Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
Lorien - Was Sauron Really Needed to Conquer It?

Girdle of Melian
Lorien

Jan 4 2015, 8:36am

Post #1 of 19 (1713 views)
Shortcut
Lorien - Was Sauron Really Needed to Conquer It? Can't Post

We all know what was said in the appendices, that "the power that dwelt there" was to great for any to overcome unless Sauron came there himself.

How literally do you take this? To me, this suggest that it is not possible to take Lorien militarily without the aid of Sauron (I'll take Tolkien's word on it). This suggests to me that Galadriel will heavily rely on lore and the natural elements to keep the enemies at bay, unless Sauron came there himself to counter it with his own songs. I mean if Tolkien wanted to put unless he would have been more specific...in this case, he only mentioned Sauron himself.

Thoughts?


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 4 2015, 10:30am

Post #2 of 19 (1546 views)
Shortcut
I have a short, boring answer, and some questions to try & get to a better answer. [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the only sure answer is that "we don't know" - Tolkien wrote literate fantasy, rather than something more like a game, in which characters have specific abilities and stats and there are explicit rules by which the consequences of something are worked out. I'm thinking here of games like Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft (or of course, the several tabletop and computer games specifically based upon Middle-earth). Of course, that is a rather boring answer - and there's no law against speculating about how such a battle would go if we want! But I see little hope in looking to the books for specific data.


A related thing is that in those games, and also in the Peter Jackson movies, magic is dramatized into a personal conflict - people turn green in the face, fling each other around force-like etc. Those PJ movie sequences solve the problem of magic being so un-dramatic and un-visual in the books. They are tame by game standards in which magic-wielding fighting characters can have powers with the effect of mortar fire or flamethrowers etc.

Little of that dramatic combat happens in the Tolkien books - even to the extent that we think we're going to get a Gandalf vs. the Witch King smackdown, but then we don't. The amount of obvious combat magic Gandalf throws around in the books would be pretty low-level stuff in World of Warcraft, say * Sauron, meanwhile, never appears "in person". When you mention Sauron's "songs" I think you are referring to the Beren & Luthien story within Silmarillion. In that, there is a battle of songs. But the story is different from the others in many ways: personally I wouldn't see it as establishing rules that are to be assumed to be in effect for all the other books (though that is a matter of opinion, of course).

So your question might have a different answer according to whether we're thinking of the book or the movies. Or which book....

I remember that you recently asked a similar question (whether Saruman could putatively conquer Lorien - (http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=788220#788220 )

That makes me wonder whether you have an idea or theory or opinion you're exploring? If that's the case, can you say more about your thinking? That might lead more swiftly and harmoniously to responses that will interest you. I mention this because sometimes, someone asks a question to which they already feel they know the answer, & then become frustrated if the forum doesn't deduce the "correct" answer. If that's how it is, it often works better to advance a theory for discussion - or a part theory,mentioning points where you are stuck or already appreciate that there are problems.
Smile

--

* Disclaimer - my son's moved on to other games, so my Warcraft knowledge might be out of date on the specifics. But I doubt the game has been made less dramatic Smile

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Jan 4 2015, 4:14pm

Post #3 of 19 (1505 views)
Shortcut
A shorter answer [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Lorien - Was Sauron Really Needed to Conquer It?

Here’s the quote:

Quote
Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come there himself. Though grievous harm was done to the fair woods on the borders, the assaults were driven back; and when the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over Anduin in many boats. They took Dol Guldiur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed. –Appendix B

Is there reason to question Tolkien’s word here? We can banter about HOW this would be accomplished, but NOT that it was FACT (unless we question the statement of JRRT himself, and who among us has the cheek?)




Cari
Bree

Jan 4 2015, 5:41pm

Post #4 of 19 (1499 views)
Shortcut
Lorien is apart [In reply to] Can't Post

Besides taking what Tolkien says as fact, Lorien is a realm apart from Middle-earth. I tend to think of Lorien as one of the Otherworlds from Celtic Mythology where you can enter it from the real world but it is it's own realm.


