The White Council

Re: More on magic, LOTR and otherwise

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: : : : : : That's a very scientifick sounding explanation of magick. That sort of explanation is probably necessary if you want to sell the story to a largely sceptical and rational audience, but isn't it at heart a compromise to what magick is really about?

: : : I didn't have time to get into it earlier so I posted the other follow-up BUT this is essentially where my problem lies.

: : : Why shouldn't there be a logical/rational/scientific explanation for magic or, for that matter, a magical/spiritual explanation for science...maybe that's pushing it. :)

: : : We tend to draw a line between, IMO, these very closely related topics and say that if you cross the line in one direction it's science and in the other direction it's magic/spirituality. In my view this where alot of confusion arrises.

: : : If, 600 or so yrs. ago, a sage/magician/wizard poured two bottles of "potion" together and it burst into flame, billowing purple and green smoke, that would have been considered magic/wizardry. Today, because we have scientific explanations for exothermic combustion reactions, it is no longer considered to be magic.

: : : IMO, it is just as much magic as it was then but now it has just been explained scientifically.

: : : If we can break down these boundries and come up with a theory that can combine both these topics we could then, I think, gain a fuller understanding on both these issues.

: : : BTW this is really straying far now. I wonder if MM has thought about intervening. :) <<<<: : I did not on principal object to there being a scientific rational explanation for magic, nor do I object to a spiritual explanation to science. I even think that rather probable, because in essence all scientific and other knowledge must in some way be reconcileable to one unifying principle which governs everything, and that principle comes from God. But I think, that to get even near to guessing that principle, you need a far deeper insight into both spirituality and science (and unfortunately, those who have one shun the other, so with the present attitude, this won't happen). The sort of explanation given earlier in this thread is not an attempt to fill that gap, but rather a theory which may just withstands the first glance. This is rather equivalent to the Force being caused by intracellular organisms in the body of the Jedi. This is just inventing explanations for the sake of it. Of course, I am wrong to be too harsh, because these authors are writing fiction, and not saying anything about the world, and as a fictional device, that sort of explanation is okay.

: I see what you're getting at now, I tend to aggree with you. These people writing fiction are not scientists or magicians, they're writers.

: I suppose this is a way of bringing this back to Tolkien. Another thing that makes his work so great is he doesn't over-explain or even emphasise his magic too much. Rather letting us use some imagination!

Exactly, Tolkien lets the reader decide whether his magic has some rational explanation or not. The story works both ways. It is also one of the effects Tolkien cleverly uses, that he leaves so much unexplained which he could quite easily have explained. This suggests there is so much more behind the stories. For example, The Silmarillion may answer many of the questions which were left ambiguous in LOtR and its appendices (why do the Elves go West, who was Erendil, what is the rest of the story of Beren and Luthien etc) while at the same time leaving scope for further questions, and referneces to further stories which were probably never written. And even not all questions from LotR are answered (does anybody know exactly what the original hammer Grond was and what is significant about it etc). Not explaining magic is just one detail under many.