Enchantment or advancement.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I was kinda enjoying examining how story and magic are intertwined

You just made me think of something possibly relevant to this...

A lot of ancient cultures place high value in names, in some mythologies, knowing someone's name can give a wizard certain power over them. Quite often the names are more than identifying labels. When I was studying Hebrew I noticed that several commentators (especially Jewish mystics) went to great lengths to say that names were mystical because they had deeper meanings. Some went to the extent of studying each letter of the alphabet and giving each character it's own, well, character.
I like this idea. In some cases the names become stories and it is the stories and significances that give them power. A good example would be the name of God according the the Torah. YHVH. In Hebrew it is yud, hey, vav, hey. These are all 'breathing sounds', each letter having specific connotations with breath and life. So the name itself gains all these meanings and more.

I think this is where I draw the main distinction between magic and technology (rather than science, pér sé). The former is a power drawn from history, a connection with the old and a bridge for ancient stories to invade the present. The latter is building over the past, moving further away from it. Neither is particually bad, mind you. Both serve different purposes. But for the writer of fantasy, magic is the great tool to open the imagination to the great histories of the secondary world. For the writer of science fiction, technology draws the reader into the future of the secondary world.

Does that make any kind of sense?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by OFS

For one thing, they are now old, and antiguity has an appeal in itself--distance and a great abyss of time. . . . They open a door on Another Time, and if we pass through, though only for a moment, we stand outside our own time, outside of Time itself, maybe.

So, perhaps it isn't magic per se, or even unreachable technology, but simply the distancing effect?

[Alfirin]

I personally have never had a problem with science being somehow ugly or disheartening, or making my awe dimish. I think Douglas Adams said it best when he said (on his reveiw of Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker "I'll take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

Doffing my science hat for the moment. On the subeject of old famous items=magic items. I'ce always felt it was something along the lines of every person who uses something, like a sword or book leaves a little of themselves in it. When you make use of the item you somehow tap into all of those selves and they become part of you too (The closest term I can think of from my fantasy memories would be something like the polynesian "mana" though I suscept the real definition of "mana" has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (please forgive me for my ignorance (I only just recently discovered that I had be using the word "paladin" completey wrong for years, that the textbook defintion had nothng to do with what I though it did (I though that it has something to do with a life of pure selflesness, that a pladin was a knight or warrior who devoted his life wholly twords the service of any who needed him giving all of himself and taking absoultely nothing, no matter how badly he needed it). As an item gets older there also seems to be an inherent concvept of all those peices of usness become a for lack of a better word "soul" for the item, independent of the soul of any of the users. This is in Tolkien someone has alsready mention gurthang apperent abilty to talk. I also find a lot of this concept in other folklore, proaby most extmely in the concept (common in much Japanese mythology) that if you usa practically any object long enough it will develop a life of its own (all those lantern spirtis and living umbrellas) I'm going to finsh now, lest I make a bigger confusing fool of my self that I already have.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I personally have never had a problem with science being somehow ugly or disheartening, or making my awe dimish. I think Douglas Adams said it best when he said (on his reveiw of Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker "I'll take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

I think both kinds of awe are nice. They each serve a different purpose, in my opinion. But we are talking in terms of literature. Well I am anyway. In tales (especially fantasy) the awe of the unknown seems to fit better and add to the draw of the story. In real life, the pursuit of understanding should be encouraged. But, enough of my brain patterns...

Originally Posted by Alfirin

(The closest term I can think of from my fantasy memories would be something like the polynesian "mana" though I suscept the real definition of "mana" has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

Perhaps not. In a few semetic languages 'mana' means 'who is it?' (not 'what is it', a common mistranslation). I don't know if it's the same origin, but we don't want to get into a linguistics debate now do we?

Originally Posted by Alfirin

As an item gets older there also seems to be an inherent concvept of all those peices of usness become a for lack of a better word "soul" for the item, independent of the soul of any of the users. This is in Tolkien someone has alsready mention gurthang apperent abilty to talk.

Yes. Moreover, I'm pretty sure Melian says to Beleg, of the sword, that it has something of its maker within it. Was it the malice? I can't seem find the passage right now.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Originally Posted by OFS
For one thing, they are now old, and antiguity has an appeal in itself--distance and a great abyss of time. . . . They open a door on Another Time, and if we pass through, though only for a moment, we stand outside our own time, outside of Time itself, maybe.

So, perhaps it isn't magic per se, or even unreachable technology, but simply the distancing effect?