Girdle of Melian
Lorien

Jan 4 2015, 8:34pm

Post #5 of 19 (1501 views)
Shortcut
Just trying to make sense... [In reply to] Can't Post

How "spell casting" etc. make sense in ME.

They are done through lore and songs, if I'm not mistaken. Would Sauron needed to be there (with the One Ring) in order for him to breach Lorien's defenses (I'm not talking about militarily, of course, as I doubt there are enough Elves in Lorien to forever counter the massive amounts of Orc Sauron mustered)? Will it be like as Peter Jackson portrayed it when both Gandalf and Saruman were chanting while the fellowship was crossing the mountain towards Moria, wherein Saruman manages to send a bolt of lightning to bring down rocks on them (don't remember if that really even happened in the books, though).

As for Saruman, the dark lord could potentially send him instead there (there's debate whether or not the Istari can use their full Mair powers or not willingly or unwillingly), yet Saruman was helpless against the ents (or maybe just chose not engage them).

...


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 4 2015, 10:18pm

Post #6 of 19 (1525 views)
Shortcut
'How "spell casting" etc. makes sense in ME.' is very tricky - Tolkien was very cagey about it [In reply to] Can't Post

'Cagey' in his writing, I mean: the treatment of magic is an area in which the books and other media diverge. The movies had (understandably enough) different needs. The example you raise - of the Fellowship trying to get over Carhadras - is an excellent one: in the film it is clear that Saruman is the opposing force. As a film audience we are to gather that he is opposing the Fellowship magically, and so he is shown standing atop Orthanc and chanting, with snow clouds blowing away from him to the Misty Mountains. That way, the audience can understand he is doing magic, and can do so rapidly enough not to be left behind. A cinema audience needs more queuing like this - they cannot go 'eh?!?' and go back a few pages to re-read. In that point in the book, by contrast, Tolkien labours really hard to ensure that we are never sure who or what the opposing force is: as soon as a character advances a theory (Sauron? Saruman? Something else?) another rebuts it. The chapter, I think, is all the more effective for that, but I do see how that deliberate ambiguity and confusion wouldn't transmit to film without being really... confusing.

Similar concerns, and the opportunity to add drama, result ,in BOT5A, in Galadriel turning green & blasting Sauron all the way to Kansas (or wherever) - different needs of different media, as we've discussed a bit already.

In the books, however, the ambiguity about magic is an authorial choice which occurs again and again. For example, when the Hobbits fall asleep resting against a standing stone on the Barrow Downs, Tolkien writes:


Quote
“Riding over the hills, and eating their fill, the warm sun and the scent of turf, lying a little too long, stretching out their legs and looking at the sky above their noses: these things are, perhaps, enough to explain what happened. However that may be: they awoke suddenly and uncomfortably from a sleep they had never meant to take."
Fog On The Barrow Downs, Fellowship Of The Ring


What I'm seeking to emphasise here is that his very denial that anything supernatural could +possibly+ be happening is deliberately unconvincing. He's deliberately (I think) leaving open the possibility of supernatural intervention. Or, rather, he is encouraging us to believe in it, whilst carefully not offering any proof.

(BTW, The whole issue of what causes the fog on the barrow downs is wonderfully discussed by DanielLB, here http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=670204#670204 . It is one of my favourite things I have read here. There are also links on that discussion to other instances of is-it-or-is-it-not -magic. Somewhere in there I promised to write about the "what is magic" problem: well, here is what I've got.).

Not content with mere obtusification, Tolkien becomes actively confusing on the subject when the Fellowship visits Lorien:


Quote
“For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word for the deceits of the Enemy.’”

And....

‘Are these magic cloaks?’ asked Pippin, looking at them in wonder.
‘I do not know what you mean by that,’ answered the leader of the elves. ‘They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are Elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean.’

