Thread: Magic in Tolkien's Middle-earth

Ever since the coming of the runekeepers was decreed, our fair forums have been beset with the wild wail of dying lore-beasts. In the midst of this tumult and confusion I put together an essay divulging what I believe to be the true nature of magic in Tolkien's Middle-earth. At first, I presented it only to the people of Landroval, but now that the shadow spreads and redoubles its efforts, it is time to avert the last ditch efforts of the lore-beasts. These most savage and foul creatures of the Professor's "deplorable cultus" bemoan and decry, above reason, all that stands in the light of their ungodly vision of what Middle-earth should or should not be. I stand now before you and offer you all a chance to step back from the precipice, a chance to avoid these unfounded fears and senseless ruination. Join me in an open and intelligent discourse on the nature of magic. I have purposefully avoided giving any opinion of runekeepers in my essay, and in so doing, have avoided my own savage tendencies by adopting a wait and see attitude. Without further ado, I present:

Magic in Tolkien's Middle-earth

The thing to remember about Tolkien's world is that there is far more going on than is visible. We are told time and time again in LOTR that there is both the ordinary, everyday world and a spirit- or wraith-world visible only to beings of power such as the elves and the (for lack of a better word) "angelic" orders (i.e. Ainur/Valar/Maiar/Istari). Things and objects, as well as people and the world they inhabit have characteristics, some of which are ordinary and visible, others of which are only apparent to those in the wraith-world. It is these "invisible" characteristics that are often confused for and misunderstood as "magic" by the lesser beings of Tolkien's world. Indeed, when showing Sam and Frodo her mirror, Galadriel herself says:

"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".

The mirror, then, is not a work of "magic", but rather an artefact containing extraordinary, albeit latent characteristics--the existence and operation of which we are never made fully aware. Even the "One ring" cannot be considered truly magical; indeed, it's designation of a "magic ring" is given by the hobbits who, although incredible in their own right, must be regarded among the "lesser" folk of Middle-earth. Even the ring's power is not so much an act of "magic" as it is an affinity for the world unseen; it does not bestow "invisibility" so much as it "pulls" its bearer out of the ordinary world and into the world of wraiths. We see this clearly when Frodo discovers the dual nature of the ringwraiths and elves. We see it again, as Frodo fades evermore into the world unseen. Indeed, on the path leading to Mount Doom, he proclaims:

"No taste of food, no feel of water, no sound of wind, no memory of tree or grass or flower, no image of moon or star are left to me. I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades."

Of the ring, we are told that these characterstics are a result of its creation at the hands of Sauron. As with almost all of the seemingly "magical" artefacts and implements in Tolkien's work, the power of the object comes not from some mystical force, but rather from its craftsmanship at the hands of one who is aware of the wraith-world; these sub-creators are thus capable of imbuing their work with unseen characteristics that are forever unapparent to those limited only to the ordinary and mundane. This is certainly true of the elves and all the implements of elvish-make. In Letter 131, Tolkien says as much, when he states:

"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."

Of men, most acts of "magic" are left to those of Númenorean descent. Whether these acts be the healing hands of kings, such as Aragorn, or the sorcery of the Black Númenoreans, they can almost certainly be attributed to the Númenorean line and ultimately to its progenitor Elros and his half-elven nature. Of the dwarves, who know little-to-nothing of the world of wraiths, we may assume that the "magical" results of their work are to be attributed to their fine craftmanship, which they were themselves imbued with by their maker Aulë, the smith of the Valar. That is to say that extraordinary craftsmanship is as much a characterstic of a dwarf as is the seemingly "magical" properties of the things they craft.

In Tolkien's world, magic is ultimately tied to the act of creation. Like God the creator (Eru Ilúvatar), all living beings are gifted with the creative faculties from which stem such things as art, literature, science, and music. Tolkien himself considered his writing an act of sub-creation; that is, through the creation of his world, he was acting in the likeness of his maker. As a religious man, the professor saw his creativity as not only a divine gift, but as a relationship between him and God. Likewise, Tolkien poured the same love and devotion to detail into his own creations. The "magic" in his world, then, is not a strange occult force, but rather the result of art well refined. Incidentally, the term "magic" in Tolkien's works is better left to those who corrupt, rather than create. The magical qualities of things are the result of their hidden characteristics, gifted them by their makers. Indeed, one might say that in Tolkien's world, "magic" is a governing property of the world unseen, akin to physics, though not as clearly discernible, nor as easily defined.

Very good, Red! That's how I've always viewed it. People often fail to realize that although things in Middle-Earth might have "magical" properties, it is not magic at all, but "Art," or "abuse of Power." I haven't participated in these Runekeeper discussions, but I've been debating "Magic" in Middle-Earth with a friend (mostly through E-mails) for years, using many of those same quotes and others from letter 131.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

Ever since the coming of the runekeepers was decreed, our fair forums have been beset with the wild wail of dying lore-beasts. In the midst of this tumult and confusion I put together an essay divulging what I believe to be the true nature of magic in Tolkien's Middle-earth. At first, I presented it only to the people of Landroval, but now that the shadow spreads and redoubles its efforts, it is time to avert the last ditch efforts of the lore-beasts. These most savage and foul creatures of the Professor's "deplorable cultus" bemoan and decry, above reason, all that stands in the light of their ungodly vision of what Middle-earth should or should not be. I stand now before you and offer you all a chance to step back from the precipice, a chance to avoid these unfounded fears and senseless ruination. Join me in an open and intelligent discourse on the nature of magic. I have purposefully avoided giving any opinion of runekeepers in my essay, and in so doing, have avoided my own savage tendencies by adopting a wait and see attitude. Without further ado, I present:

Essay aside, this first paragraph is golden.

Fantastic write-up!

Can you provide me the source you used when you said Tolkien viewed his works as an imitation of his God? It would be a nice fact to pull up if I ever need to.

Michael Martinez is one. i have seen him write similar things on different sites.

tolkien had two different visions of magic both which are explained in the essay very very well and write on with what other authoritative sources have said about it as well.