Great quote, Bêthberry. For my own part, and I think the sentiment of Tolkien's statement kind of agrees, it is the fact that it is distant, but also that we are being connected to it. Enchantment is the bridge by which the past is brought into the present. Perhaps, technology is the bridge by which the present is brought into the future? Now where's that Police Box?

[Nogrod]

Nice to see a lively discussion!

Originally Posted by Alfirin

On the subeject of old famous items=magic items. I'ce always felt it was something along the lines of every person who uses something, like a sword or book leaves a little of themselves in it. When you make use of the item you somehow tap into all of those selves and they become part of you too

I think the modern theory of atoms states that everytime you're in contact with something you "exchange" atoms with that something whether it's the table you lean your hand on or the shirt you wear - or the dear person you touch (you see, it can also be romantic even if it's scientific! ). When you're reluctant to throw that dear sweater of yours into the lumps, couldn't it be that one reason for it is that you know the cloth is partly you yourself as you have worn it for so long and so much of you - purely materialistically on the level of atoms - is there, in it?

That basic idea has sent my thoughts on those old rugged sea-farers; fishermen and the like. I think you all have a mental image of how those old men look like all over the world. Just look at their skin. Weather-worn or -beaten we say. But how about you just think that they have partly become the sea themselves; the salted water, the wind, the rain... They look like that! I think that is quite poetic indeed, awesome and mysterious!

No, I'm not attempting here a scientific interpretation of how the Ring wears it's user down on atomic level and why one should thence not use it. I agree with many here that in the core of fantasy there is a kind of implicit agreement that not all things should be "explained away". As I said, I'm not looking forwards or even wishing to have a scientific theory over the Palantiri or things like that. But I do think we lovers of fantasy, fiction, arts and humanities disrepute the natural sciences too easily and think we have the creativity and imagination - and the most fulfilling and spectacular visions of the world. And that clearly is not the case.

Originally Posted by Lal

Isn't it interesting how physicists seem to coin some of the most poetic language to describe their findings? You could say "Ah, they're all nerds who gre up reading fantasy and sci-fi! No wonder!" but to me it suggests that these discoveries and theories are as close as we humans can come to magic in the real world.

I couldn't agree more!

Legate called for irrationality. Hmm... I'm not sure if I would like to live in an irrational world (on the level of how things work - just think of living in a perpetual "improbability drive" by Douglas Adams where your arm could change into a bowl of petunias any minute or a giant spermwhale might materialise out from nowhere) - or if I would like to read of one.* Even fantasy-worlds have their "rules" and consistant regularities. They would be totally unintelligible without that. We don't need to spell out those rules out in fantasy though and that's quite okay with me. But fantasy is not irrational.

Humans are able of irrational behaviour. Now that is a mystery and an awesome fact - and brings us back to the question of human mind of which we know only a tiny little bit so far. That unexplicability of our own minds makes the question fascinating - but not because it's unexplicable or irrational as such in principle, but because there is hope that some people thousand years from now may understand a little more than we do - and may have totally different view of how this world works far more radical anyone of us could dream of today. And that I'd call exciting!

A case in point is what Hookbill talks about the kabbalistic tradition - and the same would go about the pythagoreans with numbers (from whom the jewish mystics learned a lot). It is something our modern-day understanding thinks of as mystical or something; but it is a system of regularities, rules and laws! They only base themselves on different basic presumptions than the modern science does. So kabbalistic tradition is not irrational - on the contrary: kabbala could be criticised of being too rationalistic and mathematic!

The world being rational (like Hegel said) is still no hindrance to it being wonderful or awesome.

The power of a magnet was deemed magical before it was understood it was a natural phenomenon. But to me it doesn't at all diminish the awe that I can see an object drawing another one to itself from a distance away. I'm still fascinated by magnetism even if I "know" it's just a natural thing.

Oh my... I seem to have gotten far off from where I started and the inner logic of this post is collapsing any minute now so it's better I quit before it's too late...


* Okay, I love absurd theater and surrealism, but I'm not sure those are as irrational as we oftentimes think.

[Bêthberry]

I'm wondering how many posts it will take to get from this discussion of science and kabbala to mention of Deepak Chopra's body-mind medicine, quantum healing and consciousness as a means of considering this enchantment/advancement contrast.

