It's always a bit of a letdown when you find out what authors really look like... I expected him to look like Gandalf, not Bilbo. Although I think the main problem with that memorial is the clash of colours.
The thing that really struck me in the article was Neil Gaiman's revelation that he couldn't get a copy of Return of the King until he won a school prize. HOW DID HE COPE WITH THE SUSPENSE? I borrowed the first two volumes from my school library just before going on holiday for half term, finished The Two Towers on Sunday morning and made everyone else's lives a misery until we had tracked down a copy of Return of the King. I only had to endure the torture for about half a day and was scarred for life.
One of my schoolfriends started reading The Fellowship of the Ring, and was so excited by it that she started to tell us what was happening, chapter by chapter, as she read it.
I didn't get to read it myself until I managed to get a copy out of the library during the summer holidays - and it was only then that I realised that the Black Riders were not, in fact, the good guys. My friend was horse mad, so she'd ignored the hobbits in favour of anyone who was riding a horse in her re-telling!
The thing that really struck me in the article was Neil Gaiman's revelation that he couldn't get a copy of Return of the King until he won a school prize. HOW DID HE COPE WITH THE SUSPENSE? I borrowed the first two volumes from my school library just before going on holiday for half term, finished The Two Towers on Sunday morning and made everyone else's lives a misery until we had tracked down a copy of Return of the King. I only had to endure the torture for about half a day and was scarred for life.
Heh.
I walked to the public library in the school holidays to borrow Fellowship. Then went back the next day for Two Towers, and the day after for Return of the King.
There was a lot of reading under the covers with a torch that week.
One of my schoolfriends started reading The Fellowship of the Ring, and was so excited by it that she started to tell us what was happening, chapter by chapter, as she read it.
I didn't get to read it myself until I managed to get a copy out of the library during the summer holidays - and it was only then that I realised that the Black Riders were not, in fact, the good guys. My friend was horse mad, so she'd ignored the hobbits in favour of anyone who was riding a horse in her re-telling!
I found a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring whilst we were at one of Dad's student's houses one day (probably a lab party), read the first few chapters. A short while later a hardback containing all 3 books plus some of the appendices appeared at home, so I read it Parents had probably bought it rather than having to persuade the library it was ok for me to borrow it...
A year or two later, my great-aunt gave me the same set for Christmas. That turned out to be a good thing; I wore both sets out by the time I was done with college.
I was given the books in this hardback edition over Christmas and a birthday in the early 1970s. The books have been read several times by me, and some or all of them by my children. They are rather worn now, and the dust jackets somewhat battered.
A year or two later, my great-aunt gave me the same set for Christmas. That turned out to be a good thing; I wore both sets out by the time I was done with college.
I was about that age when I first read LOTR. For some reason or another, I did not read The Hobbit until quite some time later. In any event, that first reading hooked me and I've been going back every couple of years since.
Sorry I'm a bit late to this party. The Hobbit and LOTR were very popular at college in the late sixties, and I read both stories in 1970. A wonderful time....
But I was never uncrtitical of the stories and found the 'Silmarillion' all but unreadable.
One scene I really did think should be in LOTR is where Aragon's sword, Narsil is reforged.
Imagine the scene at the red-lit smithy. There is Aragorn and Frodo ... can the sword be mended, all other attempts having failed (cue music from Wagner)? The success is a joyous occasion ... an indication that the tide has turned. Next chapter.
A master story-teller could have made it memorable. Instead, we have nothing except the bald statement that Narsil is reforged. I wonder why this is all we get. Did Tolkein think such a scene too much like Wagner?
Sorry I'm a bit late to this party. The Hobbit and LOTR were very popular at college in the late sixties, and I read both stories in 1970. A wonderful time....
But I was never uncrtitical of the stories and found the 'Silmarillion' all but unreadable.
One scene I really did think should be in LOTR is where Aragon's sword, Narsil is reforged.
Imagine the scene at the red-lit smithy. There is Aragorn and Frodo ... can the sword be mended, all other attempts having failed (cue music from Wagner)? The success is a joyous occasion ... an indication that the tide has turned. Next chapter.
A master story-teller could have made it memorable. Instead, we have nothing except the bald statement that Narsil is reforged. I wonder why this is all we get. Did Tolkein think such a scene too much like Wagner?