FOTR Book II Ch 7 & 8


Clearly we are to understand that the concept of ‘magic’ has some subtleties that the rustic hobbits haven’t grasped (without - darn it Professor - being told what that is). One issue seems to be that Galadriel finds it odd that the hobbits use the word ‘magic’ to cover so many things. Elvish, one infers, has several distinct words so as to observe these subtleties, and 'magic' is an unsatisfactory translation. The other problem seems to be that the hobbits mistake ‘magic’ for skill - the cloaks might be entirely devoid of magic for all we know; perhaps they are only so very well made that it is hard for the ignorant hobbits to conceive that they are not magical. Whatever, the reader of Lord of the Rings learns no more, and it is to Tolkien’s Letters that we have to turn for further details. There is information in Letter 131, but even more so in Letter 155. Letter 155, written in 1954, is an unsent draft to author & poet Naomi Mitchison, who was also a proof-reader for Lord of the Rings. The whole of the letter explains Tolkien’s ideas on magic, and so I will paraphrase and summarize, rather than quote it in its entirety.

<parphrasing & summarising>
Tolkien begins “I am afraid I have been far too casual about ‘magic’ and especially the use of the word”. But “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-philisophic disquisition!” For the purposes of the tale, he goes on to explain there are perhaps two kinds of magic:

‘magia’ produces real effects in the physical world (such as Gandalf’s igniting wet wood); ‘goeteia’ (as I read Tolkien’s comments) seems to be more about illusion. Neither is morally good or bad (in this tale) per se - it depends upon the motive or purpose of use. The Enemy tends to use “magia...to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate”. Those are supremely bad motives in a tale that is specifically about domination of other ‘free’ wills. The elves’ goeteia, by contrast is intended as Art - it deceives only accidentally (like someone mistaking a statue for a real person). Magic is, in any form, a rarity - both sides live mostly by “normal means”. [Interpreting here, I think this is because the Enemy likes to accumulate and use non-magical power, and an important theme of the story is that the Wise should not try to match the Enemy power for power.] Magic in this story is not achieved by ‘lore’ or spells: it is an inherent power, and so can’t be possessed by Men. Aragorn is an exception to prove the rule here: his healing might be part magical, and is part not, but then it is supposed to be being reported to us by the hobbits “who have very little notions of philosophy and science”. And , besides, Aragorn has elvish ancestors from whom he could have inherited an inherent or inborn power.
</parphrasing & summarising>

So it is clear that, in 1954 (the year in which Fellowship of the Ring was published), Tolkien did have clear ideas about how magic worked in his tale, and that it was a deliberate authorial decision to leave this material almost entirely out. Also that it is not +only+ a matter of songs and lore - there is also a factor of innate natural ability. A hobbit, for example, could not more hope to ignite wet wood by saying or singing the right words than you or I could hope to direct bees to flowers by performing a waggle dance. (We miss the essential condition of being bees; the hobbit misses the essential condition of being a wizard.)

Tolkien has given one reason for this in Letter 155 (he says: “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-philisophic disquisition!”). But there is more to it than choosing not to interrupt the story for an essay: the lack of information is an important and effective literary device. Veriyln Flieger writes:


Quote
“It is no exaggeration to say that The Lord of the Rings is the most important and most influential fantasy of the twentieth century. But if you examine the book closely, you will find that for a major fantasy it has surprisingly few actual fantastic elements in it - far fewer, indeed than in the multitude of later fantasies his fiction has spawned. There is very little in his work that is not either derived from reality or rearranged from primary material. Tolkien’s “fantasy” is both attractive and powerful not because of its fantasy but because of its reality, because it shows us that things are “so” in our own world”

Veriyln Flieger, “Fantasy and Reality: JRR Tolkien’s World and the Fairy Story Essay” in Green Suns and Faerie Kent State University Press 2012