(i still like the bemoaning lore-beasts lol) sorry found it good.

I recently re-read chapter 1 of FOTR and it says that some of the gifts for the party were magical and came from Dale and Erebor (I think). Are the men of Dale descended from Numenoreans, or is this something else?

I don't think they were they came from the same stock of people like the roherrim. can't find much on them really except for they were northmen.

First off, I'd like to thank those of you who have enjoyed my essay and who have said as much.

Originally Posted by Arasilion

Fantastic write-up!

Can you provide me the source you used when you said Tolkien viewed his works as an imitation of his God? It would be a nice fact to pull up if I ever need to.

I'm afraid that portion was written mostly from memory, though I recall quite clearly that Tolkien often referred to his writing as sub-creation, by which he meant that, like God, he was creating his own world. I'll try to find and provide some reference for you.

Originally Posted by Warthros

I recently re-read chapter 1 of FOTR and it says that some of the gifts for the party were magical and came from Dale and Erebor (I think). Are the men of Dale descended from Numenoreans, or is this something else?

You had me curious about this and so I looked it up. What is actually said is this:

"There were toys the like of which they had never seen before, all beautiful and some obviously magical. Many of them had indeed been ordered a year before, and had come all the way from the Mountain and from Dale, and were of real dwarf-make."

-- A Long-Expected Party, Fellowship of the Ring


First, I should point out that the toys are said to be "of real dwarf-make", meaning that they fit clearly within the statements of my essay concerning the unflawed and seemingly 'magical' nature of dwarven craftsmanship.

Second, "the Mountain", as capitalized by Tolkien, most assuredly refers to Erebor.

Finally, we must remember when reading of these "obviously magical" toys that this account was (as far as the lore is concerned) written by a hobbit, for whom nearly anything unexplainable is seen as 'magic'.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

So let me get this straight. The mirror has a miniature nuclear generator in it that powers a computer that somehow reads people's minds and then shows them a future relevant to them? Well. Obviously not a nuclear generator. But anything that does anything utilizes a power source. And for this thing to show a person a future relevant to him, it must somehow come to know him - hence my suggestion of reading the mind.

If you think you can call that mirror science, go ahead. It doesn't accomplish anything. Those of us who call it magic, see you as some kind of nut that cannot admit an error and will do anything to try to justify your claim no matter how dumb it makes you look.

So in spite of all that long nonsensical verbiage in your post, it's still magic. 100% pure, unadulterated magic. Magic is all through the Tolkien fantasy. Your welcome to call it something else if you like but don't expect a lot of people to take you up on it. Personally I think you've just had a few too many beers.

actually you are very wrong on this point. tolkien never mentions how the mirror works. however the mirror itself has some magical qualities although to galadriel she doesn't know the difference. To her it is a common thing and a natural ability.

tolkien did break down magic into two different section this has been noted by many different authors. Good magic is meant to be "artistic" for the purpose of creating or preserving beauty, whereas bad magic was used for "deceit" or to dominate the wills of others.

when sam used the word magic she was confused for good reason. magic is an all encompassing word. to tolkien there was a difference. so galadriel would think the same thing.

Tolkien believed that the ability to use magic was derived from the inherent power contained within the individual. something the hobbits wouldn't know about. since they are about as magical as a tree stump.

dwarves and elves on the other hand were blessed by their creators with perfection of their crafts. so they were able to craft items that were so perfect they have magical qualities about them. glamdring, orcrist, sting, adruil. are just a few. not to mention the rings and other things. all of these also contained symbols and runes about them. probably giving the items name and description however it is also a sub-creation of the art form and could possibly hold the enchantment.

he is actually going on tolkiens own writings. what you are going on is your own opinion which in this case is wrong and very rude.

Thanks for finding the quote re the party. I'd say it doesn't only fit in with your 'essay', but the 'of real dwarf-make' clarifier at the end of the sentence actually supports the idea that the dwarf's magic is linked to craftmanship and magic for men is limited (to Numenoreans perhaps).

A suggestion: Speaking ill of others is unlikely to encourage them to join "... in an open and intelligent discourse on the nature of magic", as it may lead some to conclude that you are approaching the discussion with less than an open mind.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

In Tolkien's world, magic is ultimately tied to the act of creation. Like God the creator (Eru Ilúvatar), all living beings are gifted with the creative faculties from which stem such things as art, literature, science, and music.

I think there is a very important distinction that you may be missing here. There is "creation", as in the act of artistic creativity, like writing a poem, and "Creation", as in 'god made the earth and the heavens' kind of thing. Tolkien did make this distinction, I believe.

Certainly 'magical' items were created by the elves and dwarves. This was an act of creation, with a lower case 'c'. They took materials that already existed in the universe and learned to craft them (according to their properties) into useful tools.

However, not even the Valar could perform Creation, with a capital 'C'. That was reserved for Iluvatar alone. Aule tried, but he just made lifeless dolls. It wasn't until Iluvatar breathed life into the dwarves that they actually 'became' dwarves. Tolkien also noted many times that even Melkor, arguably the most powerful of the Valar, could not actually "Create" anything of his own. He could only corrupt what was already there, twisting it to his own ends.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

The magical qualities of things are the result of their hidden characteristics, gifted them by their makers.

I don't think the magical qualities are gifted by their makers, if by 'makers' you mean anyone other than Iluvatar. The properties of all things were bestowed by Iluvatar when he created them. The 'maker' in this case is just the person who shapes existing components into a tool. But if Iluvatar never created a way to achieve a specific kind of 'magic', then I do not think any amount of 'craft' would allow someone in Tolkien's universe to create that kind of magic on their own. What Iluvatar did or did not actually create is anyone's guess, of course.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

If you think you can call that mirror science, go ahead. It doesn't accomplish anything. Those of us who call it magic, see you as some kind of nut that cannot admit an error and will do anything to try to justify your claim no matter how dumb it makes you look.

