Butchering Middle Earth

[ColonelHardisson]

I've made peace with fusangite, so I don't really wish to jump back in on the debate about magic in and of itself. The bit about Galadriel throwing down the walls of Dol Guldur is something I've never been able to resist discussing. Here is the passage from Tolkien that has inspired more than one debate:

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

Now, there have been many interpretations about what this all means. What exactly did Galadriel do to throw down the walls and lay bare the pits of Dol Guldur? To my way of thinking, it had to have been magical; Celeborn had led the army of Lorien and seized the place. That was a physical act, obviously. So, if he had taken the fortress, why would it be necessary to have Galadriel come to knock it down, unless it involved powerful magics? There would be no reason to summon her otherwise. However, the real question is - what type of magic was used to destroy the fortress? Did she use magic along the lines of D&D's disintegrate, or did she use magic along the lines of dispel magic, thus releasing the magic that had been used to construct the fortress, and thereby causing its collapse? Was her laying bare the pits a physical act of exhumation, enabled by magic, or is this a figurative term, in which she used forms of divination to effectively lay bare the secrets of the delvings beneath the fortress?

I've been surprised by how many different interpretations of this I've seen.

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry, I don't want to come across as overly antagonistic. I've been participating in M-E related discussions for a long time. At one point, I had the opinion that all magic in M-E was the result of your bloodline -- and regular Men didn't have it.

A few things I've learned for sure over the course of these years of debate and discussion: 1) Don't state something authoritatively. No matter how much you think you know, you'll find that other folks know just as much as you, and they'll be prepared to back up their assertions with quotes from the book and 2) Back up assertions with quotes from the book that are actually relevent to your point (unlike most of what fusangite provided, where the relationship between what was written and what he claims it says is dubious) and 3) accept that Tolkien wasn't necessarily writing in a way that is inimical to easy classification, so be prepared to accept the fact that other interpretations may be just as valid as your own. Doesn't mean you should change your opinion, but you have to at least accept that your interpretation isn't the only one that makes sense given what the text says.

 

[fusangite]

Colonel Hardisson says

what I found intriguing was that the Silvan Elves remained in large numbers. I also wondered about the early Fourth Age and Aragorn's battles throughout Middle Earth, subduing the foes of Gondor. I've seen others voice the same opinion as yours, though - that the main sources of conflict are over after Sauron's defeat.

Actually, the best thing ICE ever produced for MERP was Palantir Quest, a module about recovering the palantir of Annuminas from the far north.

While this is true, I find that the landscape of Tolkien's world is a vast canvas, upon which is painted many mysterious things. Mordor would remain a haunted place for centuries, poisoned and cursed by millennia of evil. The East and South are enigmatic, long held under the sway of the Dark Lord. The Withered Heath, the Grey Mountains, Mount Gundabad, the Misty Mountains - all still harbor the minions of Sauron.

Definitely, these are possible places to adventure. I just find that when people are adventuring in the fragments of a greater world, even if their own storyline has no hope of ever fixing the world, the hope that the world will be rebuilt to what it was is always there. Adventuring without such hope, I find, casts a pall over the game.

I understand that many wish to have a bad guy as huge and evil as Sauron to fight, but having been a D&D player almost as long as a Tolkien fan, I'm more than satisfied to fight the small fights, root out the minor evil.

Well, good luck with that. Sorry to have sounded so upset but for me, LOTR and Dr. Who were the stories which formed my consciousness between the ages of 7 and 12 and have guided my moral system for much of my life. Perhaps part of what makes the 4th age look so bleak to me is that the good guys are the servants of an expansionist imperial Gondor.

Joshua, I'd be procrastinating excessively on my university alchemy project if I continued the citation pissing match. All I can do is thank you for pointing out that the only examples of kinetic magic you can find in LOTR are of magic done by a person in possession of one of the rings of power -- rings whose power is directly contingent upon that of Sauron. The only other textual evidence you have cited is that some Black Numenoreans were "sorcerors" -- unfortunately, the passage is a little too ambiguous to interpret effectively.

I can't find the page right now but a Noldor Elf does explain to a Hobbit that they don't perceive their magical items as "magical," just well-made.

In looking at Tolkien, I think that one of the most important things we have to recognize is that he was not simply writing about his Middle Earth. He was writing, as any good writer does, about the world in which he lived. LOTR is a work about Catholicism and about British history and the Celtic Twilight. I get upset when people appear to trample on these themes when discussing the work.

 

[WizarDru]

Definitely, these are possible places to adventure. I just find that when people are adventuring in the fragments of a greater world, even if their own storyline has no hope of ever fixing the world, the hope that the world will be rebuilt to what it was is always there. Adventuring without such hope, I find, casts a pall over the game.

Does that mean the only games that have relevance to you are ones in the which the players are the only ones (or the most likely ones) to save the world? I don't see anything wrong with that, but I certainly think are plenty of good tales to be told, in Tolkein or out, that don't require the main characters to have vast sweeping effects on the world around them. A war-party of hobbits (including the Bullroarer) would feel like an exciting game to me, as would an adventure to seek out the Entwives, or any number of stories hinted at in the narrative. YMMV.