Dr Flieger goes on to point out that overt and unequivocal magic is rare in Lord of the Rings, or where it does happen it does not achieve much to alter the course of things. Gandalf magically lights a fire in the snow, but the Fellowship is forced to retreat from the Pass of Caradhras anyway. Saruman uses explosives (now, would those be magical or ‘merely’ chemical?) to bring down the Walls of Helm’s Deep, but the defenders survive. Use of the palantirs confuses more than it enlightens. The One Ring, makes people invisible of course, but this can be seen as a hangover from the more carefree handling of magic in The Hobbit. In LOTR, the Ring’s use as a ring of invisibility is mostly nullified because the Ringbearers seldom dare to wear it. The Ring is more a magical device to corrupt and to command. The power to command we only see in the negative, Dr Flieger points out: only in the destruction wrought on Sauron and on his creations when the Ring is destroyed. For the corruption angle, one can have a fine discussion about ‘How the Ring tempts’ but there is the limitation implicit in the following quote, which Dr Flieger picks out from Tolkien’s letters:


Quote
“You cannot press the One Ring too hard, for it is of course a mythical feature...The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatment of placing one’s life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself...”

Letters #279


Dr Flieger then goes on to say:


Quote
“What is shown instead of the actual power of the Ring is the reaction of characters to it. Bilbo lies to maintain his right to it, and cannot freely give it up. Gandalf is afraid of it, Galadriel tempted by it, Boromir is corrupted by it (as is Denethor who has never seen it), Grishnakh covets it, and Saruman loses his wisdom and his position as head of the White Council for it. We see all these manifestations, and we refer them back to the Ring. It is we, not Tolkien, who confer power on the Ring, and he was wise enough to know that we would, and to let us do it”.

Again, Veriyln Flieger, “Fantasy and Reality: JRR Tolkien’s World and the Fairy Story Essay” in Green Suns and Faerie Kent State University Press 2012


This pattern is repeated at key other points in Tolkien's writings. To what extent is Turin at the helpless mercy of the curse placed upon him by Morgoth, and to what extent are his misadventures due to his own character failings? To what extent are the Sons of Feanor really helplessly bound by their terrible oath to recover the silmarils from whomsoever, and to what extent do they merely +believe themselves bound+? Like with the One Ring, we see the Curse or the Oath, or the Power of the Silmarils in their effect on characters, and refer the effect back to the source. Its a risky but incredibly effective trick. Risky in that you have to be a fine novelist to pull it off, effective in that the storyteller doesn’t know what a particular reader will find affecting: but that reader’s mind surely does, and immediately applies exactly the right thing, given the right kinds of prompts. It breaks down if the prompts are too many, or too insistent: if we get into allegory, in which the storyteller imposes a particular meaning (and often just a single one) onto the reader, rather than allowing readers to find their own ‘applicability’.
PROBABLY, this state of affairs is more satisfying than any ex cathedra statement of lore from the author. At least I try to think so, though I can't help also wondering 'How does it WORK?'...

I hope this is of some interest - I fear that I can't answer your question, but maybe we can admire the problem together Wink

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 4 2015, 10:25pm)


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Jan 5 2015, 12:40am

Post #7 of 19 (1481 views)
Shortcut
Wow!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Just amazing! This combines several wonderful quotes (Which I am carefully saving for future reference.) with so much of what I, myself, wanted to say. I can't really say more than you have, except for this:

On the topic of The Lord of the Rings being a 'realistic fantasy' and the lack of outright 'magic':

I see a possible parallel to be drawn to the effects of the supernatural in our world. Many people would contend that there is another world of unseen beings and spirits, and that at times in the past, contact was made and even outright interference occurred in our world. The question as to if, or why, these experiences occur (or continue to do so) would seem to be very similar to the question of the presence, or absence of magic within Middle-Earth.

Perhaps the lack of magic in LotR is indicative of this perceived shift in human understanding of the world? Maybe it exists (or more properly, does not exist) because we have either out-grown superstition, or other factors in the world have changed, precluding or limiting the appearances of omens, miracles, or supernatural phenomenon? I do not seek to address or answer these very real questions, but I do wonder if the magical dearth was made to draw the world of Middle-Earth closer to that of our own Terra....

Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?


squire
Half-elven


Jan 5 2015, 1:36am

Post #8 of 19 (1452 views)
Shortcut
Very nice!// [In reply to] Can't Post

 



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 5 2015, 3:26pm

Post #9 of 19 (1440 views)
Shortcut
Magic ain't what it used to be? [In reply to] Can't Post

I was thinking about your idea that levels of magic declining in Middle-earth, perhaps on the way to a situation more like historical times. It's an interesting idea!