Hmm. That's odd. I don't ever recall being presented with "an error", nor do I recall failing to "admit" one. Furthermore, isn't it a bit rash to say that I'll "do anything to try to justify" my claim, when this is the only information i've ever posted on the subject? If this is what you call "trying anything", I'd say it's a rather weak attempt on my part.

Anyways, regarding your statement asserting that I have called "that mirror science", I can only respond plainly by saying this: I have not. Indeed, what I have said was that the work of the mirror is due to some hidden characteristic and that "'magic' is a governing property of the world unseen, akin to physics, though not as clearly discernible, nor as easily defined". Thus, 'magic' is like science, though clearly they are not one and the same.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

So in spite of all that long nonsensical verbiage in your post, it's still magic. 100% pure, unadulterated magic. Magic is all through the Tolkien fantasy. Your welcome to call it something else if you like but don't expect a lot of people to take you up on it. Personally I think you've just had a few too many beers.

As you can plainly see, i've given several quotes in my essay that back up my claims. I'd like to ask that you do the same. I don't take kindly to the use of argumentum ad hominem. You are free to your opinions, of course, though, without supporting evidence, they are of little merit in an intelligent discourse.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

EDIT: if you really seriously want to think that Tolkien did not consider any of this to be magic, I HIGHLY recommend that you pull up his essay "On Fairy-Stories" which is the first half of "Tree and Leaf." You might also come to know the man a little bit better.

All you have to do is read what Tolkien writes and you can plainly see that he tries to avoid the term 'magic' as best as possible, even going so far as to say that the 'magic' of the elves was actually 'Art' and that the 'magic' of the enemy was merely a corrupting force. As for your reading suggestions, I thank you, though I cannot see what "On Fairy-Stories" has to do with the legendarium being discussed (by that I mean Tolkien's stories concerning Arda). As far as I know, "On Fairy-Stories" is merely an essay providing Tolkien's thoughts on the speculative fiction (i.e. fantasy) genre, and as such, provides general statements rather than specific details concerning his own lore.

Wouldn't it be correct to say, from Galadriel's comment, that as lesser folk, the mirror would fit into what we (including JRRT) commonly understand as 'magic'. So, from our perspective, there is plenty of magic in Middle-earth (including the party toys!). However, from another perspective, which has some knowledge and understanding to which we have no access, there could be finer distinctions. Tolkien doesn't seem to provide much detail on these finer distinctions, but then again, he wasn't an elf! Yet they are hinted at. Why? I don't know, possibly to differentiate his fantasy and avoid it being dismissed on the level of a fairy tale or children's story?

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

Go back to my post and read the quotations from Tolkien himself. Not so wrong after all, eh?

yes you are and tolkien himself proves you wrong.

actually tolkien didn't like magic. He was a devote christian and magic of any sense would have been seen as a demonic force. Hence why his distinction between the two.

Tolkien did not avoid the term because there was no magic in his books. THAT is a fact. Like he says in that quote I provided

in this you are very very very wrong. there is plenty of magic in lord of the rings. as was mentioned his books on fairies or what have you is not included as that is an overall aspect of what he was talking about in general not lord of the rings.

tolkien treated magic as an inanimate object. it was the user of sad magic that determined whether it was good or evil.

that book does not pertain to lord of the rings so irrelevant to this discussion.

i have already quoted what tolkien though on magic in middle earth and it is above. that magic was given by illuvatar. that elves and dwarves were given the special abilities of sub-creation within creation. that really the only men blessed with magical power were the numenorians. they weaved spells on their weapons and such for battle against sauron.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

My friend, I have been reading Tolkien, and everything the man has ever written, for about forty years.

I would like to politely suggest that perhaps you reread his works, as I think you have misread or misinterpreted some of his statements.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

This I can tell you about the man. He loved magic. He loved magic in and of itself, and he did not want it presented as something you could not accept or believe in...

Tolkien most certainly did NOT love magic. I think there is a confusion here between what is commonly thought of as 'magic' and what Tolkien meant when he referred to the term 'magic'. Furthermore, I believe this confusion is compounded in so much as it seems that Tolkien is referring to both views of 'magic' in his essay "On Fairy-Stories". Excepting those situations in which the term 'magic' was used in relation to hobbits, Tolkien reserved the term for the corrupting power of the enemy.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

Like he says in that quote I provided, the magic must be presented in believable terms and must not be explained away.

Indeed, however, I do not believe that 'magic' as the word is being used by Tolkien in this context refers to the same 'magic' that we are debating or that I spoke of in my essay.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

Those are HIS words. And I have the book in front of my nose at this very moment, and there is nothing you could say that would convince me otherwise. I'm sorry, but I will take his own words over and above your speculations.

Well, it is hard to have any sort of a debate with someone who has already formed an opinion and fixed it so firmly in their mind that they are unwilling to listen to another's position, no matter how much it is founded upon reason. And yet, I shall still try to explain where I believe our difference of opinion is coming about.


Here, now, is my interpretation of Tolkien's words:

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

"The definition of a fairy-story — what it is, or what it should be — does not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy, but upon the nature of Faerie; the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country."

It seems to me, and of course this is open to debate, that what Tolkien is saying here is that fantasy (referred to herein as "fairy-story") is a genre that stands upon its own internal consistency and does not rely upon the external world for meaning. What I mean is that in writing fantasy, one creates their own world that is independent from and does not rely upon the merits of the real world. It's a bit like Tolkien's preference for "applicability" rather than "allegory"; he wanted his world to be viewed on its own terms (applicability) and not likened to things in the real world (allegory).

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

"For the moment I will say only this: a "fairy-story" is one which touches on or uses Faerie, whatever its own main purpose may be: satire, adventure, morality, fantasy. Faerie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic(7) — but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician.

First of all, you must realize that the term 'magic' does not fully equate to the term 'Faerie'; Tolkien is merely using it to draw out his point. This is made clear when he states that Faerie may "perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic". Beyond that, Tolkien makes it clear that he is not referring to magic in the traditional sense, which he qualifies by saying that: "it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician."

