How much magic is there in Lord of the Rings?

[Brian G Turner]

Spoilers!


In recent discussions the topic of magic has come up in modern fantasy.

My impression of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings is that there is very little actual magic in the foreground - ie, we see very little cast.

Gandalf manipulates smoke, creates fireworks, and his staff glows with light in Moria.

There's the One Ring of course, which to a normal observer simply makes the user invisible.

My question is: how much have I missed that we see?

 

[Pyan]

As I recall, he uses his staff to set fire to, firstly, pine-cones, and secondly, the tops of the trees when the company are treed by the wargs in The Hobbit. He also gave the Old Took "a pair of magic diamond studs that fastened themselves and never came undone till ordered." When they hide the loot from the troll's cave, he and the dwarves put "a great many spells" on the hiding place, presumably to stop anyone else finding it.

In LotR he uses "spells" to try to open the back door into Moria, try to hold the door of the Chamber of Mazarbul against the Balrog, ("I had to speak a word of Command") and break Durin's Bridge to save the Company of the Ring. He also sends a shaft of white light from his hand to ward off the Nazgul attacking Faramir's retreat from Osgiliath to Minas Tirith.

Apart from Gandalf, there's Beorn, who is a shape-changer (The Hobbit), and Galadriel's Mirror and the palantiri, which seem to be some sort of magical far-seeing devices - the mirror can also show what might happen, as well as what's happening a long way away.

The swords Sting, Orcrist and Glamdring all glow blue in the presence of Orcs, and it's said somewhere that this is a characteristic of Elven blades.

I'm sure there's more...

 

[The Judge]

Radagast talking to the birds I'd class as magic, and the Eagles speaking human tongues.

Tom Bombadil and the stuff with the burial mounds.

The Ents, or at least their charges -- wouldn't walking trees be magic?

Gandalf and Saruman's fight.

The Balrog -- I'd class that as a magical creature.



EDIT: I may of course be misunderstanding what you mean by magic!

 

[Abernovo]

There's the weather magic (storm and avalanche) of Saruman, and some mind magic, but I agree there's little overt magic in the way of spells.

I think there's more a sense of magic in the actions, which is appropriate, considering Tolkien's source materials for inspiration were the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic myths. So, there's the smith magic of the elves, the power of names, and the wording of prophesies -- 'cannot be killed by man'/'I am no man'. And, a lot of 'natural' magic, where the land itself is magical, represented by personified spirits, such as Galadriel and the Ents.

In that, it's similar to the Viking sagas and the Táin Bó Cúailnge, where actual spells and wand-waving are pretty rare. More casting of runes and sticks, concocting potions and harnessing the magic of being linked to the land. But, that's more in the background, though.

 

[j d worthington]

Odd; I thought I'd replied to this question a while back... perhaps a similar thread?

Anyway... my answer is that LotR is permeated with magic of one kind or another, from the sort of magic which Tom Bombadil practices in casting a spell on Old Man Willow or casting out the Barrowight to the presence of such supernatural (ghostly) entities as the barrowights and Ringwraiths; the hymn (for that's essentially what it is) which Sam (and for that matter the elves) sing to Elbereth; and, for that matter, when Elbereth is called on when facing Shelob, and the light flares up, thus repelling her for a time. The magic of the Stone of Erech and the Paths of the Dead; Galadriel's mirror; the palantiri; when we see Glorfindel confronting the Nazgû at the Ford of Bruinen and see his spirit shining through his corporeal form; and on and on, many more instances than I can possibly recount.

One may, of course, dismiss this all as simply the proper "physics" for such a fantasy, but I would argue that Tolkien subtly but quite distinctly makes this "spiritual" aspect of the book central to the narrative, for these are more than simply alien biology or a strange set of physical laws; instead he makes them distinctly of the realm of magic or the supernatural even within the context of a fantastic realm such as Middle-earth. It is like the religious aspect of the novel, which was overlooked by so many for so long; it permeates the thing, yet I have seen any number of comments over the years that, unlike many fantasy writers, Tolkien had the flaw of not creating a religion or supernatural belief system for his characters; when, in fact, it is all through the thing....

 

[Brian G Turner]

Odd; I thought I'd replied to this question a while back... perhaps a similar thread?

I asked the question within another thread, but wanted to give it a dedicated one.

One may, of course, dismiss this all as simply the proper "physics" for such a fantasy

Oh, I like the magic in LOTR - what frustrates me with modern fantasy magic is that it's too pervasive and too powerful.