Maybe it was a conscious homage to the great Norse sagas - stuff like that happens all the time (almost ‘that’s another story that of course you know’)
One scene I really did think should be in LOTR is where Aragon's sword, Narsil is reforged.
Imagine the scene at the red-lit smithy. There is Aragorn and Frodo ... can the sword be mended, all other attempts having failed (cue music from Wagner)? The success is a joyous occasion ... an indication that the tide has turned. Next chapter.
A master story-teller could have made it memorable. Instead, we have nothing except the bald statement that Narsil is reforged. I wonder why this is all we get. Did Tolkein think such a scene too much like Wagner?
Peter Jackson included this in his films, which is understandable since film is a much more visual medium and whatever Jackson's other faults he knows how to stage impressive visuals. (Jackson also played with the timeline on this event for similar narrative-visual reasons and I'm not sure it works if you think too much about the logistics involved.) It should be noted that, aside from the poetry, Tolkien's narrative style was pretty spare.
One scene I really did think should be in LOTR is where Aragon's sword, Narsil is reforged.
Imagine the scene at the red-lit smithy. There is Aragorn and Frodo ... can the sword be mended, all other attempts having failed (cue music from Wagner)? The success is a joyous occasion ... an indication that the tide has turned. Next chapter.
A master story-teller could have made it memorable. Instead, we have nothing except the bald statement that Narsil is reforged. I wonder why this is all we get. Did Tolkein think such a scene too much like Wagner?
Peter Jackson included this in his films, which is understandable since film is a much more visual medium and whatever Jackson's other faults he knows how to stage impressive visuals. (Jackson also played with the timeline on this event for similar narrative-visual reasons and I'm not sure it works if you think too much about the logistics involved.) It should be noted that, aside from the poetry, Tolkien's narrative style was pretty spare.
Ah, that I didn't know (I'm not a fan of the films). Many thanks!
Sorry I'm a bit late to this party. The Hobbit and LOTR were very popular at college in the late sixties, and I read both stories in 1970. A wonderful time....
But I was never uncrtitical of the stories and found the 'Silmarillion' all but unreadable.
One scene I really did think should be in LOTR is where Aragon's sword, Narsil is reforged.
Imagine the scene at the red-lit smithy. There is Aragorn and Frodo ... can the sword be mended, all other attempts having failed (cue music from Wagner)? The success is a joyous occasion ... an indication that the tide has turned. Next chapter.
A master story-teller could have made it memorable. Instead, we have nothing except the bald statement that Narsil is reforged. I wonder why this is all we get. Did Tolkein think such a scene too much like Wagner?
Maybe Tolkien knew he knew nothing about smithery and feared making himself look foolish. As my wife likes to say when she's writing, she doesn't want to write anything that is going to make a more-knowledgeable reader fling the book across the room. She tends to put a lot of research into her work. I got to hear for more than I ever realized I wanted to about the politics, economics, and society of the 7th century Fens when she was writing a simple short story about a historical character from that place and time.
Also, how do you put any narrative interest into reforging a sword? If you don't have Loki flying around in the guise of a horsefly trying to sabotage it, it's very much the smith knows what they're doing and does it. There's no tension or character beats.
Visually, it can look spectacular (if you ignore how swords are actually forged or reforged - if you tried to make a sword the way they're made in a lot of films including Jackson's trilogy they'd break on use) but books don't do that.
'Also, how do you put any narrative interest into reforging a sword?'
I dunno - it's why we need a master writer. I have enough trouble in my writing making small model balsa wood and tissue aeroplanes interesting - and that's to a captive readership!
As to actually making a 'proper sword' I can recommend 'The perfect sword' by Paul Gething and Edoarado Albert, chapter seven. this is called, 'Forging the sword'. It's twenty pages and fascinating to a 'retro-techno'geek like me. You are right about. 'if you tried to make a sword the way they're made in a lot of films including Jackson's trilogy they'd break on use.' Which would be death.
Also, how do you put any narrative interest into reforging a sword? If you don't have Loki flying around in the guise of a horsefly trying to sabotage it, it's very much the smith knows what they're doing and does it. There's no tension or character beats.
I don't think I'd necessarily expect technical detail regarding the forging process. What seems to be missing is a narrative reason for why the sword wasn't or couldn't be reforged previously and/or why it was possible to do so at that point in the story.