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

There is one proviso: if there is any satire in the tale, one thing must not be made fun of, the magic itself. That must in that story be taken seriously, neither laughed at nor explained away."

I believe you have been taking Tolkien's words far too literally. What he appears to be saying here, is not that magic is a force that should go unexplained, but rather that a fantasy world must be made to stand upon its own merit. He is simply stating that, even if satire is used within fantasy, the fantasy world itself must be taken seriously and not simply regarded as a story that can be dismissed in regards to real world knowledge.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

(7)"Magic produces, or pretends to produce, an alteration in the Primary World. It does not matter by whom it is said to be practiced, fay or mortal, it remains distinct from the other two; it is not an art but a technique; its desire is power in this world, domination of things and wills."

This is an explanation of magic as Tolkien typically considers it. As you can tell, he regards it as a corruptive force, almost to the point of something that one might label a 'sin'. You can plainly see through this statement alone that Tolkien most certainly does not like magic in the traditional sense. It is for this reason, that he clarifies his earlier use of the term by stating that the magic of which he speaks is "of a peculiar mood and power".

Consequently, this is also the reason that Tolkien clarifies that elven magic is not traditional magic, but rather art or craftsmanship:

"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."


I think Amrathil did an excellent job in explaining this distinction, though I believe he may have misunderstood my position on the matter. I am well aware that true Creation is not practiced by anyone save for Iluvatar himself, hence the reason I appealed to Tolkien's terminology when I referred to the craftsmen of Middle-earth as "sub-creators". Perhaps, I should not have made the statment that objects have magical properties through hidden characteristics "gifted them by their makers". Indeed, I did not mean to say that craftsmen in Middle-earth produce magical objects out of nothing. What I meant to imply was that there are certain beings in Middle-earth that produce seemingly magical items because they are either aware of the hidden properties existing in the raw materials themselves (e.g. elves), or they simply have the gift of unflawed craftsmanship (e.g. dwarves).


Sorry for being so long-winded, but hopefully that clarifies my position on this topic.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

As for the essay, clearly you haven't read it. No, it is not an essay on "speculative fiction." It is an essay on the nature and composition of what comprises a true fantasy tale (fairy-story).

I hate to correct you, but "speculative fiction" is, for the most part, synonymous with fantasy. At the very least, it includes fantasy among a list of other genres.

Originally Posted by Christian Guide to Fantasy, Glossary

Speculative Fiction - Another name for the supergenre of Fantastic Fiction and/or the genre of Science Fiction.

Originally Posted by Wiktionary

speculative fiction (countable and uncountable; plural speculative fictions)

1. (uncountable) A class of fiction including but not necessarily limited to fantasy, horror and science fiction, dealing with worlds, themes and characters not part of everyday life.
2. (countable) A particular work belonging to this class.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Speculative fiction is a term used as an inclusive descriptor covering a group of fiction genres that speculate about worlds that are unlike the real world in various important ways. In these contexts, it generally includes science fiction, fantasy fiction, horror fiction, supernatural fiction, superhero fiction, utopian and dystopian fiction, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, alternate history, and magic realism. The term is used this way in academic and ideological criticism of these genres, as well as by some readers, writers, and editors of these genres.

If you don't care for any of those sources, take a look at what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say.


First, examine it's definion of 'Speculative Fiction':

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary, quoting R.A. Heinlein

The term ‘speculative fiction’ may be defined negatively as being fiction about things that have not happened.

And then, compare it to one of its definitions for 'Fantasy':

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary

A supposition resting on no solid grounds; a whimsical or visionary notion or speculation.

Originally Posted by finafarn

actually tolkien didn't like magic. He was a devote christian and magic of any sense would have been seen as a demonic force. Hence why his distinction between the two.

Tolkien was writing as a Christian in a Christian milieu in which magic and the occult was regarded with a great deal of prejudice and skepticism. Could his friends, colleagues, family, church, etc. would have had real problems with him and his work if he had expressly written about magic? Of course. Even in this more enlightened day and age, J.K. Rowling takes a great deal of real criticism and vitriol for being a accused purveyor of evil occultishness to little kids.

It's very possible, even probably, that Tolkien felt he could not write what he wanted to write because of social pressures in addition to internal spiritual conflict. So it's very possible that there is a great occult (meaning hidden) content to Tolkien's mechanics, which he sought to veil with comments like those quoted. In the light of this, I would suggest that we can't take these quotes at face value.

Originally Posted by Warthros

Wouldn't it be correct to say, from Galadriel's comment, that as lesser folk, the mirror would fit into what we (including JRRT) commonly understand as 'magic'. So, from our perspective, there is plenty of magic in Middle-earth (including the party toys!). However, from another perspective, which has some knowledge and understanding to which we have no access, there could be finer distinctions. Tolkien doesn't seem to provide much detail on these finer distinctions, but then again, he wasn't an elf! Yet they are hinted at. Why? I don't know, possibly to differentiate his fantasy and avoid it being dismissed on the level of a fairy tale or children's story?

I think you're on the right track with this thinking, though I'm inclined to disagree with one aspect of it. Just because we misinterpret things as 'magic', doesn't mean that they actually are. Indeed, much of what is considered magic in LOTR can be attributed to the perspective of the hobbits, who fail to see the true nature of things. Undoubtedly, it is also difficult for us to comprehend the distinction, and thus this is the likely reason we have debates such as this. Clearly, many people fail to differentiate between the nature of things in Tolkien's work, that are merely of superb craftsmanship and/or unseen qualities, and the traditional arcane or occult magic that most are familiar with.

Originally Posted by funkygibbon

You do yourself a massive disservice by prefacing such a good post with chilidish namecalling.

It wasn't meant to be interpreted as namecalling, but rather as a humorous, almost satirical introduction. Indeed, I merely reposted this essay (with the addition of the preface), in reponse to all those threads that decry the inclusion of runekeepers without providing supporting evidence. This was my attempt to spark an open and intelligent debate on magic. I am sorry if my words were interpreted as trying to deride anyone, as I was merely poking fun at the humourous nature of the squabbles themselves. If you have read through this entire thread thus far, I believe you can clearly see that I have already responded to inflammatory posts with a level head. Again, I am sorry if my intent was not clear; I merely hoped to lighten the mood of an otherwise serious and admittedly daunting post.