I suppose that, if you cold define a "Gross Magical Product (GMP)" - somehow quantifying the total amount of magic done in Middle-earth in a particular year, you ought to find that index declining as the Third Age draws to a close and the Fourth Age starts. I think that would be expected simply because Elves (who can use magic) are leaving, and men (who cannot use magic) are proliferating.

But, if we start to try and think about whether, say , the First Age was more magical than the Third, we hit two problems to do with the nature of magic in Tolkien's writing. Problems that sound ridiculous and quibbly at first. But (I hope) these issues improve on further acquaintance & are worth a discussion.

Problem #1 - what counts as "magic" (something about which I've already argued our author decided to be very reticent)
Problem #2 - which First Age story are we talking about? Does it work to assume that Magic works consistently throughout Tolkien's posthumously-published First Age stories?



What counts as magic anyway?
For example - is the creation of Arda at the start of everything the single most magical thing that ever happened? Or is what the gods do by definition not magic? Confusion on this point has been known to lead to problems:


Simon Magus, making a mistake about what counts as magic (Nuremberg Chronicle. Larger image on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/...h_of_simon_magus.jpg )

That allows me to share a wonderful piece (from Anita Mason's novel The Illusionist) of attitudes to magic in 1st Century AD Judea. The following passage from that book sets up the world in which her main character, the magician Simon Magus, operates:


Quote
“Magic was prohibited in those days, on the assumption that it worked...

[But] not all magic was illegal. It was an open-minded age, and a thing was judged largely on its intended effects. A spell to cast harm on a neighbour was punishable; a spell to take away toothache was not. If it had been, many doctors would have been seriously inconvenienced.

Magic was part of the fabric of life, and a great deal of it was not recognized as magic at all. It shaded imperceptibly into religion on the one hand and science on the other - inevitably, since it had begotten them. It was practiced by a strange assortment of people...Since the small fry of the magical world were limited by their capacities to catering for the baser needs of human nature - a love potion, as curse, a spell to make a woman tell the truth - while those of greater aptitude could afford to use their gifts benignly, the shadowy distinction between permitted and forbidden magic tended regrettably to resolve itself into a class distinction, in which the artisans were nearly always on the wrong side of the law and the great masters were above it. ...

Since white magic was believed to be performed by gods and black or illegal magic by demons, this sort of assertion brought the argument about legality into an area where it could not be settled. For the supernatural agents who performed the magician's will did not normally identify themselves to the beholders. Thus a celebrated exorcist was several times accused of casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub. ...

Thus between legal and illegal, black and white, god and demon, the boundaries were hopelessly confused. Most people did not bother about this confusion: it did not appear to them to be a problem. To the magician, as to the prostitute, the occasional severity of the law was an occupational hazard. To Simon Magus, who saw very clearly that one man's harm is another man's blessing, and who operated in a world of forces where there is no good and evil but only power, the illogicalities of the law were the predictable outcome of a system in which men of little imagination made rules for their betters.

One idea which does not seem to have occurred to the lawmakers of the time was that magic should be anyone's property. It was simply there, as the air was there. The principle that the same act, performed with the same intent, should be licit or illicit depending on the identity of the magician, would have been found incomprehensible. It would, of course, have simplified the situation at a stroke. Perhaps they did not take magic very seriously in those days.”

The Illusionist by Anita Mason Penguin Books Ltd Published: 25 Aug 1994.


The last sentence, with its tone of irony, leads on to the idea that the Church made exactly that change early in the era of Christianity as a mass religion- performing magic would get you into trouble, but to perform the same act by miracle would not. The point I wanted to emphasise is that 'magic' is often the hard-to-pin-down squishy area left between 'miracles' and 'science'. That sounds like the situation in Middle-earth to me. Confusion is all the more likely since our observers are basically the hobbits, “who have very little notions of philosophy and science”. (Tolkien Letter #155, as quoted in my earlier post).