For instance; the sword is - presumably - a bit like the rings in that it's not just a purely material object but has some kind of magic woven into it - yet if that is the reason why it couldn't have been reforged previously you'd expect some back story from Elrond.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works. The implications of what we do see is that magic users say things and if they're powerful enough they happen. I think it's in keeping with what we see that Aragorn's sword couldn't be reforged until a suitably fateful moment.
There's quite a lot of things in the Lord of the Rings that aren't explained to the reader. Some of them are explained in the Silmarillion and some not at all.
For instance; the sword is - presumably - a bit like the rings in that it's not just a purely material object but has some kind of magic woven into it - yet if that is the reason why it couldn't have been reforged previously you'd expect some back story from Elrond.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works. The implications of what we do see is that magic users say things and if they're powerful enough they happen. I think it's in keeping with what we see that Aragorn's sword couldn't be reforged until a suitably fateful moment.
Yes, and I think Tolkien, through Bilbo, tells us that the sword couldn’t be reforged:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
As @Dafyd says, the sword couldn’t be “renewed” until the time was right, until the heir of Isildur arose. That the sword had been renewed was a sign to Aragorn and to others (the Dead on the Paths of the Dead, for example) that he was indeed the rightful heir of Isildur and King of Gondor.
For instance; the sword is - presumably - a bit like the rings in that it's not just a purely material object but has some kind of magic woven into it - yet if that is the reason why it couldn't have been reforged previously you'd expect some back story from Elrond.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works. The implications of what we do see is that magic users say things and if they're powerful enough they happen. I think it's in keeping with what we see that Aragorn's sword couldn't be reforged until a suitably fateful moment.
Yes, and I think Tolkien, through Bilbo, tells us that the sword couldn’t be reforged:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
As @Dafyd says, the sword couldn’t be “renewed” until the time was right, until the heir of Isildur arose.
Yes and that introduction of 'kairos' works well in a mythic register but less so in a narrative one, with the books being a mixture of both.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
There was, of course, a prophecy. (Because there's always a prophecy.) It's in the last section of the Silmarillion ("Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"), which seems a bit unfair since this was published posthumously and not available to readers of LotR.
Thus Narsil came in due time to the hand of Valandil, Isildur's heir, in Imladris; but the blade was broken and its light was extinguished, and it was not forged anew. And Master Elrond foretold that this would not be done until the Ruling Ring should be found again and Sauron should return; but the hope of Elves and Men was that these things might never come to pass.
Which is a decent explanation for why the elves had no interest in doing so, but what about the kings of Arnor (and later Arthedain)? Surely they'd be interested in re-forging such a treasured heirloom and potent symbol of royal authority. However it's distinctly possible that they lacked the means to do so. Narsil was forged in the First Age by the dwarven smith Telchar of Nogrod. (In Tolkien's writings if a crafted item needs to have an impressive and ancient pedigree but not be produced by Fëanor or his descendants it's usually credited to Telchar.) It seems likely that the post-fall Númenórean realms in exile might not have the know how to re-forge a blade said to have contained the captured light of the sun and moon. There's a reason the blade was re-forged in Rivendel, home to most of the Noldor remaining in Middle-earth.
In other words, as much as Argeleb I (to pick one example) might want to be known as The Bearer of The Blade Reforged, he really wanted to avoid being known Argeleb the Guy Who Turned The Sword That Was Broken Into A Useless Pile Of Slag.
I think this confirms what I was saying. Magic in Tolkien's world happens when someone powerful says something will happen and it happens because they said it would. If Elrond prophecies something will happen the order of cause and effect isn't entirely clear.
If I were implementing a Middle-Earth RPG I'd rule that the skill roll to reforge a legendary first age sword was beyond the power of even the elven smiths of Rivendell; but the fact Elrond has prophesied that it won't happen until the occasion adds a bonus to the skill roll of anyone attempting the task after that occasion based on Elrond's power (probably Galadriel, Saruman, Gandalf, and some other Maiar are the only active beings in Middle-Earth with greater) plus the appropriateness of the occasion (the Ruling Ring is found and Sauron returns is as appropriate as it gets) and the total bonus being high enough it succeeds automatically.
I think this confirms what I was saying. Magic in Tolkien's world happens when someone powerful says something will happen and it happens because they said it would.