In looking at Tolkien, I think that one of the most important things we have to recognize is that he was not simply writing about his Middle Earth. He was writing, as any good writer does, about the world in which he lived. LOTR is a work about Catholicism and about British history and the Celtic Twilight. I get upset when people appear to trample on these themes when discussing the work.

Well, this is a matter for debate, of course. One thing that Tolkein was fairly clear on in both the preface to the special edition and parts of the 2nd Edition Silmarillion's opening letter was that Tolkein truly disliked people interpeting his work, particularly with regards to the second World War. Tolkein stated quite clearly that one of his goals with Middle-Earth was to create a British mythology, since Britain lacked one far more than Ireland, Wales or Scotland. The only mythology he saw was Arthurian tales, and those were hardly purely british, in any event. Mythology grows and changes with it's audience. I don't see it as a terrible thing if people interpert and possibly even invent more mythology within it....Tolkein may have even wanted that, after a fashion.

This is the first time that I've heard that LotR was specifically about British history and Catholicism, though. Could you go more into that, as I'm honestly curious? As for the Celtic Twilight, I thought that was a collection by Yeats. Was it the basis or based-on a greater literary movement?

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua, I'd be procrastinating excessively on my university alchemy project if I continued the citation pissing match. All I can do is thank you for pointing out that the only examples of kinetic magic you can find in LOTR are of magic done by a person in possession of one of the rings of power -- rings whose power is directly contingent upon that of Sauron. The only other textual evidence you have cited is that some Black Numenoreans were "sorcerors" -- unfortunately, the passage is a little too ambiguous to interpret effectively.

Saruman also does so -- apparently -- he has devilry of some sort which broaches the walls of Helm's Deep, for instance. Also, as I stated, your division of kinetic and non-kinetic magic is completely arbitrary and unsupported by any textual reference whatsoever, so I'm certainly not supporting any conclusions you draw about it whatsoever. There are other sorcerors mentioned in the appendices, primarily, including amongst the hill-men of Rhudaur (non-Numenoreans) and the Dunlendings. The Pukel-men also seem to have magic powers, as in Unfinished Tales in "The Faithful Stone" which mentions a number of abilities of the First Age woses that no man ever had. In addition, if you read the "Myths Transformed" essays Tolkien wrote (appearing in print in Morgoth's Ring) you'd also see all kinds of magic described by Tolkien done by races that you deem completely unable to perform magic. So please, don't try to pigeonhole anything I wrote into your pet specious theory -- it really doesn't work.

I can't find the page right now but a Noldor Elf does explain to a Hobbit that they don't perceive their magical items as "magical," just well-made.

Yes, it's when they are getting the boats, rope, cloaks, etc. in Lorien on their way back out to the River. Galadriel herself also expresses some confusion (and amusement, in my opinion) that Frodo and Sam call her "Art" and the deceits of the Enemy magic, even though to her they are so clearly different that labelling them the same thing is patently ridiculous. That does not, however, build any support for your theory that this nebulous "kinetic magic" only comes from Ringbearers. In fact, since Galadriel is herself a ringbearer, it makes your theory fall flat (again.)

In looking at Tolkien, I think that one of the most important things we have to recognize is that he was not simply writing about his Middle Earth. He was writing, as any good writer does, about the world in which he lived. LOTR is a work about Catholicism and about British history and the Celtic Twilight. I get upset when people appear to trample on these themes when discussing the work.

The Celtic Twilight? Unless you mean that in some metaphoric sense, that's absolutely untrue. The Anglo-Saxon twilight (to be replaced by a Norman English world) might make some sense, but a Celtic Twilight does not. British history also has little to do the work, and in fact, Tolkien specifically denies any such connection. Catholicism, on the other hand, played an integral role in the creation, and it actually became more and more integral over the years. If you read the early mythology in The Book(s) of Lost Tales you get a real mythology/faery tale treatment of the material, but as you progress towards the latest versions of the myths that appear in The War of the Jewels and Morgoth's Ring the myths became increasingly and more overtly and obviously compatible with Tolkien's Catholic faith. The bastardized product that is the current printed Silmarillion, while still a great read (imo) is a product that even Christopher Tolkien regretted publishing and compiling, which is why he brought out the untouched works complete with notes on when and why the various parts were written and how they relate to earlier and later forms of the myth in the History of Middle-earth series. That's where you really want to go to delve into the themes with which Tolkien embued his work.

 

[fusangite]

Wizardru, you say,

Does that mean the only games that have relevance to you are ones in the which the players are the only ones (or the most likely ones) to save the world?

No. You can even re-read the quote of mine that you excerpted to support this assertion to see that you're incorrect here. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether the characters, by themselves, have the power to fix the world, adventuring is less fun if you know the world can't be fixed. That's why I don't like adventuring in Dying Earth.