Originally Posted by funkygibbon

You do yourself a massive disservice by prefacing such a good post with chilidish namecalling.

That's true. Whenever anyone else does it, it's childish or rude. When Mr. Gibbon does it, it's satire or whimsy. So long as you keep that straight, Mr. Hawk, you'll do well.

Originally Posted by Silverangel

Tolkien was writing as a Christian in a Christian milieu in which magic and the occult was regarded with a great deal of prejudice and skepticism. Could his friends, colleagues, family, church, etc. would have had real problems with him and his work if he had expressly written about magic? Of course. Even in this more enlightened day and age, J.K. Rowling takes a great deal of real criticism and vitriol for being a accused purveyor of evil occultishness to little kids.

It's very possible, even probably, that Tolkien felt he could not write what he wanted to write because of social pressures in addition to internal spiritual conflict. So it's very possible that there is a great occult (meaning hidden) content to Tolkien's mechanics, which he sought to veil with comments like those quoted. In the light of this, I would suggest that we can't take these quotes at face value.

yes we can. he has stated it many times in different places. he is very uncomforatable with the usage of magic. he doesn't like it hence why when he refers to it; it is described as a corrupting force. He uses the term art to describe good magic because that is what he is comfortable with.

any sorcery (or bad magic)described in LOTR was usually corrupting and or exerting your will over others.

so yes we can take these quotes at face value.

that doesn't mean however that he didn't write magic into the book. however it wasn't magic to those that had the power. it just seemed like magic. that is why the elves get confused when the hobbits ask about magic. they define magic the same way as tolkien did.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

Indeed, I merely reposted this essay (with the addition of the preface), in reponse to all those threads that decry the inclusion of runekeepers without providing supporting evidence. This was my attempt to spark an open and intelligent debate on magic. .

In the interest of continuing the debate: do you think Tolkien's magic fits with Turbine's interpretation of it? The runes, the lightening. the unnarmed "Rune-Keeper" going into battle with stone in hand, blasting enemies with channeled "energy" from runes?

I'm curious now, since I haven't seen a thread specifically on "Magic in MIddle-earth" since before release. Ironically, I had many of the same quotes as you do, so I'd have loved to have the chance to talk about it with someone like yourself back then.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

Just because we misinterpret things as 'magic', doesn't mean that they actually are.

But for us lesser beings, which I suppose includes all the hobbits and most of us mortals, these things are magic. Galadriel: "this is what you folk would call magic" not "you're wrong, let me show you how this works..."

For elves and other 'higher' beings they are some 'art' or extreme craftmanship etc. But, from Galadriel's comment, they don't understand the concept of what we call 'magic', so to say that these things are not 'magic' is meaningless.

Coming back to The Long-expected Party, the magical toys and fancy fireworks suggest to me that it is a real stretch to say that Tolkien did not love magic. They are hardly necessary for that chapter. I think it would be better to say that Tolkien did not love magic as evil, corrupting power - I guess not many people would!

Originally Posted by finafarn

yes we can. he has stated it many times in different places. he is very uncomforatable with the usage of magic. he doesn't like it hence why when he refers to it; it is described as a corrupting force. He uses the term art to describe good magic because that is what he is comfortable with.

I suppose you can if you want to. I was simply posing the question whether Tolkien could have called it "art" and stated he was uncomfortable with it, etc. in the interest of being politically correct in the eyes of his society and religion. He was a contemporary of Aliester Crowley, for example. Magic and witchcraft and other indecencies were looked at with more fear and revulsion than they are today. The fact that his brand of magic was strongly associated with evil in his books only seems to support this angle of inquiry.

Originally Posted by Gumawerian

In the interest of continuing the debate: do you think Tolkien's magic fits with Turbine's interpretation of it? The runes, the lightening. the unnarmed "Rune-Keeper" going into battle with stone in hand, blasting enemies with channeled "energy" from runes?

I am certain that much more can be said on the matter, though for now, allow me to be brief, yet blunt: I personally do not feel that there is any magic, in the traditional sense of the word, to be found in Tolkien's works. Indeed, I believe that there are two divergent aims referred to as 'magic' out of misunderstanding, and that these are namely--Art and Coercion. It is possible that we may be able to interpret these runekeepers as people aware of the unseen world and of the hidden properties of people and things, though this is suspect, at best. Certainly, there is no "energy" to be channeled out of anything. There is no mana or ether to Tolkien's works, but rather simple Desire to create Art or Will to Coerce or Dominate. I suppose we could liken the attunement system to being a scale existing between Art and Coercion, though this is probably just a cheap attempt at rationalization. Overall, I understand Turbine's reasoning for the runekeeper and hold no ill will towards them. I prefer Tolkien's version of LOTR, though this is a game and revisions will be made. Still, I do not decry or bemoan this inclusion and have opted instead to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude. I have my suspicions that I will be perfectly okay with the runekeeper, but then again I am not here to uphold the sanctity of the professor's world; Indeed, that is Christopher's job.

Originally Posted by Warthros

But for us lesser beings, which I suppose includes all the hobbits and most of us mortals, these things are magic. Galadriel: "this is what you folk would call magic" not "you're wrong, let me show you how this works..."

For elves and other 'higher' beings they are some 'art' or extreme craftmanship etc. But, from Galadriel's comment, they don't understand the concept of what we call 'magic', so to say that these things are not 'magic' is meaningless.

Coming back to The Long-expected Party, the magical toys and fancy fireworks suggest to me that it is a real stretch to say that Tolkien did not love magic. They are hardly necessary for that chapter. I think it would be better to say that Tolkien did not love magic as evil, corrupting power - I guess not many people would!

I am not so certain that he did love magic. I think, instead, that he used magic out of its familiarity to people. The hobbits themselves were meant to be a simple folk, much like the people of rural England. Thus, they see supernatural phenomenon in much the same way we do--as magic.

