For me, the most compelling magic of the lord of the rings has always been the magic of an open and unspoiled land, of wild and ancient forests, tall mountains, overgrown gardens, and the hospitality that a traveler finds in far away places.
Oh and I would love to hear your thoughts and research on the magic of Ursula K Le Guin's Earthsea. I would also like to point you to a little known short story called "Silver or Gold' by Emma Bull which I think really plays into the tensions between Goetia and Magia and the trouble of trying to come up with a magic system in the first place.
@@mil_enrama Dominic Noble has two videos called 'The Deceit And Broken Promises Behind The Worst Adaptation Ever' and 'Earthsea ~ Lost in Adaptation' that I think you might enjoy.
I am old (Grandpa old!😄) and I just read The Hobbit and LOTR for the first time last month. I really find your video essays enlightening and entertaining. Thank you for helping me appreciate Tolkien's works even more.
That’s not old for LOTR keep in mind Bilbo was in his fifties when the hobbit started and who even knows how old some of the other characters are. But yes I get what you’re saying you went your entire life not reading this popular series
That's amazing, I'm happy you seem to have enjoyed those :D Do you plan on reading the silmarillion as well? It is my favourite book, and it deepens the lore so much, but it has a reputation for being a hard read. Should, you plan on reading it but have trouble, I'd recommend watching Tolkien Geeks Silmarillion Synopsis videos for the chapter you have just read. That has helped me quite a lot on my first read through.
Ha, I quote Gandalf a lot lately to my boss, when he tries to ask me if I remembered something... sucks getting old. I should probably get a wizard robe and hat, it might help.
Saruman seems to get his philosophy from Plato, who says "The wise shall lead and rule, and the ignorant shall follow", and who envisions a state with unbreakable class barriers between the producers and the rulers. Plato also was an unapologetic collectivist - "You are created for the sake of the whole, and not the whole for the sake of you." Tolkien strikes me as an individualist (or maybe that's because I'm an individualist, and I like Tolkien, so therefore he must agree with me."
I don't know that his writing would support exclusively either a collectivist or an individualist world view. Great works are done by the individual. Who they are as people plays an important part in their deeds and they are valued and honoured as individuals. All of Gondor hears Boromir's horn and they all grieve him because he was loved. Minas Tirith bows to four hobbits at the end of the films (honestly can't remember if something similar happens in the books) for their great deeds. But they are also all constantly talking about the good of the free peoples of middle earth. Merry and Pippin get Treebeard and the other Ents to destroy Isengard to protect the Shire. (or at least they resolve that they can't go back there without seeing the whole thing through because it will come there eventually) Frodo and Sam do their great deed with no hope for their own survival at the end because the world at large needs them to. The individual does things for the sake of the whole and the whole does things for the sake of the individual. I do love your observation about Saruman and Plato though - very cool
But Plato said that anybody with the ability could rise to the ruling class. He even said that women could, which was so radical then that it was practically insane.
@Valdagast - Plato by no means "envisions a state with unbreakable class barriers between the producers and the rulers." He has rather quite progressive views for the time period -- i.e., that women ought to have socially equal roles to that of men. His ideal 'Republic' to which you refer is a rhetorical exercise based entirely upon metaphysical premises -- in no way was it meant to be a realistic model. To assert otherwise means that you're probably not paying much attention to all of his dialogues, or more specifically, to that which precedes 'Republic.'
@@josephpercy1558 I disagree. I think Plato really thought his _Republic_ could be brought to life. In this I follow Karl Popper. I think his analysis in _The Open Society and its Enemies_ is largely correct.
The best use of magic in all of LotR is when Gandalf shows up to Helm’s Deep and leads the Rohirrim, timed perfectly with the sunrise, to blind the Uruk-hai. It’s resourceful in its reliance on nature, efficient in its effectiveness, subtle in its application, and far too precise to be performed by a human… because a wizard arrives precisely when he means to.
Just got to your observation about the Seer Man and Saruman and you are right; It is also a reflection of Gandalf’s terror at taking the ring himself! The temptation was real, and he, unlike Saruman, saw and avoided the danger
“[Magic] is a rhythm of the universe, a power that beats at the heart of all of our imaginations.” It has been many years since I’ve read the Lord of the Rings, but one thing that struck me coming from other fantasy (mostly Dragon Lance) was the lack of spells as such. In Middle Earth, magic was more the tendency of things, a reflection of a will, the music you can almost hear from just behind the world. Should someone of my age dare to say: vibes? I’m sure there is more direct action and I’m forgetting something because people more familiar with Tolkien’s world suggest otherwise, but it is gone from my memory and this will likely remain my headcanon if nothing else. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters. - Norman Maclean
I got the impression that some people just have a stronger impression on the world. A more potent spirit if you’d permit. However the purest spirits remain humble and within their vessel but ask for help from the supernatural realm in times of dire need. But corrupt spirits crack the vessel so to speak and cut themselves off and leak their essence every where and into everything and their malice and selfish delusions corrupt all they taint with their defiled ego spilled upon the land. The evil creatures that perform their acts of shock and awe seem to be imparting a diminishing effect on themselves like burning a candle at both ends. But the heroes don’t have the same affliction because instead of spreading themselves to the point of fading they held to faith and the power overseeing middle earth gave them little nudges of help.
Speaking of C.S. Lewis since friendship is so important in the Lord of the Rings, do you think a video going into Tolkien' s friendships and how they shaped his writing be a possibility?
Haven’t listened yet, but since I was a kid my fellow Tolkien nerds and I knew the lack of bald-faced magic was a good thing. We knew that seeing the flashes on Weathertop was more interesting dramatically than to see Gandalf’s power, just as there was no Gandalf / Sauron battle at the end: because in the end power isn’t interesting. Of COURSE we like to think that there’s more to this world than we know, more behind the scenes, or the idea of characters who can bend the rules of reality. But at some point they just become gods, and omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence are just… not that interesting. Listen to Alan Watts discuss ‘The God Problem,’ - it’s this very same issue. We don’t actually want power (though so many think they do)… we want struggle and achievement and the feeling of meaning that comes from those things. Magic quickly neuters the meaning of struggle, and so props to Tolkien for doing it all very beautifully (perhaps the deus ex machina eagles aside, though they’re technically not ‘magic’). Thanks for this channel! Check out mine for original and cover singer songwriter stuff. Cheers!
This is such a good point. This quote didn't make it into the video, but it feels pertinent: “Part of the attraction of The L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed." (Letter 247) The magic really is in the mystery. Best of luck with your music!
@@Jess_of_the_Shire “Due to the glimpses of a large history in the background.” YES. Was just thinking today how even now I’m a sucker for say, like on a Magic card (I played in high school), when it’d have some quote from some fantasy culture the card or the art referenced - how just alluding to those cultures is enchanting. It’s almost comical how we fall for it (whether Magic did the depth of world building that Tolkien did, I don’t know know) but the little quotes, as if the cultures they referenced really existed or were thought out, always got me. Thanks and best of luck on your channel too - you’re killing it!
The Silmarillion is full of stories in which blatant magic is right out in the open and it's like a catastrophe. And after a while, the stories of vast clashes of power begin to blur together. LOTR keeping it mostly in the background and using it sparingly and indirectly (and emphasizing that usually something bad is happening when it's right in your face) helps to make it a more believable world.
A very nice survey. I believe the point of Tolkien's Faerie is that it is a metaphor for the world of the imagination, which by an everyday magic we step into in any good fantasy story (written or on screen). The metaphor, being present in the work itself, is what gives it its " peculiar mood and power" (On Fairy Stories).
Perhaps Tolkien looked at the natural world and truly believed there were things in it that science isn’t meant to explain. If you’ve ever had the feeling someone was about to call you, then the phone rings, or you suddenly hit the brakes because you have a bad feeling, then an animal runs in front of your car you didn’t see, (I’ve experienced both- many times with the phone), and you start to realize your senses extend beyond the recognized physical reach of the human body….that is something that might fall into the simpler version of magic described in this video. And it doesn’t have to be at odds with a belief in God- rather, it’s the humble acknowledgement that we are tiny beings in a huge universe which has life and energy and creatures in it we know nothing about.
Dominic Noble has two videos called 'The Deceit And Broken Promises Behind The Worst Adaptation Ever' and 'Earthsea ~ Lost in Adaptation' that I think you might enjoy.
Do you get as aggravated as I do with the "who would win in a fight--Gandalf or Dumbledore? Gandalf or Loki? Gandalf or the Archangel Michael?" Like literally the whole point is that the super powerful in Tolkien's world don't have to show it all the time and magic is a servant, not a ruler. OK, I'll get off my soapbox. Always a pleasure, Jess!
Yeah, those aren't my favorite. It's just a really shallow exploration into these worlds, and also...kind of impossible to say imo. Every once in a while, they can be fun though! Thanks for watching!
There are small magics in tolkiens world, usually what you see gandalf do, like start fires or open doors and there's crafting, the making or rings and special items but he deeper magic seems to be almost unseen, unless it's a real powerful item like the silmaril's the the light of glaladriel it keeps a place safe. like the shire (there is a power of a sort there) imladrids or Lothlorien places where no one is runnnig aronud making with the bibbity-bobbity-bo, but where there clearly is magic at work
One of the most interesting magic is the Will and the Word, from the Belgariad series (although Polgara said it was more like the Wish and the Word). In brief, the sorcerer think of what he wants and says to word to make it happen. There are limitations: - doing something by sorcery takes as much energy as to make it normally, so a sorcerer may exhaust himself by doing something hard, like pushing a big mass of air; - doing something impossible, like resurrecting someone who has a sword in the chest, may drain completely a sorcerer; - using sorcery create a "noise" that other sorcerers can "hear", which is inconvenient in enemy territory; - undoing something, erasing it from existence, is forbidden and the sorcerer himself will be erased instead (killing someone is fine, it only transform someone from alive to not alive). Sorcerers often say that using sorcery is so much trouble, they only use it if there is no alternative. About the video itself, you did not dive enough into the nature of magic in Middle-Earth. My understanding is that magic is from the inner strength of people, not an outside tool. Using magic put some of the magician into his creation. Yavanna put so much of herself into the 2 trees of Valinor that she did not have the strength to do it a second time; Fëanor put a lot of himself into the Silmarils, and of course Sauron and the One ring. Men have the least of that inner force, so the creations of the Elves and Dwarves seem magical to them.
