There are some good books who give the fact that there is no Magic in Middlearth. They say that the mirror of Galadriel is for Hobbits magic, but in reality a high qualified thing, with which Galadriel, who reads the mind of Sauron, shows Frodo what could happen if he failed. Then they say that Gandalf had the magic to do fgireworks, through the ring of fire and they were just the result of a few experiments of him.
I personally can't fully belive it, but is there anyone who can?
Thread: Magic
Erm..lets see. How would you explain the sudden rush of water in the river of Rivendell when the Nazgul stepped into it? How would you explain the twig that caught fire when Gandalf threw it in the air during the battle with the wargs? How do you explain that the mighty bridge of Khazad-Dum broke with just a sigle stroke of the staff? How do you explain the Ring's powr to make one invisible?
How do you explain so may other things? If not by magic? Gandalf was a wizard. And what a wizard would he be if he can't do magic. Magic or not, these things have to be taken as "magic" or else you will have to go real deep to find out about it. ts really a matter of your perspective. It depends on where would you like to stop with the explanation for the "unnatural" things!
How do you explain so may other things? If not by magic? Gandalf was a wizard. And what a wizard would he be if he can't do magic. Magic or not, these things have to be taken as "magic" or else you will have to go real deep to find out about it. ts really a matter of your perspective. It depends on where would you like to stop with the explanation for the "unnatural" things!
Although some might say these examples do not necessarily qualifiy as "magic" Ingwe, there are a few other instances that appear beyond the normal in LOTR. Three especially come to mind. First, Eowyn was able to slay the witchking after Merry dealt him a nasty cut to the leg. There was obviously something more at work in that situation that allowed a young maiden and a hobbit to take down one of Sauron's top contenders. Second, the freeing of Theoden from the influence of Sauruman. Without Gandalf and his staff present to drive out the possessive effects of Sauruman, Theoden would not have recovered his senses enough for the battles to come. Third example is the gates of Moria. How could a few correctly spoken words open doors that are otherwise closed to efforts of force? Somehow these examples defy normal definitions of science and thereby fall under the realm of the unexplained. To me they illustrate the presence of magic in Tolkien's world.
JRRT wrote in one of his Letters that Elves have no magic, but that there's just Art. I can't give the exact quote now as i don't have Letters with me now, and giving quotes is not appreciated anymore.
What elves do, only appears as "magic" to men (which Galadriel said in chapter Lothlorien as well).
What elves do, only appears as "magic" to men (which Galadriel said in chapter Lothlorien as well).
Quote:
and giving quotes is not appreciated anymore.
and giving quotes is not appreciated anymore.
Of course they are.Quote:
What elves do, only appears as "magic" to men (which Galadriel said in chapter Lothlorien as well).
What elves do, only appears as "magic" to men (which Galadriel said in chapter Lothlorien as well).
True. And so Gandalf and the other wizards appears even more magical to us.
Take a look at the thread(s) about the witchking to read more thoughts about why he could be beaten by the way he was.
Here ya go then :
from Letters
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.
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.
from Letters
The quoting of text from the Professor's books and letters when making a point is good in that it lets everyone know from whence one is basing their views. It also allows those without the quoted volume at hand to offer complimentary or contrary views without wasting time looking for the unquoted text.
That said, it still helps if we provide the chapter or letter number for easier varification of the quoted material; though page numbers aren't very helpful due to the number of diferent editions of the individual titles that have been published over the years. Sometimes I state about where in a chapter a quote comes from, but usually I don't unless it is an extra long chapter.
That said, it still helps if we provide the chapter or letter number for easier varification of the quoted material; though page numbers aren't very helpful due to the number of diferent editions of the individual titles that have been published over the years. Sometimes I state about where in a chapter a quote comes from, but usually I don't unless it is an extra long chapter.
So basically what you guys are saying is the magic in middle-earth is more like science? (Art if you want)
That could make sense, for instance; if you could take a TV back in time a couple centuries the people back then would think the TV was witch craft, or magic, same deal.
That could make sense, for instance; if you could take a TV back in time a couple centuries the people back then would think the TV was witch craft, or magic, same deal.
Thanks a lot!
It's a bit stramge, because the istari are normally are normally decribed as wizard not as proffesors of some science! But then if you look especially at the one ring, it is not made by magic, but by the knowledge Sauron gained through having been a servant of Aule
It's a bit stramge, because the istari are normally are normally decribed as wizard not as proffesors of some science! But then if you look especially at the one ring, it is not made by magic, but by the knowledge Sauron gained through having been a servant of Aule
And then again, magic may be the science of a parallel plane's universe.
Maybe the book is just a fantasy novel, and magic was being used by the Elves and such, and it's not really true. Just kidding of course, no offence meant to the book, but it is only a fantasy (a good one, too). A good book to read that sort of goes through it is by Stephen Donaldson, the chronicles of thomas covenant the unbeliever. I think that the users are sort of twisting things in their minds to make it real for them, only if everybody else thinks it is also real.
So- my theory - magic is only an illusion to satisfy the user, and is only possible through people's ignorance in not seeing the illusion. But it'd be a darn good trick. It could be wrong, though...
So- my theory - magic is only an illusion to satisfy the user, and is only possible through people's ignorance in not seeing the illusion. But it'd be a darn good trick. It could be wrong, though...
Illusion is just one branch of magic; sorcery is the creation of something out of nothing; and necromancy is the magic dealing with the undead. There are other fields of magic that make something else out something, but I can't remember their actual names. What I am trying to say is the product of magic often has substance and it usually requires something else to be destroyed in its making, which is why moderation is important, so as to maintain nature's balance. The best magic is that never used.