Here's how I interpret Galadriel's words:

Originally Posted by Galadriel

"For this is what your folk would call magic. I believe;

By this, she means that there is something at work here that the hobbits do not fully understand and label instead as 'magic'.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

though I do not understand clearly what they mean;

Here, she makes it apparent that 'magic' is faulty terminology that is of unclear meaning.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy".

Now, she further explains that this terminology is faulty because it is used to describe two divergent ideas as if they were one and the same. Indeed, 'magic' is a misunderstanding of the true forces at work within Tolkien's world. Again, these forces are namely--Art and Coercion (or Corruption, if you prefer).

Very interesting discussion so far.

To me, a question presented itself: I believe that many of the old skillsof the Elves and Dwarves were, by and large, lost to currently living Elves and Dwarves. There are numerous references throughout LotR about ancient artefacts, often with the implication that these are rare these days.

So the question is, to which extent does it make sense to have a class which is based solely on very, very powerful magic (or Art, if you prefer that term). Even Maiar like Gandalf or Saruman did not use their skills nilly-willy. Most battles seem to have been fought in the good old-fashioned way: With entirely normal weaponry, often up close, personal and bloody. Even Saurons assault on Minas Tirith was, at least how I read it, largely un-magical.

As such I do accept the existence of magic in LotRO, e.g. in the armour, weapons and jewelry buffs we get - though some of these could be explained by mundane means. What I _do_ have a problem with is us players running around doing stuff that not even Maiar would do lightly.

My only justification is thus far: From a story point of view, we are all "lonely heroes, of a quality that's exceedingly rare". It pretty much has to be this way for the simple reason that we pretty much WANT to be the heroes, and not be on par with the conscripted farmer who dies amidst 1000 others in the front line of an assault.

So, aside from the academic discussion there are additional points to consider to determine the sense or viability of a new class.

I hope this all made sense - it's late, and as a foreigner my english isn't quite as clear as I'd like it to be.

To me, a question presented itself: I believe that many of the old skillsof the Elves and Dwarves were, by and large, lost to currently living Elves and Dwarves. There are numerous references throughout LotR about ancient artefacts, often with the implication that these are rare these days

There power had diminished in the 3rd age but it was not totally gone. the dwarves in the lonely mountains up until dain II died still had a good bit going for them. a lot of the old dwarves had come back.

as the elves go there are only 3 kingdoms left which are secluded from the rest of the world. however there are still many older elves around that remember such crafting and have such ability other wise andruil would not have been able to be reforged in rivendell.

Even Saurons assault on Minas Tirith was, at least how I read it, largely un-magical

yep nothing like trolls and flying nazgul to make it un-magical yeah don't forget about grond.

actually red you are right on a point. the attunement meter could signify that of art and that of sorcery according to tolkien and how he viewed things. the elves had a capability for sorcery they chose not to use it even when it would have benefited them.

dwarves along with the men of numenor used spells on a consistant basis in the crafting of weapons and other items.

not all numenorians were sorcerer's there were a few men that were taught the skill.

in the end though this is a game based on tolkiens books which i think turbine has done an excellent job so far. it is going to be interesting to see how they actually do this.

the only reason gandalf carried a sword was because he was forbidden to use his real power. do you honestly think that a bunch of orcs could harm a maia using their full power? they would be killed instantly with but a thought.

Originally Posted by finafarn

actually red you are right on a point. the attunement meter could signify that of art and that of sorcery according to tolkien and how he viewed things.

I know the OP didn't want to go to the R-acronym and wanted to wait and see, but this would be crazy cool if the attunement meter reflected tendency to art or sorcery. The way it can supposedly be changed on the fly, however, unfortunately makes it seem very unlikely. (Sorry if my posts aren't contributing much to the discussion, grinding deeds is -.- boring.)

Originally Posted by Silverangel

I suppose you can if you want to. I was simply posing the question whether Tolkien could have called it "art" and stated he was uncomfortable with it, etc. in the interest of being politically correct in the eyes of his society and religion. He was a contemporary of Aliester Crowley, for example. Magic and witchcraft and other indecencies were looked at with more fear and revulsion than they are today. The fact that his brand of magic was strongly associated with evil in his books only seems to support this angle of inquiry.

Are you suggesting that Tolkien may actually have held some sympathy with the kind of 'magic' that Crowley and his cult indulge(d) in? Please read his letters, his essays, and his biography, if you feel that and any concern for "being politically correct" was in any way true of his character. Let's give the man a little more credence as per his religious sincerity. After all, he does quite clearly claim that his works of Faerie were inspired by his faith, at first even unconsciously.

My understanding of Magic in Tolkien's Middle-earth is a spiritual force, only possibly wielded by spiritual beings. The high elven Eldar are semi-spiritual, having been in the Blessed Realm of Aman. The lesser elves have some natural powers which seem 'magical' to other races, but are a part of their inborn nature. The dwarves are not naturally 'magical,' being 'of the earth,' though they can forge 'magical' items of power with the use of runecraft learned from the elves and developed in their own peculiar way. This magic does not come from the runes themselves, but from the spiritual beings invoked by the runes: the arch-angelic Vala Aulë and lesser angelic Maiar. So the effect of runecraft is akin to a kind of 'blessing' in our world, imbuing artifacts with spiritual power beyond their material nature.

Overt, destructive magic, used to directly harm or dominate "other wills" (that is, other persons) is an evil thing in Middle-earth, without question. If the Runekeepers harness and use 'magic' from runes in any overtly destructive way (i.e. lightning bolts and fireballs), they must be somehow tapping into the powers of evil Maiar, Sauron and his ilk. They would be going the way of Saruman (albeit in a much lesser form).

Perhaps Turbine are subtly planning on taking the epic story toward a plot twist (perhaps in the Mordor expansion), that will reveal how some of the "Free Peoples" (read: the Runekeepers) are actually corrupt, and have been all along in the service of the Enemy. Then we will have an epic battle to drive back these filthy quislings from our midst, back into the clutches of their true Master. Whereafter players who had 'corrupted' characters (e.g. Runekeepers) will continue their quests in the PvMP zones - creepside.