@@humphrey4480 more than 2 feet. The guy was 15 and he was down to his armpits in the ground. He also succeeded to turn the bounder over while being pushed into the ground by the weight of the boulder.
For magic systems, you might want to check out the magic system in A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin. It's based on the idea that everything has a "true name" and knowing the true name of a thing gives you power over it.
Jim Butchers Dresden Files also use similiar method among other ones. Demons and some magical beings will make a co tract with you and help you, but as they are i herebtly malicious they will not do it for free and often they ask for tour name. Wizards tend to have multiple names just so they can trade a few and still not be under control. Magic, faith, contracts or even potion making is really interesting in it. For example, technology breaks around wizards. So the MC has to drive an old car that has less moving parts and no electronic parts.
Very well done and well researched look at not just magic in Middle Earth, but at Tolkien, Lewis, and the Inklings thoughts on magic. I appreciate the effort you put into this! The four circle Venn diagram was something that even now makes me rethink a lot of the esoteric concepts of these forces, and it's fun to consider these still. I liked how, in Middle Earth, magic wasn't intended to be the go-to toolbox for solving any problem, but instead a powerful, dangerous tool to be used only just enough when the need was greatest. My dad, who read the books to my little sister and me as bedtime stories when we were young, took the time to answer my questions about why people didn't just use magic for everything. He told me that the Wizards were not there to save the free people from evil, but to help them to free themselves from it. Becoming reliant on the wizards for a solution to every problem would make them weaker and more ineffective, turning them into servant people if not slaves under the wizard overclass. The only way for the free people to be free was for them to pay the price of that freedom and learn to fight and overcome evil on their own. To eleven year old me that sounded mean, but at the same time I got it. I knew my parents had left me to fend for myself when I had difficult tasks to do, and had even set difficult tasks for me to do, and I felt better and more accomplished and capable once I achieved those tasks. So it made sense, even if it sounded mean. By the same token, dad also refused to allow me to use magic for my tasks (i.e. his power tools when I was trying to build stuff) and he refused to use magic to help me. So I learned how to hammer, saw, drill, and so on for myself, which meant that when I was places where magic wouldn't work (i.e. nowhere to plug one of my own power tools in) I could still do what needed to do. I appreciate my mechanical engineer father's way of explaining the minimal use of magic in the books, and then relating it to how I needed to learn to do things for myself in the real world. Also, as my engineer father pointed out, much of the magic in Middle Earth was bound up in things, things which could easily be used or corrupted for negative purposes. The Palantiri being corrupted by Sauron to warp the minds of those who used them was similar to how the internet, originally intended as a method for communication and networking together for learning, has become corrupted into being used more for awful purposes, such as bullies extending schoolyard abuse into ways of tormenting classmates in their own homes. And yes, there are dozens of other examples of cruelty and hatefulness, but I think that bullies hurting children in their homes where they should feel safe is one of the worst examples. But, to the former point, it made the reasons for not relying on magic all the more obvious. From Denethor's over-reliance on a Palantir to Galadriel's warning words about what would be seen in the mirror, magic had a cost for the careless. Just like, to return to my dad's example, the fact that a careless or distracted moment with a hand saw could lead to a nasty cut, while the same moment with the "magic" of a power saw could lead to crippling or even death. Truth: In all my life I've never been comfortable around power saws and try not to use them if I have another option. Ridiculous, maybe, but so am I. 😛 Anyway, very well done and sorry for too many stories about what dad taught me. He's been gone a year and a half now and yet he's still with me in stories.
"Magic always comes with a price" is the most necessary piece of information you can acquire from any perspective involving a story. Whether you're the writer, protagonist, antagonist, or wildcard. Tolkien was an intelligent, individual..... truelly a master of "his craft".
George RR Martin followed that rule too. In his world there's magic. But always at a cost. And I actually like that very much, as it balances the powers and makes the story more interesting.
This reminds me of when Donny Cates wrote a monologue for Loki in the first issue of his run on Doctor Strange: "I've been thinking about this for some time now. This business about magic always having some sort of 'cost'. Some sort of 'price'. It's quite silly, is it not? I think it's time we reexamine the rules a bit, yes? I am not now, nor have I ever been fond of 'the rules'. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think that you fair witches and warlocks should have the freedom to go about your duties without killing rodents and vomiting everywhere, don't you? I mean, honestly. Magic by its very nature is the antithesis of 'rules', yes? The 'rules' say that there's no rabbit in the hat. And yet poof! Here is a rabbit! So, where am I going with this? How about no more rules. How about no more 'price'".
@@ARVETDEGI am not fond of his writing; that being said, I understand your point. The Witcher is more my speed when it comes to magic. The cost is set in stone, but one may have more ability to push one's self past anothers limitations. The unfair abilities, and limitations, of some over others is a fact of life. This story aspect may not be outright spoken as concrete law; however has continuously remained self evident. At least within the books. Certainly a stirring topic non the less... :)
The magic system in Middle Earth has always intrigued me. It would be interesting to delve into each individual moment that Gandalf casts a spell. And after watching Corey Olsen's exploring Middle Earth series from the moment Gandalf lights the fire on Caradhras, he seems to cast a lot of spells and i dont think i ever realised it until now . The encounter with the wolves, to the spells he tries on the doors of Moria before realising speak friend and enter. The small light he uses on top of his staff to guide through Moria. The holding spell he puts on the door that gets broken by the Balrog and almost breaks him. I think its part of Tolkiens genius to make it so subtle but if you think about it its actually quite powerful. If you think about it in a real world sense i think the spell he uses in the encounter with wolves outside of Moria might be the most striking reason why Gandalf is reluctant to use magic. If you cast a spell in order to protect yourself and your party but in doing so burns down a wide radius of the surrounding forrest. Being a Being of compassion such as Gandalf who knows that his spells can have devastating consequences to the natural environment around him I can totally understand his reluctance to use them. But if you had malevolent intent like a Sauron or Saruman casting spells might not have the same moral issue.. Its still so intriguing..
I kinda think the concept that there isn't much magic in lotr is quite.. absurd. When you go back and look at it there is magic is almost every chapter in one way or another. It is written more subtly than modern fantasy "he cast a fireball at the orc". Another part of moira that isn't gandalf : But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder.
I am pleased to hear your summary of the Inklings' thinking on Magia, Goeteia, Science, and Religion. I'd point out that other thinkers have set the boundaries of the magical arts somewhat differently, so it's worth not taking these definitions of Magia and Goeteia as absolute. For example, some thinkers - and here I am thinking of Jake Stratton-Kent in his work Geosophia (2 vols) and the other parts of his Encyclopaedia Goetica, though I am sure there are others who escape me at the moment - define Goetia as relational and personal, similar to Religion, with Magia as impersonal, similar to Science. Which is tangential to your discussion here, but since you do intend to look at magic more widely I thought I'd mention it.
The Magia/Goeteia is certainly not the be-all and end all of magic. I don't even think Tolkien thought so, as he only used them to define his magic once or twice in writing. I'll have to check out your recommendations, thanks for sharing!
19:01, Bardic Magic in Dungeons & Dragons comes to mind in the fusion of magic and artistic expression. There are many kinds of esoteric powers and sources in the setting (magic, mysticism, psionics, qi and divinity), wether it the cosmic and elemental power of wizards (who's defining trait is their view of magic as a paranormal science) and sorcerers (being infused with innate esoteric power), the transcendental and deific power of clerics (who perform theurgy and thaumaturgy through their connection with deities and faith) and druids (who are tied to the primordial, primal power of nature), or the the eldritch and sinister power of warlocks (who are tied to paranormal being of a strange, malefic or alien nature). The bard, however, is a mage armed with song and poetry (not to dissimilar to how the Ainur and other esoteric beings in Lord Of The Rings being describes as producing various effects through song and poetry), expression being what fuels their power and what allows them to affect the world.
Very well done! Two comments. First, if you have not read CSL's That Hideous Strength, you might want to consider the parts where Merlin is brought into the present and Ransom's comments on Merlin's magic -- essentially that it's an art which belongs in the past when the world was a bit less well defined. Ransom tells Merlin that it was morally dubious even in Merlin's day and the practice of it had hurt him, and today is simply forbidden. Secondly, may I recommend Patricia McKillip , a most underrated and nearly forgotten writer whose fantasies are all different but which all have magics which are the antitheses of systematic, and seem to have a lot in common with JRRT's.
I love that Gandalf the wizard doesn't cast fireballs with his magics, he uses Narya, his magic is to be a beacon for people and Narya's other effect compliments that perfectly. Keeping magic subdued and imbued in powerful magical artifacts is such a smart and approachable way to understand the setting. Edit: Like he fights the Balrog with Glamdring and his staff gets destroyed and uses Narya to diminish the Balrog's inferno.
I'm so glad I've discovered your channel. Excellent content. Regarding Magic systems, the one from the Eragon series is quite interesting, same with Shadowrun.
