Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
A good point– of course in the examples you give it's ambiguous– intentionally, I think– whether you're seeing merely a strong will, or a power in action. But you're right that it's rare that Tolkien's Elves (or Númenóreans) cast spells, as such. In contrast, blantyr's Elf-character's use of "subtle magic", it seems, requires her to be casting spells all the time, just unobtrusively:
|
"All the time" would be an exaggeration. As I said earlier, I thought long and hard and couldn't think of a single example of her singing with intent in an inn. In a public inn, she sings for the enjoyment of those around her. Outside, in the wild, she is more apt to sing songs devoted to one or another of the Valar, to call protection and growth upon the land.
In the Harry Potter books, if one wants to use magic, one almost always waves a wand and speaks a pseudo latin phrase. I think it safe to say that Harry Potter style magic does involve rote spells. Gandalf sometimes waves his staff when using magic. He sometimes speaks words. (Come back Sauruman!) Tom Bombadil seems always to sing, but the words don't seem rote, formal and fixed. He seems to be ad-libbing. In general, it seems safe to suggest that Tolkien's magic is much more free form and flexible than Rowling's.
And yet, if Gandalf or Bombadil does something, there is often beginning and end. There is generally a brief period where Bombadil is waving his hands and the rain doesn't hit him, or when Gandalf's beam of light drives a Nazgul away. What Gandalf does is different than what Harry does, but not all that much different. The word 'spell' doesn't seem to fit quite as well in Middle Earth as in Hogwart's. I'd be interested if someone were to suggest a different word. Off the top of my head, and even after a look at a thesaurus, I haven't one to propose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
On that note– blantyr, both from your own description and from the sample rules and character sheets I've looked at, it's pretty clear that the makers of "Ambarquenta" have had to do a good deal of tweaking, codifying things that were probably never meant to be codified, and making up details out of whole cloth. I'm not saying they're not trying to be as faithful to the original as they could be and still keep the game playable– it's just that a roleplaying system and a novel simply don't operate the same way. For this reason I remain puzzled as to why you apparently believe you can work backwards and apply the rules of AQ to its source.
|
I agree with your characterization of AQ.
The source is subtle, ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. The rules are clear and understandable. One might argue that any clear and understandable rule can't possibly accurately portray Tolkien's magic as the magic isn't clear and understandable.
When reading the AQ rules, I'll often think, yes, that rule reflects how Tolkien wrote this scene, that one, and this third one as well, but in this fourth scene it isn't quite right. I'm assuming others contributing here know LotR roughly as well as I, and generally know the First and Second Age writings far better.
I thought to insert clarity into the conversation, even knowing that the clearer one gets, the more likely it is that someone will find an exception that might be held to invalidate the clarity. It seems many do not appreciate this approach. I'm trying to use other approaches when possible.