Problem #2 - which First Age story are we talking about? Does it work to assume that Magic works consistently throughout Tolkien's posthumously-published First Age stories?
When we did the last Silmarillion read-through I thought about this, & don't feel at all confident that what applies in one story applies in others. I'm pushing the limits of my knowledge here - but usually that's OK in the Reading Room: there's someone who knows more to pull a person back up if they go over the edge!


["Don't you dare go pushing the limits of your knowledge any further, Mr, Frodo." http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=754920#754920 ]

IT seems to me that the Turin stories and the Beren & Luthien stories have quite a different feel regarding the use of magic. The Turin story, of course, has a theme of fate and free will: how this works out in terms of plot is that Turin is put under a spectacular curse (which is something we don't see elsewhere in the Middle-earth stories, I think). As I mentioned, Tolkien does not tell us how the curse works mechanistically, and I think the story derives much of its character from this. It also - or so people said during the read-through - is very influenced by the Finnish legends of the Kalevala.

Beren & Luthien has more overt magic (or at least that's my sense). There are magical duels, shape-shifting, putting Morgoth to sleep to nick a silmaril etc. Again, we don't see those things used in the same way elsewhere (as far as I recall). Maybe no-one else has as much Mana as that Luthien lady Smile


[Since Luthien has used up all the Mana, we're left with just harsh language (and T-shirts from zazzle).]

During the Silmarillion read-though, people commented that this story seemed a bit like Celtic legends to them.

Sooo - my thought is that Tolkien was versioning & adapting and responding creatively to different kinds of legends and mythology at different times. He didn't, I think, work it all up into a corpus where magic was handled consistently - maybe that didn't seem important, or he didn't have time, or he didn't see how he could make consistent these differing stories which had been in his life for many years and might have achieved a pretty solid form for him.

You can see (I think) a similar problem if you try to make magic consistent between Tolkien's published Third-Age works, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit has a more lighthearted approach to magic, more suited to entertaining the child audience that was its original target. So Gandalf blows multi-coloured smoke-rings and steers them by magical remote control. There's the music-hall cockney trolls and their celebrated talking purse; and Beorn's dogs walk about on their hind legs in order to set the table. I don't see (and personally speaking, don't miss) these elements in LOTR.

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Jan 5 2015, 6:14pm

Post #10 of 19 (1426 views)
Shortcut
Very interesting... [In reply to] Can't Post

I appreciate your insights and do see the difficulties you mention. I, for one, do believe that the pursuit of any continuous idea of 'magic' between the First, Second, Third, and unpublished tales is quite the impossibility. The Legendarium was never unified, so what we are left is the legacy of The Professor's own exploration and experimentation with the identity of 'magic'.

In some cases, it seems harmless and benign, (cf. the Ring in TH), in others it seems to be more internal and lyrical (cf. The Tale of Beren and Luthien), and in others it could just as well be explained by a more advanced science (cf. Saruman's explosives). I can only refer back to Galadriel's response to the hobbit's questions about 'magic cloaks'. I think her words convey the illusions and misconceptions we all have as to the true nature of 'magic'. Much like mythology itself, there is no codified version of events or archetypes. In most cases, there exist several versions of the same tale, and in modern story-telling, characters need not adhere to the typical examples set by other literary figures.

If anything, I'd say that the power of magic (in literature and as an ideal) comes from the inherent difficulty we have to explain its elusive nature. Magic does what we cannot or will not do, by transcending our pre-conceived notions of the limits of the world; what is possible and what is impossible. It acts very much against reason and rationality, expressing a powerful effect that we deem furthest from our own reality. Perhaps that is why it is also portrayed as corrupting? It is something so alien to us, that it becomes the antithesis of our own being, and surpasses the limits we have set on ourselves. The moral point to be made might be this: If we are not careful, we might succumb to the temptation to set any limits, once we have the power to transcend them.

Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?


Girdle of Melian
Lorien

Jan 5 2015, 8:54pm

Post #11 of 19 (1425 views)
Shortcut
Your Insights are pround... [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you!