Maybe hard to cover but the Forgotten Realms magic of Faerun and divinity of that world is it's own rabbit hole that I found worth going down. Though... with some modern examples like BG3, that don't quite do it perfectly but are great examples.. Along with the descriptions of magic in books like Shadowdale/The Avatar Trilogy, and supplementary books like Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Faiths and Pantheons, and Magic of Faerun.. It's a lot less to read than all the titles might suggest, most of the non novels I've mentioned only have a handful of relevant pages.. but ultimately it was upon understanding and having digested that material, understanding the concept that a Wish/Miracle is a 9th level Spell and there are Spells Above 9th level, and how the Gods (or, as Tolken would describe them, the Ainur and Maiar) are constantly performing and comprehending Miracles every moment beyond what has managed to be comprehended by the Mortal Races. Tbh, not only did those concepts help me understand more intimately the Silmarillion when I read that, all those things were important steps for me to understand the Divinity of OUR world and to take a more critical look at Our history, and led me from being Agnostic to The God of Abraham.
2:25 I don't like reading C.S. Lewis. Not because I don't like C.S. Lewis. I think he's amazing. I just continually say to myself after I've read pretty much anything he wrote "There's no way that could have been written any better. That was perfectly communicated." And I know I'll never be that good at anything, and that's kind of depressing. 😂😜
Very interesting topic for me, a Greek, as both of words come from greek. "goeteia" from "γοητεία" which means to charm or be charming to others, while "magia" comes from either "μαγεία" that means literally "magic", or "μάγια" which means multiple magics or spells Great video, as always
I love the "Will and the word" magic from David Eddings The Belgariad/The Malloreon. If you have the will power to do something, speak the word and it happens.
Eddings started writing the books as a way to present his system of magic. Keep in mind that he was a literature professor who was a total fanboy of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Is that the one where the boy is trying to lift a rock with his mind and he ends up sinking into the ground? As a kid I always thought that was a cool example of the perils of learning magic.
Interesting; i learned a few new things. Thanks be to you this day. :) Speaking of dangers 15:20 ish... Thinking back on various characters from Melkor's original musical rebellion, Saruman's original 'cockiness' around the time of being chosen as a "Wizard candidate", and of course Sauron's continued lust to regain control of everything (his fear of someone else using "his" [Ring] too). Pride. Greed. In the end it all leads back to Fear, and certainly being overly proud does seem to lead some of the "Big Bads" in these stories 'down The Dark Path' [to The Dark Side], or at least attempting to be separate and/or superior to the rest [of the other beings that just wish to live in some form of 'more relatively balanced harmony'].
For a fuller explanation of CS Lewis's idea of magic, you can't do better than the discussion in That Hideous Strength. Modern professor discusses it directly with resurrected Merlin, and says that magic/magia that was permissible before is more evil now than it was, as all good gets gooder and evil gets eviler the closer we get to judgment day.
As usual, your exposition was exquisite. I found the Venn diagrams informative and entertaining, but (as usual) it was the sound of your voice, the sparkle in your eyes, and the cohesion of your narrative that kept me rapt. Thank you. :)
Loved this video, Jess! My favorite aspect of magic in Tolkien's worldbuilding, is his restraint and his rejection of using magic to write himself out of story or character dilemmas. I like when Gandalf could perhaps solve a problem with the application of his magic powers, yet chooses to rely on non-magic characters to sort out the problem instead for their own growth and benefit. As James Bond tells Q in SKYFALL, the art is not to pull the trigger, but to know when not to pull it.
Thanks so much for the breakdown. Its really interesting to see different types of magic categorised. As an aspiring fantasy writer, i find magic tough. You want it to be mysterious and unknowable, but also, to avoid deus ex machina as you point out it is a bit of LoTR, it needs to be defined. Iv always enjoyed the magic system(s) in the Rivers of London series.
Another great video Jess. I'm loving your insights, your knowledge, your voice and last but not least, your lovely face. I find your videos so relaxing and informative. Thank you and keep up the good work!
I cried during this video - your understanding of magic in Middle-Earth, but also metatextual aspect of it, as in effect Tolkien's writing has on us and what it meant to him, it was and it is what captured me in his works and still strikes me with it's moody and deep, deep beauty.
I loved the outro talking about the magic of tolkien work. You probably already know it but some " spiritual' and other magic movement like wicca or Obod love to talk about the magic of art , especially written and talked ones. Thats why you need "spell " ( like in spelling ) to create magic, to cast a spell is manifesting the unatural. Always loved that. Who havent feel the magic of a grrat text, a wonderfull song or a deep poem. Anyway. Love your videos and hope you the best with this channel. Take care and blessed be 🙏🏻✌🏻
8:30 (-ish) - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke By which I only mean to draw attention to the idea that "magic," per se, seems to be simply a different form of "science," or rather "technology." In the universe of Arda, blacksmiths & shipwrights and wizards (e.g.) all seem to me to be experts in their own quite technical fields. Each of these fields can be mastered with time, study & practice given the proper individual gifts or bent of talent. As such, the practitioners of "magic" are simply artisans in one of many fields. They may or may not be skilled in any other such fields, and they can freely use their talents for good or for ill.
I really appreciated this video! I loved the dive into the academic/philosophical stuff, it was really helpful for framing the discussion of not only Tolkien but Frankenstein, Dune, Arthurian Merlin, etc. I had never heard of the Goetia vs Magia distinction and I love it. Thank you!
I wish I could like this 1000 times. This is my favorite video of yours so far. Very thought provoking, and I appreciated the colorful Venn diagrams too.
I love the background music in this video! I know you already talked about the magic systems of CS Lewis in this one a little bit, but I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on that applied to his specific stories when you do your big magic systems video.
For a different sort of magic system, check out the Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher. Another, somewhat macabre system can be found in David Farland's Runelords series.
I just discovered your channel and subscribed. Thank you for sharing such accessible & thoughtful videos. I am an aspiring writer and I watched your video as I am seeking to develop a magical system for my manuscript. Your video provides a well-rounded set of observations on how magic is depicted differently; how it is accessed, possible results to the user, etc. Good food for thought. Thanks!
Thank you for making this video. My taste in/view of magic has changed a lot in recent years, and I've really struggled to explain it, let alone find the kinds of stories that satisfy it. (The most I could do is let it influence my own writing, which is both invigorating, and sometimes really frustrating when even I don't know what I want.) The concepts you brought up in this video almost perfectly describe what it is I've been looking for/feeling. Both C.S. Lewis and Tolkien have been *huge* influences on my love of fantasy (I'd even say the Chronicles of Narnia was fundamental to it), so I suppose it makes sense that their ideas on what magic is like would resonate deeply with me. But I'd never realized that they both wrote about it outside of what's in their actual books, let alone that they described it so well! Now I want to see if they've written more about it, but even with just what you included in this video, my imagination has already taken off running. So, thank you again for making it. It's given me a lot to think about!
Just found this channel, you make really amazing videos! The attention to detail and when you add context or addition information it's done so naturally and is so interesting. Wish you all the best luck in your future TH-cam endeavors!! Edit: please please do a dune video about Paul dealing with prescience
I think that part of the reason some people find magic in The Lord of the Rings confusing, is because they expect it to be "FLASH BANG" and it isn't. Magic is generally subtle, and often takes time. Magic is more likely to urge things in a direction, or enhance something, than to blow it up, or instantly turn it into something else. Magic was also tied to places, or bound to objects, the One Ring, the lesser rings, various swords, etc. through crafting. Magic is woven onto the world so it is generally present, while also not being in your face. As far as other magic systems to look at, I would be curious for you to look at the magic system, or possibly systems of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. It has gods, and demons, though on occasion these are the same beings, just wearing different hats, and witches, who all seem to have their own individual systems, and wizards, and sorcerers, who are kind of like wizards, only much more so, and "L" space, and those shops, and the luggage. Leaving you with a few quotes that seem appropriate. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." (Gehm's Corollary) Barry Gehm Magic is that which we think is beyond our understanding, science is that which we think we can understand if we poke it enough, and technology is that which we have become so familiar with it no longer fascinates us, even if we no longer understand it.
Bravo! Kept seeing you crop up in my recs but jumped at it right away when I saw this videos topic and you hooked me. A deeper inspection than most have given, and for that you've earned a new subscriber in me. Although I always pronounced it Go-a-tay-a in my head...
I mean, Tolkien did have the elvish concept that we would equate with magic be more appropriately describe as “craft” compared with the lies of the Enemy.
Great video, this really helps le to think about how the magic in the story i'm writing works. Not that I hadn't thought of it before, simply a new way of thinking about it.
Something I've grown to respect and find fascinating in LotR is that how very little magic actually goes on on the page, or at least very little of what we commonly might think of magic in a fantasy story. Not only that but, the world of Middle Earth in Frodo's age is a world where "magic" is rapidly fading. As the long age of elves comes to an end and makes way for the age of men, it seems to speak to a renewed world where mankind is left free to prosper and flourish without the interference of powers beyond their reckoning.
I just found out your channel thanks to this video and I'm loving it! As far as my favorite magic systems go, I would consider them the elemental bending of Avatar, the Allomancy of Mistborn and that whole mess that was happening on the web serial Pact.
THANK YOU for this! Seriously!! The timing is also quite opportune, since I’ve been thinking a lot about magic and its role in modern fantasy lately, and trying to find a way to express my frustration with the apparent fixation so many people seem to have with how various authors define their “magic systems.” I’m a huge fan of more realistic and grounded fantasy settings, so when people recommend fantasy literature to me, they often mistake that for a love of “hard fantasy,” which in fact I mostly can’t stand. To me, when you treat magic like science, it loses something. Magic is NOT science - it’s magic - which I believe means that at least some part of it will always be immaterial and undefinable. The distinctions you’ve described here between Magia, Goetia, and indeed Faërie, really drive this idea home for me, but also help to define some of the difficulty I’ve been having in categorizing slightly “harder” magic systems I actually do like (a fantastic example of which is the one created by Susanna Clarke for her novel, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell). Anyway, once again, thank you so much for making this video, and I will certainly be keeping an eye out for more!