Does it? ISTM that magic is portrayed as more a matter of perfection of craft over long periods of time, and that this is true in both the Silmarillion and LoTR
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
My two bits--
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
The prophecy is interesting, but I suspect it was if anything an afterthought of Tolkien's, which is why it turns up at the end of the Silmarillion instead of as a key moment in LOTR.
What I really think is going on is this: the reforging of Narsil/Anduril is Aragorn's equivalent of the banner Arwen made; both are an act of faith, looking to the gathering circumstances, which are grim enough, but which also hold the possibility of victory, and all the things they've been hoping for--the restoration of the Numenoreans, the defeat of Sauron, their marriage, etc. etc. etc.
The reason both of them chose this particular time to act as they did is because they are reading the signs of the times, like any one might. It's not magic, it's not based on some omen or what have you. It's judging the times, and saying, "Now, now is finally the right time for me to do this thing." It is an act of faith, which means that they could conceivably be wrong--or that they could be right, and still lose everything, due to factors beyond their control. But to sit on such a decision forever is in effect to make the wrong decision, and to prove yourself faithless.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
My two bits--
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
I think this confirms what I was saying. Magic in Tolkien's world happens when someone powerful says something will happen and it happens because they said it would.
Does it? ISTM that magic is portrayed as more a matter of perfection of craft over long periods of time, and that this is true in both the Silmarillion and LoTR
I'd say that prophecy by lawmasters like Elrond comes from being able to hear the faint echoes of the Music of the Ainur, which is Fate.
Magic such as the hobbits wanted to see is to the Elves Art - in the way that any sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic to those who don't possess it, perhaps also the art of the Elves. Singing can move us and inspire us, but the singing of Lúthien or Finrod can cause more profound changes. To the Elves, as evidenced by Galadriel's words, this has little to do with the dark sorcery of Sauron.
I don't think there is a single magic system in Arda.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
My two bits--
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
I’m not sure about that. Sting glowed when orcs were near. That certainly seems to involve magic of some sort. And of the daggers that Tom Bombadil gave the hobbits on the barrow downs, Aragorn says:
They were borne by the hobbits. Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.
(Book 3, Ch. 1)
Can objects be “wound about with spells” without magic of some kind? At the very least “spells” imply “magic.”
“Magic” is, I think, a very malleable concept that can fit all sorts of things. Consider Galadriel when she says to Sam at her mirror:
“And you?” she said, turning to Sam. “For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic.”
(Book 2, Ch. 7)
As @KarlLB says, I suspect we’re to take a very broad and varied view of “magic” in LotR.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
My two bits--
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
I’m not sure about that. Sting glowed when orcs were near. That certainly seems to involve magic of some sort.
This seems to fit into 'sufficiently advanced craft' rather than magic per se. I think that would also fit the Galadriel example, especially given her commentary.
Tolkien doesn't ever tell the reader how magic works.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
My two bits--
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
I’m not sure about that. Sting glowed when orcs were near. That certainly seems to involve magic of some sort.
This seems to fit into 'sufficiently advanced craft' rather than magic per se. I think that would also fit the Galadriel example, especially given her commentary.
To me that means the line between “sufficiently advanced craft” and “magic,” at least as being used here, is blurry and somewhat arbitrary. (And I don’t see how one gets away from at least some connection with “magic” when “spells” are “wound about” material objects.)
I think Galadriel’s commentary reflects a view that “magic” is one way to describe all of these arts, whether used for good, for evil or neutral.
Using words is a skill in the books. Remember the comment by Aragorn that Frodo calling on Elbereth at Weathertop was more deadly to the Black Rider than Frodo stabbing the Black Rider's foot. Yet Frodo is a hobbit with no great lineage or power, but, he can still use words even if not very skillfully. Words mingled with other skills yield objects that to hobbits seem magical; however, to someone like Galadriel the Gaffer's expertise with growing potatoes (he was considered the local expert) is probably on the same continuum as her gift to Sam which allowed the growing of a mallorn in the party field (among other things). Galadriel has several thousand more years of learning than the Gaffer and probably lessons from Yavanna.
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
It seems to me that "noumenal qualities of various objects" is just a wordier way of saying "magic". To claim that things like the Palantíri are not magical seems perverse.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I once told my Goddaughters was magic was the thing that happened when you had practiced a skill so much it was effortless.
Alright the Get-out-of-Hell-free ticket type magic as a whole does not work in stories as a rule, rather magic needs a logic to work by. For Tolkien this was the craft of the elves. Was it magic or not seems a pretty irrelevent argument to me.