So, now I'm even more curious (lol), how this would have transpired:

Beneath the Shadowy Mountains they came upon a company of Orcs, and slew them all in their camp. They took their gear and weapons and by the magic of Finrod their own forms and faces were changed to the likeness of Orcs. Thus disguised they came far upon their northward road between Ered Wethrin and the highlands of Taur-nu-Fuin. However the twelve were captured and imprisoned by Sauron on Tol-in-Gaurhoth ("Isle of Werewolves"). Thus befell the contest of Finrod and Sauron. Finrod strove with Sauron in songs of power, and the power of the Elven King was very great but in the end Sauron had the mastery. It is told in the Lay of Leithian:
He chanted a song of wizardry,
Of piercing, opening, of treachery,
Revealing, uncovering, betraying.
Then sudden Felagund there swaying
sang in answer a song of staying,
Resisting, battling against power,
Of secrets kept, strength like a tower,
And trust unbroken, freedom, escape;
Of changing and of shifting shape,
Of snares eluded, broken traps,
The prison opening, the chain that snaps,
Backwards and forwards swayed their song.
Reeling and foundering, as ever more strong
The chanting swelled, Felagund fought,
And all the magic and might he brought,
Of Elvenesse into his words.
Softly in the gloom they heard the birds
Singing afar in Nargothrond,
The sighing of the sea beyond,
Beyond the western world, on sand,
On sand of pearls in Elvenland.
Then the gloom gathered; darkness growing
In Valinor, the red blood flowing
Beside the sea, where the Noldor slew
The Foamriders, and stealing drew
Their white ships with their white sails
From lamplit havens. The wind wails,
The wolf howls. The ravens flee.
The ice mutters in the mouths of the sea.
The captives sad in Angband mourn,
Thunder rumbles, the fires burn-
And Finrod fell before the throne.Then Sauron stripped from them their disguise, but though their kinds were revealed, he could not discover their names or their purposes. Then Sauron imprisoned them and one by one they were killed by werewolves until only Beren and Felagund were left, but none of the companions betrayed them. And when the werewolf came to kill Beren, Felagund put forth all his power and burst his bonds; and he wrestled with the werewolf, and slew it with his hands and teeth. Yet he himself was wounded to the death, and he died in the dark, in Tol-in-Gaurhoth, whose great tower he himself had built. Thus King Finrod Felagund, the fairest and most beloved of the house of Finwë, redeemed his oath.

- from Tolkiengate


(This post was edited by Girdle of Melian on Jan 5 2015, 9:01pm)


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 5 2015, 8:59pm

Post #12 of 19 (1426 views)
Shortcut
You're welcome! Not sure whether we're answering your question, but maybe the non-answer is of some interest! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


Mikah
Lorien

Jan 8 2015, 12:31am

Post #13 of 19 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Great thread... [In reply to] Can't Post

There is some really wonderful insight and theory in this thread! I have really enjoyed reading it.Smile


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Jan 14 2015, 3:46am

Post #14 of 19 (1373 views)
Shortcut
great thread! [In reply to] Can't Post

awesome insights from some serious scholars here!

The Finrod bit was one of my favorites from The Silmarillion etc... one of my favorite heroes in all of Middle Earth.

No one has quoted Arthur C. Clarke's "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.." (alluded to nicely in the first Thor film).

I was always aware and liked the subtlety of magic in Middle Earth. When I first read the books in 1978, I was also playing D&D, with it's very opposite view of magic: everything numbered and quantified on a nice neat chart, strength of 15, plus 5 bow, rolled a 3 (ack!). Neat contrast between the two fantasy worlds, and I still find myself torn between the two ideas in writing my own fiction.

I feel like Tolkien's "magic" was more about spiritual power and concepts, rather than the classic view of "magic".

I believe in science, but I also believe it doesn't have all the answers...

and now another quote I can't find a source for... the universe is not only weirder than you imagine, it's weirder than you can imagine...

"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.





Girdle of Melian
Lorien

Jan 16 2015, 9:15pm

Post #15 of 19 (1360 views)
Shortcut
Great Threat... [In reply to] Can't Post

but back to the original question...was Tolkien's words to be taken literally?