I loved this video! I get really put off by a lot of fantasy that obsesses about their magic system as if it's just another discipline of science. For me magic works best as a story telling device when it leans into experience, connection, wonder and mystery. Sometimes I wonder if it is a folly of our contemporary thinking that everything needs to be explained, rather than just experienced. I love the magic of Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli films, where nature is bathed in magic, often simultaneously epic and simple, Elif Shafak's magic in the ordinary, and of course Ursula Le Guinn's Earthsea Cycle needs a mention.
One of my absolute favorite magic systems is from "the Malazan book of the fallen" Somewhere between magia and goeteia (sp), some have connections to elemental planes called warrens that they can train to be able to harness, travel through, and in some limited way control, but it wears at them to do so
My enjoyment of this video has been tarnished at about the halfway point because im now thinking we could have almost actual magic if academia and grant funding allocation wasnt so fucked. Picture a promising study on something wild like immortality going unfunded because we gotta discover yet another particle so an old theory makes sense and egos arent bruised
This was an excellent introduction to Tolkien's thoughts on magic. Thank you! Would you consider doing a video on his ideas about (and coining of the term) "eucatastrophe"?
Thank you for the discussion of magic in LotR. For magic systems, I would echo an above suggestion for the system in Ursula K. LeGuin’s Earthsea Trilogy and its notion of balance. I might also suggest the way magic is handled in Jack Vance’s Dying Earth stories.
Just found your channel, Awesome videos. Just to add to the subject, "goetia" from the "Ars goetia" a XIIth century book on Demon summoning (itself part of the bigger Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis a treaty on summoning magic) based on Solomons supposed imprisonement of demons. Goetia is opposed to Theurgia and Magia naturalia (Demonology vs Magic vs Religion ) especially in late Middle-Ages early Renaissance. Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa discusses those 3 aspects in his Three Books of Occult Philosophy (1533). He said : "Now the parts of ceremonial magic are goetia and theurgia. Goetia is unfortunate, by the commerces of unclean spirits made up of the rites of wicked curiosities, unlawful charms, and deprecations, and is abandoned and execrated by all laws." As such both Theurgia and Goetia are ceremonial in essence whereas Magia Naturalia deals with natural force directly it is "nothing else but the highest power of natural sciences" and could be considered as the early sciences. This treaty Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis was rediscovered in the early XXth century through occultist group (Samuel Mathers and Aleister Crowley ) which helped those concept gain more attention.
You touched upon Shippey's book and I noticed that paperback copy, which was displayed in your shelf in your last video, is missing. An obvious fact that you picked it up to use it for this video essay. I notice these subtle differences as I am familiar with almost any and every Tolkien book, and all those yearly editions - whether books by Tolkien or on Tolkien.
It's funny. I got into a discussion on just this subject with a group of friends of mine last year. The one takeaway that I got that defined Tolkien Magic vs most others (D&D, Dresden, most every other Fantasy setting) is that magic is not supernatural. It is a part of the natural world and It is through the working of natural processes that one can "do" magic. Can Gandolf shoot fire at a Nazgul. Yes. But it is his nature to be able to do that. When Elves hammer light into an object, that is a natural function of the world that they have learned how to do through many generations of men. While often times described as "soft", magic in Arda is just part of the world like air and gravity. It is more subtle than some, but no less potent for it.
The Elves, very charmingly, don't like the word 'magic.' They say, 'We don't know what you mean by this word.' But to the Hobbits they are obviously magical.
1. I haven't read The Dark Tower yet but Ka sounds like a very interesting magic system to me. 2. I really am glad that you acknowledged how the intent behind the overtly industrial acts in LoTR matter because a lot of reactionary, anti-Tolkien hot takes like those from Michael Moorcock paint Tolkien as essentially being a figure who was against certain kinds of progress. Magic is, as you pointed out, also used for evil but is not inherently evil. Science and Magic simply are and don't reflect any kind of subjective morals, unlike political systems. 3. On the matter of Dune, I highly recommend reading 'The Spice Must Flow: The Story of Dune, from Cult Novels to Visionary Sci-Fi Movies' by Ryan Britt. 4. It is absolutely great that you uploaded this and are planning on a whole other video on magic systems because recently I've been compiling and editing the main points found in the summary sections of On Writing and Worldbuilding volumes I-III by Timothy Hickson into two separate documents for myself to serve as personal guides, and I wanted to ask for some feedback on how to make the following points regarding magic systems stronger (and hopefully they'll help enrich your upcoming video): Hard Magic Systems 1. Broadly speaking, a softer magic system means the magic has a vague, undefined, or mysterious set of rules and limitations to being used in the story. A harder magic system, on the other hand, has more clearly defined rules, consequences, and limitations that govern what one can or cannot do with magic. 2. The more a reader comprehends and understands the magic system as an element of the narrative, the more it can be used to solve problems in the story in a satisfying way. The less a reader comprehends and understands the magic system as an element of the narrative, the less it can be used to solve problems in a satisfying way. Hard magic going wrong will be more often due to mistake, misuse, or lack of understanding. 3. One issue with a vague limit of energy requirements or willpower is that because these things are unquantifiable, stories that use them are prone to power creep or inconsistency with the cost being largely ignored when the plot requires it. In turn, this weakens any sense of consistency and predictability. 4. Where the limitations or weaknesses in your hard magic system create strong enough rules for your characters that they establish that sense of predictability and consistency required, it may not be necessary to have a large cost. Likewise, if the cost of your magic is large enough, it may be necessary to have strict limitations or weaknesses. 5. While the aesthetics of your magic system are important, it is the predictability and consistency, and the limitations weaknesses, and costs within those that will play into the conflicts, problems, and character interactions of your story the most. Soft Magic Systems 1. A major challenge with soft magic is that tension is incredibly difficult to build if your reader has no idea of the capabilities of your characters. A common way to get around this is to have a very soft magic system overall with few limitations, but the individual characters might only have specific powers with clearer limitations, costs, and weaknesses. 2. A soft magic system is virtually never a problem if it causes tension. It is a lot easier to have antagonists with vague powers than protagonists. What is more important when it comes to using soft magic to cause tension is to be consistent with that antagonist’s powers. 3. If magic exists outside the point of view character, you can align the reader with them to view magic as this mystical and unknown force in the world. This works well for a soft magic system, which is inherently mystical and unknown. That sense of mysterious unknown can be harder to achieve from the perspective of a character who must understand something of your magic. 4. Giving characters little control over their passive magic allows you to keep tension in the narrative because they still have to rely on their intelligence, ingenuity, and skill to solve problems, especially if said magic is unpredictable. Soft magic can frame the tension but not resolve it. It is often used to make stories more interesting. 5. Writing from the point of view of a soft magic user can be made easier with an unpredictable magic system, making them unsure of the limits, consequences, or capabilities. This helps retain that feeling of mysticism without you needing to explain precisely how it works. 6. However, it will be stronger writing if unpredictable magic affects the course of the story in not just positive, but negative and neutral ways as well. Those neutral and negative consequences to magic create a sense of risk and stakes in using it that makes those few times that it succeeds more palatable to the reader. 7. Having multiples magic systems allows your magic to be more versatile, diverse, and allows for both hard and soft systems. A major advantage to soft magic is that you are not limited to a few styles like hard magic. Aesthetics are more important with a soft magic system. Magic Systems and Storytelling 1. A magic system cannot exist in isolation. Consider how it can be worked in with your worldbuilding, narrative, and characters. 2. If you remove your magic system and your worldbuilding will not change, then it is possible you have not considered its implications deeply enough. Worldbuilding is a many-way street. It is not simply about how magic systems affect politics, history, geography, and culture, but how those things affect the magic system. 3. Exposing in detail how the magic either creates or changes conflicts that your characters experience in the narrative can be really interesting. Your magic system is a source of conflict unique to your story, and as an author, you can capitalize on that. 4. Tying your magic system to character arc by emphasizing its importance in them becoming stronger and overcoming challenges. This approach also places magical prowess secondary to character growth. It is important to note that the more consequential the character change or greater the power, the more it should be foreshadowed beforehand, or it risks feeling cheap and unearned. However, if you want a wholly hard magic system or you do not wish a character’s powers to take the same path as their character arc, then perhaps this is not the setup for you. 5. Magi-babble is where a character says a lot but means very little, and it is a thin veil for bad writing, particularly where authors write themselves into a corner. Power Escalation in a Magic System 1. One way to escalate power systems logically and believably while making powers feel earned is with character arc-aligned power systems. This helps with narrative cohesion by trying internal and external conflicts together. However, it is less suited to hard magic systems. 2. It is natural for power systems to escalate as the tension rises throughout a book or series. However, continual escalation can become power creep, which in turn undermines narrative tension by losing immersive elements or creating a lack of meaningful and believable stakes. 3. Power ceilings help powers feel earned and help set up expectations for the reader. They are more relevant to protagonists than antagonists. 4. One way to maintain tension without power escalation is through incomparable abilities, meaning becoming more powerful will not necessarily resolve the plot. 5. A second way to maintain tension without power escalation is through character challenges: when antagonists challenge the protagonist on a personal level, and the tension is derived from difficult moral choices they are forced to make. Elemental Magic Systems 1. Originality is more about how you use the elements narratively than simply having a different elemental setup. One advantage to elemental magic is how it can be used as an analogue for character growth, theme, tone, and setting. However, this runs the risk of falling into cliches. 2. Pre-existing cultural associations with the elements allow us to code characters and places with traits without necessarily exploring them deeply. However, this can be less original. Consider new associations and expressions we haven’t seen before. 3. Elemental magic systems fit perfectly with common group dynamics like the five-man band and power trio, allowing you to reflect how they clash, bond, and change over time in the powers. 4. Consistency and predictability are fundamental to any magic system, but sometimes the relative tension of an obstacle is more important than precise rules and limits. Consider going deeper into an element before adding new powers.