*a cookie to those who know that reference

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm wondering how many posts it will take to get from this discussion of science and kabbala to mention of Deepak Chopra's body-mind medicine, quantum healing and consciousness as a means of considering this enchantment/advancement contrast.

It has already done that...
*thanks for the cookie*

So back towards the original question then...

Originally Posted by Hookbill

Without the memory of Sauron's fall and the fact that Isildur bore it, would Narsil be just another elvish blade?

It probably would. Though it being an old elvish blade would make a difference in contrast to a newer one - or one made by plain men.

But this is an interesting question indeed. When you buy "electronica" you're always told the product you consider is on the cutting edge of technology, the newest of the new, but when you go and buy wine or whisky they tell you the producer has been around from the middle-ages and nothing in the production-process has been changed since (which is not true but that's another matter).

So why are some things better old than new and vice versa?

Let's make further comparisons.

How does it feel to be in a house which has been there for a thousand years compared to a house that has been built just last year? There is a marked difference there. But what is it?

How does it feel to look at a spoon at the museum someone used five thousand years ago compared to one you bought from Ikea last fall?

How does it feel to write with a typewriter from the eighties (with the correction-memory of twenty characters) compared to using your Microsoft Word with your PC?

How would it feel to lose your mobile phone and go back depending on a lined telephone stationed in your home?


So is it just pure utilitarianism? When you want to get something accomplished you pick the state of the art thing but when you just need to get kicks out from something you turn to the old ones?

And here the idea of enchanted things comes to the fore. An enchanted thing is better than it's modern-day equivalent because unlike other old things, it's vested with powers or history advanced technology can't beat. So it looks like an argument saying old things can do the things you want to do with them better than the modern ones?

Or should we bring forwards this general idea of a "fall from grace" here? So in the earlier times everything was better and now all is crap? People used to live in paradise but now they are estranged from that holy or primordial union with God / nature / natural relation with the world... what have you?

That's a tough one.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

When you buy "electronica" you're always told the product you consider is on the cutting edge of technology, the newest of the new, but when you go and buy wine or whisky they tell you the producer has been around from the middle-ages and nothing in the production-process has been changed since (which is not true but that's another matter). . . .

So is it just pure utilitarianism? When you want to get something accomplished you pick the state of the art thing but when you just need to get kicks out from something you turn to the old ones?

Oh what a conundrum! I'm sure there are some who combine both pure utilitarianism--wanting "to get something accomplished"--with "getting their kicks" by plying sweet young things with whiskey and wine. Here possibly the enchantment vs the enhancement would depend upon wither one was on the receiving or the wielding end of the sword.

*flicks cookie crumbs off your shoulder*

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Let's make further comparisons.

How does it feel to be in a house which has been there for a thousand years compared to a house that has been built just last year? There is a marked difference there. But what is it?

How does it feel to look at a spoon at the museum someone used five thousand years ago compared to one you bought from Ikea last fall?

How does it feel to write with a typewriter from the eighties (with the correction-memory of twenty characters) compared to using your Microsoft Word with your PC?

How would it feel to lose your mobile phone and go back depending on a lined telephone stationed in your home?


So is it just pure utilitarianism? When you want to get something accomplished you pick the state of the art thing but when you just need to get kicks out from something you turn to the old ones?

And here the idea of enchanted things comes to the fore. An enchanted thing is better than it's modern-day equivalent because unlike other old things, it's vested with powers or history advanced technology can't beat. So it looks like an argument saying old things can do the things you want to do with them better than the modern ones?

Or should we bring forwards this general idea of a "fall from grace" here? So in the earlier times everything was better and now all is crap? People used to live in paradise but now they are estranged from that holy or primordial union with God / nature / natural relation with the world... what have you?

That's a tough one.

I think the inference Tolkien makes is that there was indeed a 'fall from grace', and things turned to crap afterwards. Even Aragorn is a temprorary restoration of the faded greatness of the Edain. Whether he would admit it or not, Tolkien gravitated to the stoic Elvish sense of conservatism, even while admitting that the Elves were hopelessly stuck in the past to their detriment.

As far as newer technology as opposed to old world craftsmanship, I think we all know Tolkien sided with the latter. Saruman's use of gunpowder is referred to as 'devilry', and Dwarves like Thorin bemoan the loss of skills held by their forefathers. There is a certain glamor to the notion that what was made in previous centuries surpasses modern jerry-rigged contraptions, although the chances of entire cities burning down like London in 1666 have been mitigated by advances in engineering. It's all a matter of opinion, I suppose.