Just a couple of small points ...
Quote:
|
A person who has an IQ of, say 46 is not likely to bring that number up to more than maybe 55, unless they get a Flowers for Algernon type brain surgery (the equivalent of a ring of power) that raises their IQ a drastic 50 points or more (depending on the person.
|
Now,
Flowers for Algernon is a wonderful book, full of pathos and some searing insights into the relationship between 'cerebral' intelligence, emotions and empathy, among other things. However, I would argue strongly that someone's IQ can be raised dramatically without occult or surgical means. After all, what an IQ test measures is your competence at taking IQ tests. As an example, tests such as "SMILE is to LAUGH as WILT is to COLLAPSE - true or false?" are to do with vocabulary, which is something that can be learned. Thus a 12 year old that reads a lot may well have a higher IQ than a 30 year old that has never bothered. I am generally unhappy with IQ tests being seen as a measure of intelligence, and only too aware of the profoundly flawed racial and cultural elitism that has attached itself to this method. None of which, of course, is actually central to the novel.
About magic and power, Tolkien wrote -
Quote:
... With the aid of Sauron's lore they (Elves) made Rings of Power ('power' is an ominous and sinister word in all these tales, except when applied to the gods).
... but also they (rings) enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination ...
|
This quote from his letter to Milton Waldman seems to imply that Tolkien applies a traditional, pejorative Christian view to 'magic' as a form of the occult. He also says -
Quote:
... and so to the Machine (or Magic). By the last I intend all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of the developments of the inherent inner powers or talents, or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating ... The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised.
I have not used 'magic' consistently ... but the Elves are there to demonstrate the difference ... their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete ... And it's object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination ...
|
This, therefore is the heart of Tolkien's definition.
Now, I actually tend to disagree on a philosophical level with his idealised conception of Art as epitomised by the Elves. In my view, being more effortless, quick and complete is not necessarily being delivered of limitations. It is those limitations that in fact define self-expression as art. But this is a debate that takes us into the nature of divinity and other such interminable topics.
The key point is that magic is in effect characterised not by what it is, but
what it serves. Technology that fuels an unjust repression is as much 'magic' in Tolkien's world as the Ring of Power.
This is what makes Lord of the Rings compelling as a narrative, and gives it great spiritual conviction. That heroism - or moral depth - is measured not in terms of power, or in what one can achieve through artefact. It is not measured in terms of victory, or the end justifying the means. The fact is that the moral protagonists in LotR fight only with what they already have - and all artificial enhancements or 'magic' inevitably corrupt and are, finally, self-defeating.
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin
[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]