I’ll have to check Ka out! And thanks for the Dune recommendation, I’m actually just getting into research on that now, so this will be super interesting. As for your points on magic, I’m happy to offer what I can, though I haven’t fully begun my research on this topic yet. Overall, I find these points to be leaning towards a preference for hard magic systems, which is totally fine. But there’s a definite value in soft systems. I think it all goes back to whether you’re viewing magic as a tool (sort of goeteian) or as a force (more magia). Trying to use soft magic as a tool, in the same way that you would use a hard magic system would indeed be difficult. Its flexibility has become a problem. It’s like the sonic screwdriver from Dr Who, where it can be used to do pretty much anything, and it sucks some of the air out of the sails of the story. Unpredictability also becomes a negative trait in this use case. If you had a hammer that sometimes hammered nails in, and sometimes opened up dangerous rift in the space time continuum, most folks would switch from a hammer to a nail-gun. Et cetera et cetera. I think soft magic flourishes when it is viewed not as a tool, but as an external force. It’s something users can tap into, can try and wield in their favor, but it is ultimately not something that can or should be used, in the way that a hard magic system could. Maybe it comes down to language. The very phrase “soft magic system” implies that there must be a system, a level of scrutiny that soft magic simply does not always hold up to. In order to give soft magic its due, I think you have to take it out of the soft/hard binary entirely, and view it by its own merit, as a force or an energy or even a character in itself that defies systemization by definition. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but I hope it helps a bit! Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Thank you so, so much and I hope you enjoy the book! I believe that there was an interview where Sylvester McCoy said that the modern Doctors rely on the sonic too often and I totally get where he's coming from because the 7th Doctor was well-known for outsmarting and out-maneuvering his enemies. I've found that magic systems like the kind in Tamsyn Muir's Locked Tomb series sit best with me because the rules organically evolved as she was developing the story and had to figure out what would most greatly affect the characters. She didn't create the system first and then force the emotional beats to conform to those rules because the story and characters come first. Not to mention that just about every Miyazaki film captures a sense of wonder without getting bogged down by nitty gritty details. Magic should be fun and not overly complicated.
You should read Keith Thomas's book "Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England" Covers this topic in great detail.
Another great parallel of Tolkien's magic, in the early ages magic was interwoven with twilight and rituals, and became almost simpler over time, alluding to how the great things waned over ages into less sacred and more mundane.
An study of mysticism and metaphysics would be beneficial for your approach to these matters, Jess. In the end, Mr. Tolkien was as much mystic and metaphysician as he was anything else, I will suggest. Certainly, I know of no instance when he claimed such a perspective openly, but I am suggesting that it is woven into his work in a subtle manner, which is typical in the attempt to express the ineffable through our normal material means of communication. Myth and metaphor, symbolic representation, poetic allusion ... these are among the ways and manner available to us to communicate our experience of that which cannot be compassed and bounded by material manifestation. All the good fortune possible go with you in this type of study, as, and if you take it up. It is not for the faint hearted, but is rewarding and fulfilling beyond anything else which may be experience, I will humbly offer from my own life's path. Thank you again for your interesting commentary. It is a pleasure to follow along. Onward.
I'm very interested in the place of animism in the magic of Middle Earth. It's extremely blatant in Narnia, with its dryads and literally anthropomorphized rivers. Middle Earth has its wicked trees and ornery mountains and playful, but dangerous, rivers.
As someone who is trying to finish an epic fantasy novel myself at the moment, I can say that magic is quite a tricky thing today, in the era of Brandon Sanderson. I, too, try to capture that sense of magic-is-the-core-of-the-world, that Tolkien did so masterfully, but it is really hard and I'm still trying to figure out how he did it. in my world, there are multiple types of magic that you can use depending on your species. However, the highest and purest form of magic is in the heart of all things and for humans (who are non-magical beings) it is only reachable through art. As you said, I think we as authors should sometimes not view magic as a system but as a part of the world that consistently appears in the story. However, this is very hard, because since Brandon Sanderson, magic is generally looked at with a very critical eye. In that sense, I'm really looking forward to your video on magic systems. It is always a pleasure to watch you, and great video as always. btw, sorry for my English. I'm German.
1. Here's a monologue that @donnycates wrote for Loki in his run on Doctor Strange: "I've been thinking about this for some time now. This business about magic always having some sort of 'cost'. Some sort of 'price'. It's quite silly, is it not? I think it's time we reexamine the rules a bit, yes? I am not now, nor have I ever been fond of 'the rules'. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think that you fair witches and warlocks should have the freedom to go about your duties without killing rodents and vomiting everywhere, don't you? I mean, honestly. Magic by its very nature is the antithesis of 'rules', yes? The 'rules' say that there's no rabbit in the hat. And yet poof! Here is a rabbit! So, where am I going with this? How about no more rules. How about no more 'price'". 2. Earlier I was chatting in the comments section with Jess about the points laid out on magic systems in On Writing and Worldbuilding volumes I-III by Timothy Hickson and she offered the following advice on regarding them: Overall, I find these points to be leaning towards a preference for hard magic systems, which is totally fine. But there’s a definite value in soft systems. I think it all goes back to whether you’re viewing magic as a tool (sort of goeteian) or as a force (more magia). Trying to use soft magic as a tool, in the same way that you would use a hard magic system would indeed be difficult. Its flexibility has become a problem. It’s like the sonic screwdriver from Dr Who, where it can be used to do pretty much anything, and it sucks some of the air out of the sails of the story. Unpredictability also becomes a negative trait in this use case. If you had a hammer that sometimes hammered nails in, and sometimes opened up dangerous rift in the space time continuum, most folks would switch from a hammer to a nail-gun. Et cetera et cetera. I think soft magic flourishes when it is viewed not as a tool, but as an external force. It’s something users can tap into, can try and wield in their favor, but it is ultimately not something that can or should be used, in the way that a hard magic system could. Maybe it comes down to language. The very phrase “soft magic system” implies that there must be a system, a level of scrutiny that soft magic simply does not always hold up to. In order to give soft magic its due, I think you have to take it out of the soft/hard binary entirely, and view it by its own merit, as a force or an energy or even a character in itself that defies systemization by definition.
Actually, from what you are saying, I think Pixar's movie "Soul" may help...it shows what happens when a human, living thru their art, gets into the "zone", a place of transcendence where your spirit goes outside and beyond itself to a higher plane of consciousness. And it's a damned fine movie too.
When the difference between magia and goeteia was described, I immediately went, "Oh, so Gandalf was magia and Saruman (especially) was goeteia." I then was immediately humbled by the correction that both can be good. (I frankly am not sure if I agree with Tolkien here; at the very least, I feel that goeteia has more of a risk than magia.) Something I do think, though, is that most of what we see with Saruman in LotR is goeteia, with his Voice, as shown at the parley of Orthanc, being the clearest sign of magia.
I still remember my sheer delight reading the Silmarillion and realizing that the world was sung into creation, and then looking back at the Lord of the Rings how songs had power in the story.
Loved your shout out about Thom Merrilin and The Wheel of Time. I highly suggest finishing the series. Outside of Lord of the Rings it is easily my favorite fantasy series. As such, I'd love your take on it's magic system in your video.
Hey Jess, Your videos are incredibly well done and super interesting! A Sam Gamgee book vs movie video would be awesome! And also the topic that Sam was the real hero of the story in Tolkin's own opinion would be a great video topic!
From someone who loves Tolkien and his works, also a Christian myself but the Bible is full of magic. The supernatural is the corner stone of it and something that I personally believe in. I've experienced some paranormal events in my own life and they've happened with witnesses with me so that helps in getting somewhat outside validation on the experience rather than just my own. Reading Lord of the Rings does feel like reading a religious book and to me, it is.