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
It seems to me that "noumenal qualities of various objects" is just a wordier way of saying "magic". To claim that things like the Palantíri are not magical seems perverse.
Yes. “Magic” vs. “skill” seems to me to be a distinction without any real, meaningful difference—particularly if “skill” is what the good guys use and “magic” is what the bad guys use. I just don’t find that distinction supported in what Tolkien wrote.
I think the only passage where someone talks about what happens when they use magic is Gandalf in The Bridge of Kazad-dum:
'I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.'
...'Then something* came into the chamber - I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell'
'What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. ... I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think.'
*the balrog.
That doesn't sound like sufficiently advanced technology to me.
Elvish craft is presumably a different matter - at least the elves would think so - but I suspect it works as much because of the elves' love of their craft as because of their knowledge of the physical principles involved. One difference between magic and technology is that technology makes use of forces and energy, while magic makes use of symbolism and meaning. The elves are I think definitely using magic in that sense.
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
It seems to me that "noumenal qualities of various objects" is just a wordier way of saying "magic". To claim that things like the Palantíri are not magical seems perverse.
I'd draw the distinction because "magic" in Middle Earth doesn't appear to have the same relation to the material world as it does in this world. There are a lot of abilities that are not 'supernatural' in the sense that we would use the world.
It is 'natural' that Elves in Middle Earth move between two worlds, it is 'natural' for dwarfs to have some kind of relationship with earth and stone (to the point it amazes Elves). The properties of objects that dwarfs forge are a side effect of the relationship they have with stone. The properties of objects created by elves are a product of their own great skill (which in turn is in part due to their relationship with the natural world and partly their longevity).
Speaking of the Elves magic "is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete."
A more complete quote is perhaps helpful here:
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). 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.
*Not in the Beginner of Evil [Morgoth]: his was a sub-creative Fall, and hence the Elves (the representatives of sub-creation par excellence) were peculiarly his enemies, and the special object of his desire and hate—and open to his deceits. Their Fall is into possessiveness and (to a less degree) into perversion of their art to power.
Given that first clause—“I have not used ‘magic’ consistently”—perhaps we’re on a fool’s errand trying to identify a consistent view of “magic” in LotR.
In any event, it almost seems the distinction between “magic” and “Art/skill” mainly has to do with motivation and purpose. “Art” seems to be “magic” used for sub-creation, while “magic” is “Art” or “skill” used for power.
Using words is a skill in the books. Remember the comment by Aragorn that Frodo calling on Elbereth at Weathertop was more deadly to the Black Rider than Frodo stabbing the Black Rider's foot. Yet Frodo is a hobbit with no great lineage or power, but, he can still use words even if not very skillfully. Words mingled with other skills yield objects that to hobbits seem magical; however, to someone like Galadriel the Gaffer's expertise with growing potatoes (he was considered the local expert) is probably on the same continuum as her gift to Sam which allowed the growing of a mallorn in the party field (among other things). Galadriel has several thousand more years of learning than the Gaffer and probably lessons from Yavanna.
The use of words can be binding in Tolkien. For example, Fëanor renames Melkor (translation: "he who arises in might") "Morgoth" (translation: "the black foe of the world") and no one calls him "Melkor" after that. It just sticks. A similar thing may have happened with Sauron. We get this bit of dialog from The Two Towers where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are debating the meaning of the emblems worn by the Uruk-hai.
"I have not seen these tokens before," said Aragorn. "What do they mean?"
"S is for Sauron," said Gimli. "That is easy to read."
"Nay!" said Legolas. "Sauron does not use the Elf-runes."
"Neither does he use his right name, nor permit it to be spelt or spoken," said Aragorn. "And he does not use white. The Orcs in the service of Barad-dûr use the sign of the Red Eye."
Sauron's original name was Mairon (translation: "the admired"). Something similar must have happened to change his name to Sauron (translation: "the abhorred"). It's telling that Aragorn says that Sauron is his "right name", something that's branded permanently on him, rather than just something he's called by his enemies. He was called "Gorthaur" for a while in the First Age, which just means "abhorred" in a different version of Elvish.
. . . 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. . . .
Conveniently yesterday's installment of Existential Comics was Sauron the Economist. A sample:
Sauron: Did you not read my manifesto?