In a modern fantasy by a male writer, the One Ring would almost certainly shoot fireballs, call up angels, and make the user a giant on command. Or similar.

Classic fantasy, to myself, is more focused on folkloric roots - I see similar with Ursula Le Guin - yet modern fantasy magic seems to have forgotten its roots and instead uses role playing game magic as a main inspiration, which to me makes magic feel very ordinary and even overwhelming with its power.

2c.

 

[j d worthington]

We're on the same page there, save that I'd change that to "underwhelming"....

 

[Extollager]

Does anyone have a searchable electronic text of LOTR, or a copy of Blackwelder's LOTR Concordance, at hand? If so, it would be interesting to look up words such as

magic
spell
sorcery
necromancer
lore
art(s)
enchantment

and see what could be synthesized from them when they are interpreted in their contexts.

I think one would find that a sharp distinction is drawn between two types of activity.

Gandalf and the Elves may effect dramatic artifacts and interventions when, by virtue of their own proper being, they work through forces in the created world -- working with the grain thereof. There may be an element of study involved, certainly, but the wholesome exercise of such power doesn't compel someone or something against the grain of its nature -- or, at most, if such compulsion is involved, it is either the just and right compulsion exerted by a nobler upon a less noble being; or it is seen as, in fact, a wrongful action. Tolkien might relate it to the authority that Christian tradition has suggested was possessed by unfallen mankind. I think of Machen in "The White People" (I think it is) when one of the characters says something like this, that the saint's holiness, however remarkable, is working along the original lines of creation.

When Tom Bombadil subdues the Barrow-Wight, he is not so much defeating a foe by use of magic, as he is setting right a wrong state of things. He isn't threatened by the wight or forced to call upon some power outside himself. Doesn't he refer somewhere to waiting till "the world is mended"? Tom can perform actions that are signs -- I will say epiphanies -- of that "eschatological" setting-right of the whole creation.

In contrast, there is "sorcery," etc. Here the will to pervert, dominate, exploit, and enslave is evident: [1] a more powerful will simply compels a lesser will to serve it, or [2] a corrupt will seduces another will.

Also, I would say it is not a case of "magic" when, for example, an Elf invokes Elbereth. Here, if supernatural assistance ensued, it would be one being helping another being -- freely, out of love and mercy.

 

[Bick]

The magic in Tolkien's world rests not in spells, but in the different races of the land, and their place in the scheme of things (as told in the creation myths of the Silmarillion). Thus, elves, the firstborn have an inherent power that comes from their status as the first created by the Valar. Dwarves also are powerful, as the second born, and thus in the hobbit they can "cast spells", but such powers are limited to mining, building, smithing and so on, as they are cast from the earth. Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman have greater power over the earth, nature and lesser races, as the Istari are minor deities, related to the Valar. So, they do not cast spells so much as have some ability to command the world around them and project a dominant aura. At least this is how I've always read it. As such, there are very few "spells" in the D&D sense, and I think its better for it. Humans are so low on the creation totem pole, they have no real power over their land, and just reside in it, and therefore have no "magic" power. Tom Bombadil fits this idea, as I'm sure he is older than "man" and not actually human. The one group of characters that do not really fit this scheme are the nazgul, interestingly. The witch king himself is reportedly a sorcerer of some power, despite being the wraith of only a human king (as is Khamul). Thus only with a ring in hand can the otherwise 'unmagical' exert any special power over the world.

 

[j d worthington]

I don't want to speak for Brian on this, but the impression I got from the questions posted above seemed to indicate a more general idea of "magic" than the more rigorous definitions indicated in Dale's and Bick's posts.

Strictly speaking, of course, what the elves, etc., do seldom comes under the rubric of "magic"; but (as Galadriel herself indicates when speaking to Sam before using her mirror) to hobbits (and, by extension, to the readers who are, after all, given a view of the world "as seen by the hobbits") such things would qualify because they are rooted in a spiritual or supernatural realm. Thus, both sorcery (including necromancy, one of the major types of "magic" used by the Enemy), which is a complete violation of the natural order (hence carrying much of that idea of "sin" which Machen made use of) and the more benign types of summonings, healings, callings on the Powers, and so forth which are a "natural" inheritance of the Elves, tend to fall into this category. Speaking more strictly: these are the fantastic elements of the story; the things which separate it from, say, science fiction, which -- at least purportedly -- bases its happenings on an extension or extrapolation of a scientific (or at least pseudoscientific) idea or view of the world.