While it seems obvious to me that Tolkien understood the history of magic on a high level, he didn't explain it well. This topic is one of my areas of specialization so let me see if I can clarify somewhat. The Latin term "magia" was associated with a Persian sect during the Roman era whose interest in selling talismans and using astrology became famous. They entered Roman marketplaces and prophesied and sold charms, but were imitated by locals-- often badly. This term is associated with the wise men (wizards) who brought gifts to the infant Jesus in the gospels. By 100AD, around the time of the writing of the gospels, they had become very controversial and it's no longer clear what their presence means in the gospels. This lead to an ambiguity-- are they supposed to be wonder-workers passing the torch to Jesus, or shady con men confessing their sins? The terms magus, magician, and wizard are interchangeable. The Greek term "goes" and "goetia" was associated with a much less reputable practice of wonder-working. The original term probably comes from professional mourners who would be hired to beef up the wailing at funerals, but it later meant to describe people who conjured up the spirits of the dead to speak with the living. By the medieval period Catholicism insisted that only deceitful demons could be conjured, that ghosts were not real, and the spirits of the dead inhabited Heaven, Hell and Limbo exclusively. This is how the term necromancy transformed from something like a gruesome spin on mediumship to unambiguous demonic conjuration. By the time we see books like the Key of Solomon in the Renaissance, it's got nothing to do with ghosts and only demons granting miracles. The terms necromancer and goes are interchangeable, but sorcerer and witch are in the same category but with slight differences of emphasis. Sorcery included curses and not just demonic conjuration (though they were often thought to be associated) and was a form of learned magic, while witchcraft was generally thought to be taught by demons and not studied from books. The main difference between magic and sorcery is that the latter was always criminal, even in Roman times; and the former was only prosecuted as fraud when it was believed to be such. Even Roman emperors feared sorcerous curses and evil spirits. Wizards were less threatening. There is some evidence that in the earliest years of Christianity, Jesus was thought to be both Divine and a magician. In one of the earliest paintings of Jesus, he is seen holding what looks like a magic wand. On the other hand, Celsus in his anti-Christian writings condemns Jesus as a goes (sorcerer.) Similarly, Simon Magus was originally a rival of Jesus and not a sorcerer. Apollonius of Tyana was a magician whose miracles and asceticism were seen as so noble that he was propped up as a rival to Jesus by the Emperor Julian the Apostate. In Roman times there were close to a dozen different terms for wonder-workers, each with a different ideology, origin, and specialization. You can read about this in Lucian's "Lover of Lies" aka the Philopseudes. As Christianity advanced to the Middle Ages these distilled themselves into two contrasting but overlapping concepts; magic versus sorcery. By the medieval era sorcery had become all about spirits and exorcisms, but magic per se was often understood as "natural magic." Today that term often is associated with use of herbs and the like in Wicca, but this term was used to contrast with demonic magic AKA sorcery, and thus was permissible. Natural magic involved astrology, jewelry and gemstones and was thought to utilize hidden properties of nature which were gifts of God and basically indistinguishable from science, medicine and technology albeit in a medieval style. These distinctions were made initially by St.Albertus Magnus, a Doctor of the Church, who practiced natural magic and even wrote a manual on it. He is surely yet another inspiration for Gandalf, as he was a great wandering wizard and was quite real. (He was the mentor of St.Thomas Aquinas who was much less cool about magic.) During the medieval era magic was acceptable and sorcery was forbidden, but the Renaissance caused an unexpected switch. The condemnation of magic in Aquinas was taken seriously, and the Church increasingly condemned its practice. Much of this was Islamophobia because much of the literature on natural magic came from the Middle East. Sorcery such as in the Key of Solomon was based on the Rites of Exorcism and had an explicitly Christian character even though it summoned demons, and its users came to believe that this was safer for the soul. And this is why we have even more confusion on these distinctions today. Merlin was originally a prophet and not a magician. You can find many English books of predictions attributed to Merlin, but very few books of spells. I believe that Merlin we know of today is a mix of him as a seer and the character of Nectanebus from the Alexander Romances, who is blatantly a magician. The Arthurian myths had a political dimension, and tried to spin England from a dirty former backwater of the Roman Empire to something full of mystery and wonder, so the legends became increasingly fanciful and weird. To our benefit. When Tolkien calls Sauron the Necromancer, he's being playful about the ambiguity between the idea of ghost-conjuration and demon-conjuration. Sauron is the master of both ghostly creatures such as the Nazgul and the spirits of the Barrow-Wights who could conceivably be fallen Maiar merely pretending to be ghostly. Sauron also creates illusions about the dead in earlier ages. All of this is a nod to the belief that the dead are routinely impersonated by demons from medieval Catholic doctrine. I wrote a blog post a while back on Tolkien and authentic lore about magical rings; it might be worth your time to skim. sorcerer.blog/2018/05/07/j-r-r-tolkiens-magic-ring/ You should be aware that some members of the Inklings definitely practiced magic, though not Tolkien. Charles Williams was an avid practitioner and an initiate of at least one esoteric Order, and there is growing evidence that C.S.Lewis was a member of a Christian esoteric order which practiced magic. His book "The Discarded Image" appears to be an introduction to medieval culture, but nearly every book referred to within it relates to the practice of magic. For someone who had little interested in practice, he had a very suspicious library. It's a speculation... but not without merit. It was also very common in that era for practitioners of magic to denounce sorcery in public while practicing their flavor of magic in private. Arthur Edward Waite, who designed the modern style of tarot decks was the most prominent example of that. He was a member of the Golden Dawn who denounced sorcery later in life in public, while running a heavily Christianized Golden Dawn successor organization in private. This could have been what Charles Williams and C.S.Lewis were affiliated with. Thank you for your work; please keep it going. I've been a fan for about a year.
For me, the most compelling magic of the lord of the rings has always been the magic of an open and unspoiled land, of wild and ancient forests, tall mountains, overgrown gardens, and the hospitality that a traveler finds in far away places.
Oh and I would love to hear your thoughts and research on the magic of Ursula K Le Guin's Earthsea. I would also like to point you to a little known short story called "Silver or Gold' by Emma Bull which I think really plays into the tensions between Goetia and Magia and the trouble of trying to come up with a magic system in the first place.
@@mil_enrama Dominic Noble has two videos called 'The Deceit And Broken Promises Behind The Worst Adaptation Ever' and 'Earthsea ~ Lost in Adaptation' that I think you might enjoy.
Same here
Oh and the creatures!
Much agreed, and well said!
"I can only predict the self-fulfilling prophesies." ~ Paul Atreides
"I **am** the self-fulfilling prophecy." ~ Miles Teg
"Hold my spice beer." ~ Duncan Idaho
LOVE the Dune reference!!
I am old (Grandpa old!😄) and I just read The Hobbit and LOTR for the first time last month. I really find your video essays enlightening and entertaining. Thank you for helping me appreciate Tolkien's works even more.
That’s not old for LOTR keep in mind Bilbo was in his fifties when the hobbit started and who even knows how old some of the other characters are. But yes I get what you’re saying you went your entire life not reading this popular series
That's amazing, I'm happy you seem to have enjoyed those :D
Do you plan on reading the silmarillion as well? It is my favourite book, and it deepens the lore so much, but it has a reputation for being a hard read.
Should, you plan on reading it but have trouble, I'd recommend watching Tolkien Geeks Silmarillion Synopsis videos for the chapter you have just read. That has helped me quite a lot on my first read through.
@@xpallodoc1147 I related to the aged Bilbo!
@@hendrikm9569 Yes indeed!
@@binglamb2176 I hope you will get as much out of it as I do :)
The Tolkien Illustrations Edition is very nice, should you still be looking for one.
Gandalf: I have no memory of this place.
Boromir: Here, roll this twenty…
Ha, I quote Gandalf a lot lately to my boss, when he tries to ask me if I remembered something... sucks getting old. I should probably get a wizard robe and hat, it might help.
@@slaapliedje I hear you. Many times wondering why I was in the room I just walked into. 🤔🤭
Saruman seems to get his philosophy from Plato, who says "The wise shall lead and rule, and the ignorant shall follow", and who envisions a state with unbreakable class barriers between the producers and the rulers. Plato also was an unapologetic collectivist - "You are created for the sake of the whole, and not the whole for the sake of you." Tolkien strikes me as an individualist (or maybe that's because I'm an individualist, and I like Tolkien, so therefore he must agree with me."
This is a great observation!
I don't know that his writing would support exclusively either a collectivist or an individualist world view. Great works are done by the individual. Who they are as people plays an important part in their deeds and they are valued and honoured as individuals. All of Gondor hears Boromir's horn and they all grieve him because he was loved. Minas Tirith bows to four hobbits at the end of the films (honestly can't remember if something similar happens in the books) for their great deeds.
But they are also all constantly talking about the good of the free peoples of middle earth. Merry and Pippin get Treebeard and the other Ents to destroy Isengard to protect the Shire. (or at least they resolve that they can't go back there without seeing the whole thing through because it will come there eventually) Frodo and Sam do their great deed with no hope for their own survival at the end because the world at large needs them to.
The individual does things for the sake of the whole and the whole does things for the sake of the individual.
I do love your observation about Saruman and Plato though - very cool
But Plato said that anybody with the ability could rise to the ruling class. He even said that women could, which was so radical then that it was practically insane.
@Valdagast - Plato by no means "envisions a state with unbreakable class barriers between the producers and the rulers." He has rather quite progressive views for the time period -- i.e., that women ought to have socially equal roles to that of men. His ideal 'Republic' to which you refer is a rhetorical exercise based entirely upon metaphysical premises -- in no way was it meant to be a realistic model. To assert otherwise means that you're probably not paying much attention to all of his dialogues, or more specifically, to that which precedes 'Republic.'
@@josephpercy1558 I disagree. I think Plato really thought his _Republic_ could be brought to life. In this I follow Karl Popper. I think his analysis in _The Open Society and its Enemies_ is largely correct.
The best use of magic in all of LotR is when Gandalf shows up to Helm’s Deep and leads the Rohirrim, timed perfectly with the sunrise, to blind the Uruk-hai. It’s resourceful in its reliance on nature, efficient in its effectiveness, subtle in its application, and far too precise to be performed by a human… because a wizard arrives precisely when he means to.
If only he used that same magic to make his 17 year trip to Gondor a little shorter after searching for info on thr Ring
Just got to your observation about the Seer Man and Saruman and you are right; It is also a reflection of Gandalf’s terror at taking the ring himself! The temptation was real, and he, unlike Saruman, saw and avoided the danger
“[Magic] is a rhythm of the universe, a power that beats at the heart of all of our imaginations.”
It has been many years since I’ve read the Lord of the Rings, but one thing that struck me coming from other fantasy (mostly Dragon Lance) was the lack of spells as such.
In Middle Earth, magic was more the tendency of things, a reflection of a will, the music you can almost hear from just behind the world. Should someone of my age dare to say: vibes?
I’m sure there is more direct action and I’m forgetting something because people more familiar with Tolkien’s world suggest otherwise, but it is gone from my memory and this will likely remain my headcanon if nothing else.
Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters. - Norman Maclean
I got the impression that some people just have a stronger impression on the world. A more potent spirit if you’d permit. However the purest spirits remain humble and within their vessel but ask for help from the supernatural realm in times of dire need. But corrupt spirits crack the vessel so to speak and cut themselves off and leak their essence every where and into everything and their malice and selfish delusions corrupt all they taint with their defiled ego spilled upon the land. The evil creatures that perform their acts of shock and awe seem to be imparting a diminishing effect on themselves like burning a candle at both ends. But the heroes don’t have the same affliction because instead of spreading themselves to the point of fading they held to faith and the power overseeing middle earth gave them little nudges of help.