Elendil: No, we tend to not read manifestos of people trying to kill us.
Sauron: Trying to kill you rationally! Orcs have greater economic output per unit, so rationally we need to replace Elves and Men with them. How is that not obvious?
On the subject of 'magic' versus 'skill' - everyone seems to be overlooking athelas/kingsfoil, which clearly only works as a magic anti-Dark-Lord healing potion when Aragorn is using it. The healers in the House of Healing are as skilled as humans get, but in their hands the miracle herb is basically air freshener.
Now, clearly this is because Aragorn is the true king, but I don't see how you can avoid a magical explanation in this case. How does the athelas know what to do otherwise?
I think there's another explanation of Tolkien's approach to magic, which is simply that some races (elves, dwarves) and people (Aragorn, the wizards, possibly some of the halfelven) have an innate magical ability and everyone else is restricted to using magical artefacts (the star-glass, the hobbits' swords) and invoking the names of the Valar. So if you aren't born being able to do magic, there's no point in even trying to learn.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c255zgwze77o.amp
Trebles all round, as the Eye would say.
Thank you for that - at least the text is good.
The thing that really struck me in the article was Neil Gaiman's revelation that he couldn't get a copy of Return of the King until he won a school prize. HOW DID HE COPE WITH THE SUSPENSE? I borrowed the first two volumes from my school library just before going on holiday for half term, finished The Two Towers on Sunday morning and made everyone else's lives a misery until we had tracked down a copy of Return of the King. I only had to endure the torture for about half a day and was scarred for life.
I didn't get to read it myself until I managed to get a copy out of the library during the summer holidays - and it was only then that I realised that the Black Riders were not, in fact, the good guys. My friend was horse mad, so she'd ignored the hobbits in favour of anyone who was riding a horse in her re-telling!
Heh.
I walked to the public library in the school holidays to borrow Fellowship. Then went back the next day for Two Towers, and the day after for Return of the King.
There was a lot of reading under the covers with a torch that week.
I found a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring whilst we were at one of Dad's student's houses one day (probably a lab party), read the first few chapters. A short while later a hardback containing all 3 books plus some of the appendices appeared at home, so I read it
A year or two later, my great-aunt gave me the same set for Christmas. That turned out to be a good thing; I wore both sets out by the time I was done with college.
I was about that age when I first read LOTR. For some reason or another, I did not read The Hobbit until quite some time later. In any event, that first reading hooked me and I've been going back every couple of years since.
But I was never uncrtitical of the stories and found the 'Silmarillion' all but unreadable.
One scene I really did think should be in LOTR is where Aragon's sword, Narsil is reforged.
Imagine the scene at the red-lit smithy. There is Aragorn and Frodo ... can the sword be mended, all other attempts having failed (cue music from Wagner)? The success is a joyous occasion ... an indication that the tide has turned. Next chapter.
A master story-teller could have made it memorable. Instead, we have nothing except the bald statement that Narsil is reforged. I wonder why this is all we get. Did Tolkein think such a scene too much like Wagner?
Maybe it was a conscious homage to the great Norse sagas - stuff like that happens all the time (almost ‘that’s another story that of course you know’)
Peter Jackson included this in his films, which is understandable since film is a much more visual medium and whatever Jackson's other faults he knows how to stage impressive visuals. (Jackson also played with the timeline on this event for similar narrative-visual reasons and I'm not sure it works if you think too much about the logistics involved.) It should be noted that, aside from the poetry, Tolkien's narrative style was pretty spare.
Ah, that I didn't know (I'm not a fan of the films). Many thanks!
Maybe Tolkien knew he knew nothing about smithery and feared making himself look foolish. As my wife likes to say when she's writing, she doesn't want to write anything that is going to make a more-knowledgeable reader fling the book across the room. She tends to put a lot of research into her work. I got to hear for more than I ever realized I wanted to about the politics, economics, and society of the 7th century Fens when she was writing a simple short story about a historical character from that place and time.
Visually, it can look spectacular (if you ignore how swords are actually forged or reforged - if you tried to make a sword the way they're made in a lot of films including Jackson's trilogy they'd break on use) but books don't do that.
I dunno - it's why we need a master writer. I have enough trouble in my writing making small model balsa wood and tissue aeroplanes interesting - and that's to a captive readership!