You correctly point out that Tolkien was very pointed in stating that LOTR is not about WWII. You also accurately represent what Tolkien stated he was writing about. I'm sorry that I'm heading out the door and can't address your questions about the broader meaning of "Celtic Twilight" and how it relates to the story of Britain nor about Tolkien's catholicism. Hopefully, I'll get to that tomorrow.

Joshua, in response to your latest post, "kinetic" is an adjective modifying the noun "magic." It therefore describes a subset of magic. Therefore, producing examples of non-kinetic magic to disprove my statement about kinetic magic is unhelpful. I see no indication whatsoever that sorcery describes kinetic magic -- I have found that the term "sorcery" when talking about myth traditions of other cultures typically refers to a magic similar to voodoo, whereby one puts a hex or bad luck on someone.

The term "kinetic" is not nebulous. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kinetic

As for the Celtic Twilight theme: the Edain are the Germanic/Teutonic peoples; the elves are the Celts -- they leave. The men establish an impoverished kingdom without them -- after the two kindreds become estranged. As for your point that the work is not about British history but about British myth, I concede; I used the wrong term because frankly, prior to the Danelaw coming to Britain in the 9th century, the two terms are pretty interchangeable.

 

[WizarDru]

No. You can even re-read the quote of mine that you excerpted to support this assertion to see that you're incorrect here. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether the characters, by themselves, have the power to fix the world, adventuring is less fun if you know the world can't be fixed. That's why I don't like adventuring in Dying Earth.

How can I be wrong? I was asking you a question, which you answered. I guess we just view the situation differently. Ultimately, our world will be consumed when our star goes nova, and the earth will be destroyed. However, my body will go to the grave far sooner than that, I'm afraid. Still, I have no intention of going gently in that night, and I don't see characters in a game set during any age of Middle Earth as being so fated. I personally see the series core message as being exactly the opposite of that. I can, however, see how much it means to you in that respect, and understand your view, even if I don't agree with it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Actually, the best thing ICE ever produced for MERP was Palantir Quest, a module about recovering the palantir of Annuminas from the far north.



Definitely, these are possible places to adventure. I just find that when people are adventuring in the fragments of a greater world, even if their own storyline has no hope of ever fixing the world, the hope that the world will be rebuilt to what it was is always there. Adventuring without such hope, I find, casts a pall over the game.



Well, good luck with that. Sorry to have sounded so upset but for me, LOTR and Dr. Who were the stories which formed my consciousness between the ages of 7 and 12 and have guided my moral system for much of my life. Perhaps part of what makes the 4th age look so bleak to me is that the good guys are the servants of an expansionist imperial Gondor.

I have Palantir Quest. I think it's pretty good, but I dislike the way it leads the PCs by the nose.

I don't think it's a hopeless quest for the PCs to be adventuring in the Fourth Age; Tolkien tells us that Aragorn set about restoring what had been lost, and it seems that he actually succeeded in that. While Tolkien meant for the departure of the Noldor and many of the great figures of Middle Earth to be sad, he also wrote of hope for the future, of a time when Men could come into their own, and determine their own destiny. Without the pall of Sauron on the land, the Fourth Age strikes me as an optimistic era in which to adventure, a time of freshness and enthusiasm - a baby boom in Minas Tirith almost certainly, maybe the rebuilding of Annuminas, possibly the eventual cleasing of Mordor.

Eru meant for the time of Men to be the greatest of ages in Middle Earth, and that's why he gave them such an important destiny. Gondor was expansionistic, yes, but in a positive sense, casting away the vestiges of the Shadow that remained after Sauron's departure. Remember, the Noldor came back to Middle Earth over a matter of pride, a matter that set into motion several thousand years of unceasing war, that shattered the face of Middle Earth. So, while the Noldor that remained were, by the end of the Third Age, wise and good and powerful, they had only grown that way after millennia of conflict which almost saw their total destruction, and the destruction and/or enslavement of the mortal world. In effect, what we saw in the Lord of the Rings was the Noldor trying to clean up the mess they had created long ago, to return the world to at least a semblance of what it had been before their coming. Sure, they had not created the worst of it, but they tried to rectify all of it as much as they could in order to atone for their own transgressions. The implication is that this was so that Men could have a place in which to fulfill their own, far greater, destiny.

But, that's just how I see it.

...and y'know, Sauron and Morgoth are both still around, if greatly diminished...but we saw that Sauron could bounce back from some pretty big setbacks...

 

[Deadguy]

You know Colonel, that's the best description of the Fourth Age I have ever read. It takes the bittersweet events that end the Third Age and puts them in their rightful context!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

You know Colonel, that's the best description of the Fourth Age I have ever read. It takes the bittersweet events that end the Third Age and puts them in their rightful context!

Well, gee, thanks. I think that short shrift is given to one of the themes that runs through Tolkien's work - loss and renewal, both inextricably bound together. There must be great loss in order for there to be great renewal. The Fourth Age is a time of diminishment for the Elves, not a time of diminishment for Middle Earth.