Speaking of C.S. Lewis since friendship is so important in the Lord of the Rings, do you think a video going into Tolkien' s friendships and how they shaped his writing be a possibility?
Haven’t listened yet, but since I was a kid my fellow Tolkien nerds and I knew the lack of bald-faced magic was a good thing. We knew that seeing the flashes on Weathertop was more interesting dramatically than to see Gandalf’s power, just as there was no Gandalf / Sauron battle at the end: because in the end power isn’t interesting.
Of COURSE we like to think that there’s more to this world than we know, more behind the scenes, or the idea of characters who can bend the rules of reality. But at some point they just become gods, and omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence are just… not that interesting. Listen to Alan Watts discuss ‘The God Problem,’ - it’s this very same issue. We don’t actually want power (though so many think they do)… we want struggle and achievement and the feeling of meaning that comes from those things. Magic quickly neuters the meaning of struggle, and so props to Tolkien for doing it all very beautifully (perhaps the deus ex machina eagles aside, though they’re technically not ‘magic’).
Thanks for this channel! Check out mine for original and cover singer songwriter stuff. Cheers!
This is such a good point. This quote didn't make it into the video, but it feels pertinent: “Part of the attraction of The L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed." (Letter 247)
The magic really is in the mystery. Best of luck with your music!
@@Jess_of_the_Shire “Due to the glimpses of a large history in the background.”
YES. Was just thinking today how even now I’m a sucker for say, like on a Magic card (I played in high school), when it’d have some quote from some fantasy culture the card or the art referenced - how just alluding to those cultures is enchanting.
It’s almost comical how we fall for it (whether Magic did the depth of world building that Tolkien did, I don’t know know) but the little quotes, as if the cultures they referenced really existed or were thought out, always got me.
Thanks and best of luck on your channel too - you’re killing it!
The Silmarillion is full of stories in which blatant magic is right out in the open and it's like a catastrophe. And after a while, the stories of vast clashes of power begin to blur together. LOTR keeping it mostly in the background and using it sparingly and indirectly (and emphasizing that usually something bad is happening when it's right in your face) helps to make it a more believable world.
A very nice survey. I believe the point of Tolkien's Faerie is that it is a metaphor for the world of the imagination, which by an everyday magic we step into in any good fantasy story (written or on screen). The metaphor, being present in the work itself, is what gives it its " peculiar mood and power" (On Fairy Stories).
Perhaps Tolkien looked at the natural world and truly believed there were things in it that science isn’t meant to explain. If you’ve ever had the feeling someone was about to call you, then the phone rings, or you suddenly hit the brakes because you have a bad feeling, then an animal runs in front of your car you didn’t see, (I’ve experienced both- many times with the phone), and you start to realize your senses extend beyond the recognized physical reach of the human body….that is something that might fall into the simpler version of magic described in this video. And it doesn’t have to be at odds with a belief in God- rather, it’s the humble acknowledgement that we are tiny beings in a huge universe which has life and energy and creatures in it we know nothing about.
Another great video, thank you! As for magic systems I'd love to hear you talk about, Le Guin's Earthsea has always been a favorite. Cheers!
I love Earthsea! It'll definitely be on the list
Dominic Noble has two videos called 'The Deceit And Broken Promises Behind The Worst Adaptation Ever' and 'Earthsea ~ Lost in Adaptation' that I think you might enjoy.
I second this notion and am glad it's on your radar.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Yes please on Earthsea; always has been my second favorite fantasy world/series after Tolkien.
Do you get as aggravated as I do with the "who would win in a fight--Gandalf or Dumbledore? Gandalf or Loki? Gandalf or the Archangel Michael?" Like literally the whole point is that the super powerful in Tolkien's world don't have to show it all the time and magic is a servant, not a ruler. OK, I'll get off my soapbox. Always a pleasure, Jess!
One punch man would win
Yeah, those aren't my favorite. It's just a really shallow exploration into these worlds, and also...kind of impossible to say imo. Every once in a while, they can be fun though! Thanks for watching!
@@Jess_of_the_Shire I would say that a fun example is the Sauron vs. Lich King episode of Death Battle.
No, cuz obviously Gandalf would win 😂
"10 strongest LotR characters ranked" 😑
There are small magics in tolkiens world, usually what you see gandalf do, like start fires or open doors and there's crafting, the making or rings and special items but he deeper magic seems to be almost unseen, unless it's a real powerful item like the silmaril's the the light of glaladriel it keeps a place safe. like the shire (there is a power of a sort there) imladrids or Lothlorien places where no one is runnnig aronud making with the bibbity-bobbity-bo, but where there clearly is magic at work
One of the most interesting magic is the Will and the Word, from the Belgariad series (although Polgara said it was more like the Wish and the Word). In brief, the sorcerer think of what he wants and says to word to make it happen. There are limitations:
- doing something by sorcery takes as much energy as to make it normally, so a sorcerer may exhaust himself by doing something hard, like pushing a big mass of air;
- doing something impossible, like resurrecting someone who has a sword in the chest, may drain completely a sorcerer;
- using sorcery create a "noise" that other sorcerers can "hear", which is inconvenient in enemy territory;
- undoing something, erasing it from existence, is forbidden and the sorcerer himself will be erased instead (killing someone is fine, it only transform someone from alive to not alive).
Sorcerers often say that using sorcery is so much trouble, they only use it if there is no alternative.
About the video itself, you did not dive enough into the nature of magic in Middle-Earth. My understanding is that magic is from the inner strength of people, not an outside tool. Using magic put some of the magician into his creation. Yavanna put so much of herself into the 2 trees of Valinor that she did not have the strength to do it a second time; Fëanor put a lot of himself into the Silmarils, and of course Sauron and the One ring. Men have the least of that inner force, so the creations of the Elves and Dwarves seem magical to them.
I remember a funny scene where the main character was trying to move a boulder upwards and ended up moving himself 2 feet into the ground instead
@@humphrey4480 more than 2 feet. The guy was 15 and he was down to his armpits in the ground.
He also succeeded to turn the bounder over while being pushed into the ground by the weight of the boulder.
For magic systems, you might want to check out the magic system in A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin. It's based on the idea that everything has a "true name" and knowing the true name of a thing gives you power over it.
I think this is an ancient idea. As from the legends of sorcerers who predated Merlin in Ireland/Britain.
@@PeteOtton Rumplestiltskin is a popular distillation of the idea.
@@PeteOtton I wouldn't be surprised if LeGuin drew inspiration from some ancient tradition from the real world.
@@PeteOttonwould you happen to know any of those legends specifically?
Jim Butchers Dresden Files also use similiar method among other ones. Demons and some magical beings will make a co tract with you and help you, but as they are i herebtly malicious they will not do it for free and often they ask for tour name. Wizards tend to have multiple names just so they can trade a few and still not be under control.
Magic, faith, contracts or even potion making is really interesting in it. For example, technology breaks around wizards. So the MC has to drive an old car that has less moving parts and no electronic parts.
Very well done and well researched look at not just magic in Middle Earth, but at Tolkien, Lewis, and the Inklings thoughts on magic. I appreciate the effort you put into this! The four circle Venn diagram was something that even now makes me rethink a lot of the esoteric concepts of these forces, and it's fun to consider these still.
I liked how, in Middle Earth, magic wasn't intended to be the go-to toolbox for solving any problem, but instead a powerful, dangerous tool to be used only just enough when the need was greatest. My dad, who read the books to my little sister and me as bedtime stories when we were young, took the time to answer my questions about why people didn't just use magic for everything. He told me that the Wizards were not there to save the free people from evil, but to help them to free themselves from it. Becoming reliant on the wizards for a solution to every problem would make them weaker and more ineffective, turning them into servant people if not slaves under the wizard overclass. The only way for the free people to be free was for them to pay the price of that freedom and learn to fight and overcome evil on their own. To eleven year old me that sounded mean, but at the same time I got it. I knew my parents had left me to fend for myself when I had difficult tasks to do, and had even set difficult tasks for me to do, and I felt better and more accomplished and capable once I achieved those tasks. So it made sense, even if it sounded mean.
By the same token, dad also refused to allow me to use magic for my tasks (i.e. his power tools when I was trying to build stuff) and he refused to use magic to help me. So I learned how to hammer, saw, drill, and so on for myself, which meant that when I was places where magic wouldn't work (i.e. nowhere to plug one of my own power tools in) I could still do what needed to do.
I appreciate my mechanical engineer father's way of explaining the minimal use of magic in the books, and then relating it to how I needed to learn to do things for myself in the real world.
Also, as my engineer father pointed out, much of the magic in Middle Earth was bound up in things, things which could easily be used or corrupted for negative purposes. The Palantiri being corrupted by Sauron to warp the minds of those who used them was similar to how the internet, originally intended as a method for communication and networking together for learning, has become corrupted into being used more for awful purposes, such as bullies extending schoolyard abuse into ways of tormenting classmates in their own homes. And yes, there are dozens of other examples of cruelty and hatefulness, but I think that bullies hurting children in their homes where they should feel safe is one of the worst examples. But, to the former point, it made the reasons for not relying on magic all the more obvious. From Denethor's over-reliance on a Palantir to Galadriel's warning words about what would be seen in the mirror, magic had a cost for the careless. Just like, to return to my dad's example, the fact that a careless or distracted moment with a hand saw could lead to a nasty cut, while the same moment with the "magic" of a power saw could lead to crippling or even death.
Truth: In all my life I've never been comfortable around power saws and try not to use them if I have another option. Ridiculous, maybe, but so am I. 😛
Anyway, very well done and sorry for too many stories about what dad taught me. He's been gone a year and a half now and yet he's still with me in stories.