As to actually making a 'proper sword' I can recommend 'The perfect sword' by Paul Gething and Edoarado Albert, chapter seven. this is called, 'Forging the sword'. It's twenty pages and fascinating to a 'retro-techno'geek like me. You are right about. 'if you tried to make a sword the way they're made in a lot of films including Jackson's trilogy they'd break on use.' Which would be death.
I don't think I'd necessarily expect technical detail regarding the forging process. What seems to be missing is a narrative reason for why the sword wasn't or couldn't be reforged previously and/or why it was possible to do so at that point in the story.
For instance; the sword is - presumably - a bit like the rings in that it's not just a purely material object but has some kind of magic woven into it - yet if that is the reason why it couldn't have been reforged previously you'd expect some back story from Elrond.
There's quite a lot of things in the Lord of the Rings that aren't explained to the reader. Some of them are explained in the Silmarillion and some not at all.
I'd not expect a magical reason either; it would be more in keeping with the books to relate some perilous journey undertaken to reforge the sword.
Nonsense. This is as valid as anything you'd "get out" for.
Yes and that introduction of 'kairos' works well in a mythic register but less so in a narrative one, with the books being a mixture of both.
It was. The shards being on display in Rivendell was totally a movie invention.
There was, of course, a prophecy. (Because there's always a prophecy.) It's in the last section of the Silmarillion ("Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"), which seems a bit unfair since this was published posthumously and not available to readers of LotR.
Which is a decent explanation for why the elves had no interest in doing so, but what about the kings of Arnor (and later Arthedain)? Surely they'd be interested in re-forging such a treasured heirloom and potent symbol of royal authority. However it's distinctly possible that they lacked the means to do so. Narsil was forged in the First Age by the dwarven smith Telchar of Nogrod. (In Tolkien's writings if a crafted item needs to have an impressive and ancient pedigree but not be produced by Fëanor or his descendants it's usually credited to Telchar.) It seems likely that the post-fall Númenórean realms in exile might not have the know how to re-forge a blade said to have contained the captured light of the sun and moon. There's a reason the blade was re-forged in Rivendel, home to most of the Noldor remaining in Middle-earth.
In other words, as much as Argeleb I (to pick one example) might want to be known as The Bearer of The Blade Reforged, he really wanted to avoid being known Argeleb the Guy Who Turned The Sword That Was Broken Into A Useless Pile Of Slag.
If I were implementing a Middle-Earth RPG I'd rule that the skill roll to reforge a legendary first age sword was beyond the power of even the elven smiths of Rivendell; but the fact Elrond has prophesied that it won't happen until the occasion adds a bonus to the skill roll of anyone attempting the task after that occasion based on Elrond's power (probably Galadriel, Saruman, Gandalf, and some other Maiar are the only active beings in Middle-Earth with greater) plus the appropriateness of the occasion (the Ruling Ring is found and Sauron returns is as appropriate as it gets) and the total bonus being high enough it succeeds automatically.
Does it? ISTM that magic is portrayed as more a matter of perfection of craft over long periods of time, and that this is true in both the Silmarillion and LoTR
My two bits--
I don't think the sword is magic, except in the sense that any of the great swords of that day were magic (and there seems to be a considerable overlap between elvish skill and magic when it comes to making objects).
The prophecy is interesting, but I suspect it was if anything an afterthought of Tolkien's, which is why it turns up at the end of the Silmarillion instead of as a key moment in LOTR.
What I really think is going on is this: the reforging of Narsil/Anduril is Aragorn's equivalent of the banner Arwen made; both are an act of faith, looking to the gathering circumstances, which are grim enough, but which also hold the possibility of victory, and all the things they've been hoping for--the restoration of the Numenoreans, the defeat of Sauron, their marriage, etc. etc. etc.
The reason both of them chose this particular time to act as they did is because they are reading the signs of the times, like any one might. It's not magic, it's not based on some omen or what have you. It's judging the times, and saying, "Now, now is finally the right time for me to do this thing." It is an act of faith, which means that they could conceivably be wrong--or that they could be right, and still lose everything, due to factors beyond their control. But to sit on such a decision forever is in effect to make the wrong decision, and to prove yourself faithless.
Yes, 'magic' is the wrong choice of word, ISTM there's no magic qua magic in LoTR except of the malevolent sort, and the noumenal qualities of various objects are the product of art and skill of various kinds, exercised and mastered at great cost.