Originally Posted by funkygibbon

Hardly. He has no say in the content of LOTRO whatsoever.

I never implied that. What I said was that it is his job to uphold the sanctity of his father's lore.

Taken directly from the Tolkien Estate website (although the emphasis is my own):

Originally Posted by The Tolkien Estate

The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

Obviously Christopher has no say over LOTRO, nor over the movies or any other version of LOTR on an alternate medium. Those are all licensed through Tolkien Enterprises, a division of the Saul Zaentz Company. What Christopher does oversee are his father's literary works.

Originally Posted by Neithan

Are you suggesting that Tolkien may actually have held some sympathy with the kind of 'magic' that Crowley and his cult indulge(d) in? Please read his letters, his essays, and his biography, if you feel that and any concern for "being politically correct" was in any way true of his character.

No, to clarify, I was suggesting that he was aware of the existence of modern practitioners of magic in his time, and of their very bad reputation, and that he purposefully did not use magic or any specifics of any spells that could be tied into the practice of magic (Golden Dawn, witchcraft, etc.) specifically in order to avoid any possibility of his work being associated in any way with such things. The result seems to be a very vague and unformed system.

Great Work on the OP.

[QUOTE=Reddhawk;2198266]
"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".

I don't have the books with me, but from that phrase alone there is no indication that the hobbits understanding is anything other than a difference in terminology. She states quite clearly that it is (what your folk call) magic. Of course, she says 'what your folk' because the concept is alien to her ("I do not understand clearly what they mean"), she is not saying that it isn't magic!

[QUOTE=Reddhawk;2199332]
By this, she means that there is something at work here that the hobbits do not fully understand and label instead as 'magic'.

Yes, a difference in terminology. However, a difference in terminology does not mean that the terminology is faulty. Some peoples have different words for different types of snow, but for me there is really just snow. My terminology is not faulty and the stuff they refer to is snow!

The terms Art and Coercion may be useful. However, some sort of exceptional Art and Coercion is being referred to. I have never seen that type of Art and Coercion in the world, so as a mere mortal I think it would probably be well described as Magical Art and Magical Coercion.

Originally Posted by Silverangel

No, to clarify, I was suggesting that he was aware of the existence of modern practitioners of magic in his time, and of their very bad reputation, and that he purposefully did not use magic or any specifics of any spells that could be tied into the practice of magic (Golden Dawn, witchcraft, etc.) specifically in order to avoid any possibility of his work being associated in any way with such things. The result seems to be a very vague and unformed system.

That somewhat clarified your position. However, I'm not aware of any hint in the vast body of his writings, his biographies, or even any critical commentary that suggests in the least that he kowtowed to the "political correctness" of his day, nor masqueraded literary use of magic to avoid potential repercussions with the Church.

Prof. Tolkien had a life-long faith-affirming world view that was very firmly ensconced. There's no indication, even from his closest friends, that he was deliberately attempting to insinuate any teachings into his writings that would have conflicted with that world view or his faith. For devoted Catholics, such concepts as faith, Church and philosophy (among others) are all intermingled; one cannot pull at a single thread without risk of unraveling the whole tapestry.

Originally Posted by Warthros

I don't have the books with me, but from that phrase alone there is no indication that the hobbits understanding is anything other than a difference in terminology. She states quite clearly that it is (what your folk call) magic. Of course, she says 'what your folk' because the concept is alien to her ("I do not understand clearly what they mean"), she is not saying that it isn't magic!

That is certainly an interesting way of looking at it, and one that I hadn't fully considered. However, I am still inclined to believe that although 'magic' is mentioned, there is actually nothing of the sort being employed. The hobbits were known to have a rich mythology of their own, so to them, the strange craft of the elves must certainly have seemed supernatural in nature. Of course, it was not, but they nonetheless failed to comprehend its true nature and saw it only as 'magic'. I believe this is where Galadriel's confusion comes about. As an elf, she understands the natural forces at work here, and is thus at a loss to understand how the hobbits can view her Art and the enemy's Coercive Will as being one and the same. It is all a matter of distinction really; she understands the differences, but the hobbits do not.

Originally Posted by Warthros

Yes, a difference in terminology. However, a difference in terminology does not mean that the terminology is faulty. Some peoples have different words for different types of snow, but for me there is really just snow. My terminology is not faulty and the stuff they refer to is snow!

This is an interesting analogy and I think it relates to my issue of distinction. Galadriel is the sort of person capable of distinguishing the different types of snow, or in this case 'magic'; the hobbits are the ones for whom it is all supernatural, uncomprehendable power that they term magic. Of course, this is about as far as the analogy goes. Snow is easy to conceive of, while magic is not. I still feel that what is at the heart of Galadriel and the hobbits' discussion is not actually magic, but rather an aspect of nature of which the hobbits are simply not aware. It is all a bit like the practices of early alchemy; to laymen these practices must have seemed like magic, though today we would more appropriately label much of them as science.

Originally Posted by Warthros

The terms Art and Coercion may be useful. However, some sort of exceptional Art and Coercion is being referred to. I have never seen that type of Art and Coercion in the world, so as a mere mortal I think it would probably be well described as Magical Art and Magical Coercion.

Well described, maybe, but truthfully 'magic', it is not. Magic, at least in my mind, appears to describe a power that is supernatural, and by this I mean something that exists wholly beyond the physical world; it is something that has no physical existence and cannot be explained by natural laws. This certainly does not describe either the Art of the more extraordinary beings in Middle-earth, nor the Coercion of the enemy. These forces (Art and Coercion) are fully explainable within the realm of the Wraith-world, though unfortunately we are never provided with the details. As such, we are left in the position of the hobbits, seeing these forces only as 'magic'.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

Certainly, there is no "energy" to be channeled out of anything. There is no mana or ether to Tolkien's works, but rather simple Desire to create Art or Will to Coerce or Dominate.

