easy on middle-earth that frodo cant just say a spell and appear at mount doom drop the ring in and disappear and appear safely back home. for me this makes lotr a total different style than harry potter(i know it already is anyway). theres so few scenes where there is magic in lotr...pointless thread. im sorry but discuss if you want to
There are Wizards. The Istari are called Wizards by the peoples of Middle-earth. To men they percieve the Istari as Wizards so thats what they are called in there lore. Therefore there is such thing as wizards.
They did have what Men called 'Magic'. However this is not Harry Potter. Tolkien wanted a more classic, less rediculous sought of magic, thus is what he used.
Gandalf could make light with his staff and I believe he made thunder in Theoden's throne room to drown out the blabber of Grima Wormtongue. And he used white fire to drive off the Nazgul in his rescue of Faramir and his men of Gondor in their retreat from Osgiliath back to Minas Tirith. But he didn't flaunt the magic he had, for his real magic was that of persuasion and instilling hope in the hearts of men to help them stand against the forces of the enemy.
They were called wizards by the peoples but since they were maiar i do not think that they were actual "wizards" they only used their natural abilities. As for mentions in the lotr that gandalf was specialized in light "magic" remember that tolkien wrote the the lord of the rings and the hobbit such as frodo and bilbo would have wrote them.
Wizards are simply beings which have Powers above that of which the beings which call them wizards possess (if you can get that...) Wizards are not actually another type of 'people'.

And remember wizards are fictional. Its up to the author of a fantasy what a Wizard actually is. There are no guidlines or rules that have to be followed and no minimum qualifications that need to be met 'to be officially classed as a wizard'.
They were wizards to the people of middle-earth but amongst the other higher races they were not called wizards i understand. But i do not remember have any elves called them wizards? Maybe thay were called wizards only among men.
Not another type of men but a wholely diffirent race since they were maiar.
Amongst maiar such "magic" is common i think.
Since lady melian was able to protect doriath.
"Wizards" was a term JRRT gave to angelic beings who sailed East to M-E from the Undying Lands.
Quote:
Nowhere is the place or nature of 'the Wizards' made fully explicit. Their name, as related to Wise, is an Englishing of their Elvish name, and is used throughout as utterly distinct from Sorcerer or Magician. It appears finally that they were as one might say the near equivalent in the mode of these tales of Angels, guardian Angels. Their powers are directed primarily to the encouragement of the enemies of evil, to cause them to use their own wits and valour, to unite and endure. They appear always as old men and sages, and though (sent by the powers of the True West) in the world they suffer themselves, their age and grey hairs increase only slowly. Gandalf whose function is especially to watch human affairs (Men and Hobbits) goes on through all the tales. - Letter 131


Quote:
They were thought to be Emissaries (in the terms of this tale from the Far West beyond the Sea), and their proper function, maintained by Gandalf, and perverted by Saruman, was to encourage and bring out the native powers of the Enemies of Sauron. - Letter 144


Quote:
But G. is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an ἄγγελος:2 that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them. They thus appeared as 'old' sage figures. But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). - Letter 156


As for "magic", JRRT wrote:
Quote:
I have not used 'magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation. The 'Elves' are 'immortal', at least as far as this world goes: and hence are concerned rather with the griefs and burdens of deathlessness in time and change, than with death. The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem : that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others — speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans — is a recurrent motive. - Letter 131


And in Letter 155:
Quote:
I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and others show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia.1 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 one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.
Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while A. is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'.


Those are all the relevant quotes I could assemble regarding Wizards and Magic.
What was Gandalf's first recorded activity (not Olorin, but Gandalf, i.e. recorded by men)? He came over some time early in the 3rd Age, right? When was he first noticed as Gandalf?
The Istari arrived in Middle-earth at 1000 T.A. Only Cirdan Elrond and Galadriel knew they came form beyond the Sea, and thus were indeed the angelic people. Other lesser peoples saw them as a powerful, rare and uncanny race of old men in appearance and thus invented the name of 'wizards' for them.
Could you be more specific than that?
More specific than what?
"Wizard" is the mispronounced "Wise-herd" = One who is wise and a herder of humans. Teacher Smilie Wiggle Smilie
^in lotr or in the real world
Only in my dreams I suppose, not being a philologist. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie It just seems that was what Gandalf was. He pointed Men in the direction they should take to cause the downfall of Sauron.
What was the first thing that we know Gandalf did, besides just "appearing"?
Travelling. That's how he acquired his Mithrandir-tag.
One of the first things (it appears) he did was meet Círdan and accept Narya.
I think the big difference between the LotR and some other fantasy writings is that in Middle-earth life is more real. If anything can be done with such magic, then things like one's physical efforts become nothing important because they just live on magic. When they want something to eat, they would cast a spell and everything comes to their table. It might be a tragedy if Frodo asked Gandalf to send him to Mordor by some spells...