In Tolkien, it seems to me, there is a tension between the natural world of the everyday, and the incursion of the spiritual (whether sacred or corrupt) which carefully balances his work between the poles of a naturalistic view and that of an universe where a godhead is still very much present, albeit at times seemingly remote. Of course, the involvement of such a godhead also implies a similar involvement of its opposite; and it is the tension between these elements (naturalism/supernaturalism; a godhead and its enemy, etc.) which provides much not only of the narrative drive, but the power of his vision by deliberately posing without resolving the uneasy balance between the "mundane" and the "magical". As the hobbits themselves become increasingly aware of the presence of this element in a world they view as (essentially) "prosy", so do we; with the result that, following the aesthetic views he set forth in "On Fairy-Stories", the reader is given a regenerated view of the world in all its magic possibilities, whether they be blatant or subtle.

As I say, I could be mistaken on this, but this is what I gather Brian was asking about when he speaks of the "magic" of LotR and the related volumes.

 

[j d worthington]

Classic fantasy, to myself, is more focused on folkloric roots - I see similar with Ursula Le Guin - yet modern fantasy magic seems to have forgotten its roots and instead uses role playing game magic as a main inspiration, which to me makes magic feel very ordinary and even overwhelming with its power.

I think this is one of the reasons I so like some of Andre Norton's earlier Witch World books -- the use of "magic" is understated, and there is an ambiguity as to whether it is truly "magic" in the sense of something which violates the natural order, or a natural ability of certain inhabitants of this world. As a result, when one of these is used, it is more impressive by contrast, without drawing attention to itself by hitting the reader over the head. She also, of course, draws on "folkloric roots" while making what she does with them entirely her own, just as Tolkien does by using his influences of the northern tales and such things as the Kalevala. (One also sees this approach in, for instance, some of Poul Anderson's fantasy work, particularly -- it seems to me -- The Broken Sword and The Merman's Children. Though the use of magic is certainly more obvious in many instances the former than in Norton or Tolkien, it is nevertheless handled with a restraint which nonetheless emphasizes the alienness of such phenomena to our own experience, at least in waking reality and hence aids the reader in "seeing the world through new eyes".)

 

[paranoid marvin]

Much of the magic in LOTR is understated. Treasure is protected by wards and spells, Gandalf's staff lights up a room or helps to start a fire, the lesser Rings maintain protected areas of Middle Earth; how is never made clear

What we also have to understand is that, as I have previously mentioned, the LOTR is a chronicle of the events that led several young Hobbits to becoming heroes of their people by saving Middle Earth and (more importantly) the Shire.

The hows and the whys of the natures of magic are for wizards and learned folk, and not for Hobbits to question or pry.

The best description of magic in Middle Earth I can give is by comparing it with the Force in Star Wars. Everyone accepts that it is there but only a chosen few can wield it. It isn't explained, it just is.

 

[Aquilonian]

Two brief points.

1) Given that the hobbits' culture is pretty much based on an idealised version of Medieval England or maybe a bit later, the hobbits use very much less magic than ordinary English people would have done.

2) However there is a huge theme of magic surely that's intrinsic to the story, which is that the magic of the elves is somehow wrapped up in the rings, and the One ring controls the others, therefore when the One ring is destroyed the magic of the Elves will fade and the Elves themselves will fade away out of Middle Earth either by "dwindling" or by emigrating to their unreachable lands in the west. However precisely what this Elven magic is, is left quite vague. Personally I prefer it that way, as I don't think things necessarily have to be spelled out.

 

[farntfar]

I think you're right that there isn't that much actual magic in the LOTR, as opposed to what you might call lore. By that I mean knowledge of the physics of the place, as has been said earlier; (Athelas cures the black breath etc.); except for a few fairly low key zaps between Gandalf and Saruman/ the Nazgul/ the balrog etc)
It seems to me that mostly Tolkein implies that the use of magic is a bad move as far as the good side is concerned, except under exceptional circumstances, much as Ged and Ogion etc suggest in Earthsea, and even ObiWan in Star Wars, because it tends to upset the balance of things.
Seeing things seems acceptable, but changing things can be dodgy. (And not a word from you please Heisenberg!)

 

[Corbier]

There's a lot of magic in The Lord of the Rings: the magic of storytelling.

 

[arwen1]

I would like to add that magic is the result of the races (men, dwarves, elves) as being in contact with their own creation and the world beyond. If you have read the Silmarillion, in it you get an idea of how the races were created and thus what magic attributes were bestowed upon each of them. Let's not forget that Aragorn, even though human, was a descendant from the First Men which enabled him to have important abilities when curing the sick (as seen in the 3rd book of the LOTR, The Return of the King)