Why Sauron (with or without the One Ring I'm not sure) alone? Why if not Saruman with the One Ring, or one of the high kings? Other high beings could have done it with the ring, I presume. And this is why I got confused with the concept of magic in middle earth, and why the thread is interesting to read..lol. We'll never know, maybe.


Harukalioncourt
Registered User

Jan 22 2015, 3:23pm

Post #16 of 19 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Rings [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
but back to the original question...was Tolkien's words to be taken literally?

Why Sauron (with or without the One Ring I'm not sure) alone? Why if not Saruman with the One Ring, or one of the high kings? Other high beings could have done it with the ring, I presume. And this is why I got confused with the concept of magic in middle earth, and why the thread is interesting to read..lol. We'll never know, maybe.


It could be done with the One, because the One rules the others. Galadriel had a ring of power. So did Elrond, which I believe were the major players in keeping rivendell and lothlorien safe. Even if Sauron "came" himself he couldn't control the Elvish rings without the One. The elves were possessed with their own heavenly powers that seemed to be enhanced by the rings of power. Though the nine were mighty, they weren't able to breach Rivendell's borders. I'm not sure what to think about the Witch King, as he injured Gandalf, maybe he could have done a little more damage as he had a ring of power as well. As for Saruman, without the One, Galadriel simply probably would have cracked his staff, as Gandalf the white eventually did. Whatever power wizards seem to have is through or at least greatly enhanced by their staffs, and without it, wizards seem to be like a fish out of water. Gandolf had a ring of power as well which I doubt he used very often, but it probably came in handy when he was fighting the balrog. Lol


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Jan 22 2015, 7:58pm

Post #17 of 19 (1326 views)
Shortcut
A Welcome and a Question... [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't exactly recall this bit from the books...


Quote
I'm not sure what to think about the Witch King, as he injured Gandalf

Can you remind me where it was? All I recall is their aborted duel at the gates of Minas Tirith. The films go further (some say too far) and show him breaking Gandalf's staff, but that it a Jackson-ism not Tolkien's written word.

This part too, I'd like to comment on...


Quote
Whatever power wizards seem to have is through or at least greatly enhanced by their staffs, and without it, wizards seem to be like a fish out of water.

We've talked a lot about the power of wizard's staffs/staves?, and while their exact role and capabilities are undefined, I don't think we can exactly say that they are totally powerless without them. Saruman still had formidable power left in his voice, even after he lost his position as a wizard. That said, all opinions are certainly welcome; I just thought I'd put in a few points here...Smile

Welcom to the Reading Room Harukalioncourt! D'ye mind if I call you Haruk?

Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?


Girdle of Melian
Lorien

Feb 3 2015, 1:50pm

Post #18 of 19 (1286 views)
Shortcut
It gets really confusing with the Istaris..for me..at least... [In reply to] Can't Post

Are they restricted in their powers or not?

Did Gandalf broke the restriction or was "granted" extra powers when confronted by the Balrog? Are they as agile as Elves? Yet their bodies get old? And speaking of staffs, Galadriel gave Gandalf a new stafff? She had the power to give that to him?

And if Gandalf can choose not to or to exercise his power (in the books at least), why can't Saruman freely do the same thing?


(This post was edited by Girdle of Melian on Feb 3 2015, 1:51pm)


Nerven
Rivendell

Feb 3 2015, 2:45pm

Post #19 of 19 (1286 views)
Shortcut
. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don´t know if she gave him his new staff but it is written that she clothed him in white after he returned from the fight with the Balrog and I assume that she gave him the staff.
As to the question, I believe that really only Sauron was able to conquer Lorien (if with or without ring is more difficult), Lorien was protected similar to what Melian did with Doriath just not as potent. Somewhere it is written that even the Witch King would not dare to enter Lorien.

I think they are restricted and maybe the bit power he had was enough to beat the Balrog, after all some elves also slayed Balrogs, so I assume in his restricted form he matches those elves but I still think that elves like Galadriel are superior to Gandalf the grey.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.