I'd say that prophecy by lawmasters like Elrond comes from being able to hear the faint echoes of the Music of the Ainur, which is Fate.
Magic such as the hobbits wanted to see is to the Elves Art - in the way that any sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic to those who don't possess it, perhaps also the art of the Elves. Singing can move us and inspire us, but the singing of Lúthien or Finrod can cause more profound changes. To the Elves, as evidenced by Galadriel's words, this has little to do with the dark sorcery of Sauron.
I don't think there is a single magic system in Arda.
Can objects be “wound about with spells” without magic of some kind? At the very least “spells” imply “magic.”
“Magic” is, I think, a very malleable concept that can fit all sorts of things. Consider Galadriel when she says to Sam at her mirror: (Book 2, Ch. 7)
As @KarlLB says, I suspect we’re to take a very broad and varied view of “magic” in LotR.
This seems to fit into 'sufficiently advanced craft' rather than magic per se. I think that would also fit the Galadriel example, especially given her commentary.
I think Galadriel’s commentary reflects a view that “magic” is one way to describe all of these arts, whether used for good, for evil or neutral.
It seems to me that "noumenal qualities of various objects" is just a wordier way of saying "magic". To claim that things like the Palantíri are not magical seems perverse.
I once told my Goddaughters was magic was the thing that happened when you had practiced a skill so much it was effortless.
Alright the Get-out-of-Hell-free ticket type magic as a whole does not work in stories as a rule, rather magic needs a logic to work by. For Tolkien this was the craft of the elves. Was it magic or not seems a pretty irrelevent argument to me.
'I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.'
...'Then something* came into the chamber - I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell'
'What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. ... I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think.'
*the balrog.
That doesn't sound like sufficiently advanced technology to me.
Elvish craft is presumably a different matter - at least the elves would think so - but I suspect it works as much because of the elves' love of their craft as because of their knowledge of the physical principles involved. One difference between magic and technology is that technology makes use of forces and energy, while magic makes use of symbolism and meaning. The elves are I think definitely using magic in that sense.
Barry Ghem's corollary to Clarke's third law:
I'd draw the distinction because "magic" in Middle Earth doesn't appear to have the same relation to the material world as it does in this world. There are a lot of abilities that are not 'supernatural' in the sense that we would use the world.
It is 'natural' that Elves in Middle Earth move between two worlds, it is 'natural' for dwarfs to have some kind of relationship with earth and stone (to the point it amazes Elves). The properties of objects that dwarfs forge are a side effect of the relationship they have with stone. The properties of objects created by elves are a product of their own great skill (which in turn is in part due to their relationship with the natural world and partly their longevity).
Speaking of the Elves magic "is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete."
Given that first clause—“I have not used ‘magic’ consistently”—perhaps we’re on a fool’s errand trying to identify a consistent view of “magic” in LotR.
In any event, it almost seems the distinction between “magic” and “Art/skill” mainly has to do with motivation and purpose. “Art” seems to be “magic” used for sub-creation, while “magic” is “Art” or “skill” used for power.
The use of words can be binding in Tolkien. For example, Fëanor renames Melkor (translation: "he who arises in might") "Morgoth" (translation: "the black foe of the world") and no one calls him "Melkor" after that. It just sticks. A similar thing may have happened with Sauron. We get this bit of dialog from The Two Towers where Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are debating the meaning of the emblems worn by the Uruk-hai.
Sauron's original name was Mairon (translation: "the admired"). Something similar must have happened to change his name to Sauron (translation: "the abhorred"). It's telling that Aragorn says that Sauron is his "right name", something that's branded permanently on him, rather than just something he's called by his enemies. He was called "Gorthaur" for a while in the First Age, which just means "abhorred" in a different version of Elvish.
Conveniently yesterday's installment of Existential Comics was Sauron the Economist. A sample:
Read the rest. It's short.
Now, clearly this is because Aragorn is the true king, but I don't see how you can avoid a magical explanation in this case. How does the athelas know what to do otherwise?
I think there's another explanation of Tolkien's approach to magic, which is simply that some races (elves, dwarves) and people (Aragorn, the wizards, possibly some of the halfelven) have an innate magical ability and everyone else is restricted to using magical artefacts (the star-glass, the hobbits' swords) and invoking the names of the Valar. So if you aren't born being able to do magic, there's no point in even trying to learn.