Reddhawk... I largely agree with your take on magic as it relates to Tolkien's world. But regarding this specific issue, I can think of an exception. When Gandalf tries to seal the door against the Balrog in Moria he clearly is weakened or spent; in other words some sort of "energy" seems to have been drained from him in the process of applying a "spell" to the door. Does this example disagree with the statement you made here?

Originally Posted by sdaorss0rc

Reddhawk... I largely agree with your take on magic as it relates to Tolkien's world. But regarding this specific issue, I can think of an exception. When Gandalf tries to seal the door against the Balrog in Moria he clearly is weakened or spent; in other words some sort of "energy" seems to have been drained from him in the process of applying a "spell" to the door. Does this example disagree with the statement you made here?

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to look up that particular passage in the book, though I will still attempt to explain the way I would imagine it. Certainly the Art of the elves or Coercion of the enemy requires physical energy, but it is a bit like any craft: if you exert yourself, you will tire. What I meant by saying that there was "no energy to be channeled out of anything", is that in Tolkien's world, magic is not a supernatural force; rather, I think magic is more like a science or body of natural laws governing the Wraith-world.

Originally Posted by Hammerfast

So let me get this straight. The mirror has a miniature nuclear generator in it that powers a computer that somehow reads people's minds and then shows them a future relevant to them? Well. Obviously not a nuclear generator. But anything that does anything utilizes a power source. And for this thing to show a person a future relevant to him, it must somehow come to know him - hence my suggestion of reading the mind.

If you think you can call that mirror science, go ahead. It doesn't accomplish anything. Those of us who call it magic, see you as some kind of nut that cannot admit an error and will do anything to try to justify your claim no matter how dumb it makes you look.

So in spite of all that long nonsensical verbiage in your post, it's still magic. 100% pure, unadulterated magic. Magic is all through the Tolkien fantasy. Your welcome to call it something else if you like but don't expect a lot of people to take you up on it. Personally I think you've just had a few too many beers.

I won't wade into the deeper discussions, but I had to comment on this logical minefield above.

Just because something is not nuclear science does not automatically make it magic. This is not to say that it isn't magic, but your apparent assumption that the absence of one confirms the existence of the other is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Reddhawk

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to look up that particular passage in the book, though I will still attempt to explain the way I would imagine it. Certainly the Art of the elves or Coercion of the enemy requires physical energy, but it is a bit like any craft: if you exert yourself, you will tire. What I meant by saying that there was "no energy to be channeled out of anything", is that in Tolkien's world, magic is not a supernatural force; rather, I think magic is more like a science or body of natural laws governing the Wraith-world.

Here is the passage from the book:

Suddenly at the top of the stair there was a stab of white light. Then there was a dull rumble and a heavy thud. The drum-beats broke out wildly; doom-boom, doom-boom, and then stopped. Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company.

“Well, well! That’s over!” said the wizard struggling to his feet. “I have done all that I could. But I have met my match, and have nearly been destroyed. But don’t stand here! Go on! You will have to do without light for a while; I am rather shaken. Go on! Go on! Where are you, Gimli? Come ahead with me! Keep close behind, all of you!”

They stumbled after him wondering what had happened. Doom, doom went the drum-beats again; they now sounded muffled and far away, but they were following. There was no other sound of pursuit, neither tramp of feet, nor any voice. Gandalf took no turns, right or left, for the passage seemed to be going in the direction that he desired. Every now and again it descended a flight of steps, fifty or more, to a lower level. At the moment that was their chief danger; for in the dark they could not see a descent, until they came on it, and put their feet out into emptiness. Gandalf felt the ground with his staff like a blind man.

At the end of an hour they had gone a mile, or maybe a little more, and had descended many flights of stairs. There was still no sound of pursuit. Almost they began to hope that they would escape. At the bottom of the seventh flight Gandalf halted.

“It is getting hot!” he gasped. “We ought to be down at least to the level of the Gates now. Soon I think we should look for a lefthand turn to take us east. I hope it is not far. I am very weary. I must rest here a moment, even if all the orcs ever spawned are after us.”

Gimli took his arm and helped him down to a seat on the step. “What happened away up there at the door?” he asked. “Did you meet the beater of the drums?”

“I do not know,” answered Gandalf. “But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. 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 kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength. As I stood there I could hear orc voices on the other side; at any moment I thought they would burst it open. I could not hear what was said; they seemed to be talking in their own hideous language. All I caught was ghâsh; that is ‘fire’. 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. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think. I am afraid Balin is buried deep, and maybe something else is buried there too. I cannot say. But at least the passage behind us was completely blocked. Ah! I have never felt so spent, but it is passing. And now what about you, Frodo? There was not time to say so, but I have never been more delighted in my life than when you spoke. I feared that it was a brave but dead hobbit that Aragorn was carrying.”

Like I said, I agree with most your takes on magic in Tolkien's world. I'm just curious how you would gauge Gandalf's "spell" here in terms of Coercion v Art. And additionally how you might interpret Gandalf's exhaustion in terms of science or the laws of nature.

Originally Posted by sdaorss0rc

I'm just curious how you would gauge Gandalf's "spell" here in terms of Coercion v Art. And additionally how you might interpret Gandalf's exhaustion in terms of science or the laws of nature.

A smith will get tired when creating a weapon or other item. Gandalf got tired by using a Word of Command. Just because something tires you doesn't make it coercive magic. It just involves effort.

I think the idea of coercive magic (called "goetia" IIRC) being evil is in the domination of another being's will. As the door is an inanimate object, is their really any coercion going on? Sure, Gandalf is imposing his will upon the door, but there's no soul involved. Similarly, you could say that in an act of sub-creation, the sub-creator is "imposing his will on whatever the object is by altering its form".


It seems that in this thread there's a lot of argument resulting in some confusion over terminology. "Magic" is being used in several different ways & meanings, and so various posters seem to be miscommunicating, leading to disagreements when in fact they probably share very similar views. I see this happen a lot even in my workplace. I suggest everyone take a step back and examine what others are actually trying to say.