"Magic always comes with a price" is the most necessary piece of information you can acquire from any perspective involving a story. Whether you're the writer, protagonist, antagonist, or wildcard. Tolkien was an intelligent, individual..... truelly a master of "his craft".
George RR Martin followed that rule too. In his world there's magic. But always at a cost. And I actually like that very much, as it balances the powers and makes the story more interesting.
This reminds me of when Donny Cates wrote a monologue for Loki in the first issue of his run on Doctor Strange:
"I've been thinking about this for some time now. This business about magic always having some sort of 'cost'. Some sort of 'price'. It's quite silly, is it not? I think it's time we reexamine the rules a bit, yes? I am not now, nor have I ever been fond of 'the rules'. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think that you fair witches and warlocks should have the freedom to go about your duties without killing rodents and vomiting everywhere, don't you? I mean, honestly. Magic by its very nature is the antithesis of 'rules', yes? The 'rules' say that there's no rabbit in the hat. And yet poof! Here is a rabbit! So, where am I going with this? How about no more rules. How about no more 'price'".
@@ARVETDEGI am not fond of his writing; that being said, I understand your point. The Witcher is more my speed when it comes to magic. The cost is set in stone, but one may have more ability to push one's self past anothers limitations. The unfair abilities, and limitations, of some over others is a fact of life. This story aspect may not be outright spoken as concrete law; however has continuously remained self evident. At least within the books. Certainly a stirring topic non the less... :)
@@sebastianevangelista4921funny enough, this too came at great cost. 😅
So true deary.
The magic system in Middle Earth has always intrigued me. It would be interesting to delve into each individual moment that Gandalf casts a spell. And after watching Corey Olsen's exploring Middle Earth series from the moment Gandalf lights the fire on Caradhras, he seems to cast a lot of spells and i dont think i ever realised it until now . The encounter with the wolves, to the spells he tries on the doors of Moria before realising speak friend and enter. The small light he uses on top of his staff to guide through Moria. The holding spell he puts on the door that gets broken by the Balrog and almost breaks him. I think its part of Tolkiens genius to make it so subtle but if you think about it its actually quite powerful. If you think about it in a real world sense i think the spell he uses in the encounter with wolves outside of Moria might be the most striking reason why Gandalf is reluctant to use magic. If you cast a spell in order to protect yourself and your party but in doing so burns down a wide radius of the surrounding forrest. Being a Being of compassion such as Gandalf who knows that his spells can have devastating consequences to the natural environment around him I can totally understand his reluctance to use them. But if you had malevolent intent like a Sauron or Saruman casting spells might not have the same moral issue.. Its still so intriguing..
I kinda think the concept that there isn't much magic in lotr is quite.. absurd. When you go back and look at it there is magic is almost every chapter in one way or another. It is written more subtly than modern fantasy "he cast a fireball at the orc". Another part of moira that isn't gandalf : But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder.
I am pleased to hear your summary of the Inklings' thinking on Magia, Goeteia, Science, and Religion. I'd point out that other thinkers have set the boundaries of the magical arts somewhat differently, so it's worth not taking these definitions of Magia and Goeteia as absolute. For example, some thinkers - and here I am thinking of Jake Stratton-Kent in his work Geosophia (2 vols) and the other parts of his Encyclopaedia Goetica, though I am sure there are others who escape me at the moment - define Goetia as relational and personal, similar to Religion, with Magia as impersonal, similar to Science. Which is tangential to your discussion here, but since you do intend to look at magic more widely I thought I'd mention it.
The Magia/Goeteia is certainly not the be-all and end all of magic. I don't even think Tolkien thought so, as he only used them to define his magic once or twice in writing. I'll have to check out your recommendations, thanks for sharing!
19:01, Bardic Magic in Dungeons & Dragons comes to mind in the fusion of magic and artistic expression.
There are many kinds of esoteric powers and sources in the setting (magic, mysticism, psionics, qi and divinity), wether it the cosmic and elemental power of wizards (who's defining trait is their view of magic as a paranormal science) and sorcerers (being infused with innate esoteric power), the transcendental and deific power of clerics (who perform theurgy and thaumaturgy through their connection with deities and faith) and druids (who are tied to the primordial, primal power of nature), or the the eldritch and sinister power of warlocks (who are tied to paranormal being of a strange, malefic or alien nature).
The bard, however, is a mage armed with song and poetry (not to dissimilar to how the Ainur and other esoteric beings in Lord Of The Rings being describes as producing various effects through song and poetry), expression being what fuels their power and what allows them to affect the world.
Very well done! Two comments. First, if you have not read CSL's That Hideous Strength, you might want to consider the parts where Merlin is brought into the present and Ransom's comments on Merlin's magic -- essentially that it's an art which belongs in the past when the world was a bit less well defined. Ransom tells Merlin that it was morally dubious even in Merlin's day and the practice of it had hurt him, and today is simply forbidden. Secondly, may I recommend Patricia McKillip , a most underrated and nearly forgotten writer whose fantasies are all different but which all have magics which are the antitheses of systematic, and seem to have a lot in common with JRRT's.
Thanks so much for the recommendations!
I love that Gandalf the wizard doesn't cast fireballs with his magics, he uses Narya, his magic is to be a beacon for people and Narya's other effect compliments that perfectly. Keeping magic subdued and imbued in powerful magical artifacts is such a smart and approachable way to understand the setting.
Edit: Like he fights the Balrog with Glamdring and his staff gets destroyed and uses Narya to diminish the Balrog's inferno.
I'm so glad I've discovered your channel. Excellent content.
Regarding Magic systems, the one from the Eragon series is quite interesting, same with Shadowrun.
Maybe hard to cover but the Forgotten Realms magic of Faerun and divinity of that world is it's own rabbit hole that I found worth going down. Though... with some modern examples like BG3, that don't quite do it perfectly but are great examples.. Along with the descriptions of magic in books like Shadowdale/The Avatar Trilogy, and supplementary books like Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Faiths and Pantheons, and Magic of Faerun.. It's a lot less to read than all the titles might suggest, most of the non novels I've mentioned only have a handful of relevant pages.. but ultimately it was upon understanding and having digested that material, understanding the concept that a Wish/Miracle is a 9th level Spell and there are Spells Above 9th level, and how the Gods (or, as Tolken would describe them, the Ainur and Maiar) are constantly performing and comprehending Miracles every moment beyond what has managed to be comprehended by the Mortal Races. Tbh, not only did those concepts help me understand more intimately the Silmarillion when I read that, all those things were important steps for me to understand the Divinity of OUR world and to take a more critical look at Our history, and led me from being Agnostic to The God of Abraham.
2:25 I don't like reading C.S. Lewis. Not because I don't like C.S. Lewis. I think he's amazing. I just continually say to myself after I've read pretty much anything he wrote "There's no way that could have been written any better. That was perfectly communicated." And I know I'll never be that good at anything, and that's kind of depressing. 😂😜
Very interesting topic for me, a Greek, as both of words come from greek.
"goeteia" from "γοητεία" which means to charm or be charming to others,
while "magia" comes from either "μαγεία" that means literally "magic", or "μάγια" which means multiple magics or spells
Great video, as always
I love the "Will and the word" magic from David Eddings The Belgariad/The Malloreon. If you have the will power to do something, speak the word and it happens.
Eddings started writing the books as a way to present his system of magic. Keep in mind that he was a literature professor who was a total fanboy of Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Is that the one where the boy is trying to lift a rock with his mind and he ends up sinking into the ground? As a kid I always thought that was a cool example of the perils of learning magic.
@@Fred_LougeeHe was also a convicted child abuser.
@@brucealanwilson4121 oh
Interesting; i learned a few new things. Thanks be to you this day. :) Speaking of dangers 15:20 ish... Thinking back on various characters from Melkor's original musical rebellion, Saruman's original 'cockiness' around the time of being chosen as a "Wizard candidate", and of course Sauron's continued lust to regain control of everything (his fear of someone else using "his" [Ring] too).
Pride. Greed. In the end it all leads back to Fear, and certainly being overly proud does seem to lead some of the "Big Bads" in these stories 'down The Dark Path' [to The Dark Side], or at least attempting to be separate and/or superior to the rest [of the other beings that just wish to live in some form of 'more relatively balanced harmony'].
For a fuller explanation of CS Lewis's idea of magic, you can't do better than the discussion in That Hideous Strength. Modern professor discusses it directly with resurrected Merlin, and says that magic/magia that was permissible before is more evil now than it was, as all good gets gooder and evil gets eviler the closer we get to judgment day.
I found this channel today,I subscribed immediately, God bless you and your work young lady 💜💜💜 respect from Croatia 😇😇😇💜💜💜
As usual, your exposition was exquisite. I found the Venn diagrams informative and entertaining, but (as usual) it was the sound of your voice, the sparkle in your eyes, and the cohesion of your narrative that kept me rapt. Thank you. :)
Loved this video, Jess! My favorite aspect of magic in Tolkien's worldbuilding, is his restraint and his rejection of using magic to write himself out of story or character dilemmas.
I like when Gandalf could perhaps solve a problem with the application of his magic powers, yet chooses to rely on non-magic characters to sort out the problem instead for their own growth and benefit. As James Bond tells Q in SKYFALL, the art is not to pull the trigger, but to know when not to pull it.
Thanks so much for the breakdown. Its really interesting to see different types of magic categorised.
As an aspiring fantasy writer, i find magic tough. You want it to be mysterious and unknowable, but also, to avoid deus ex machina as you point out it is a bit of LoTR, it needs to be defined.
Iv always enjoyed the magic system(s) in the Rivers of London series.
Anakin and Saruman have very similar downfalls and corruption of their intentions to corruption of self
I'm currently working on a fantasy novels & this was one of the best resources I've come across so far for thinking about magic - thanks Jess!
Another great video Jess. I'm loving your insights, your knowledge, your voice and last but not least, your lovely face. I find your videos so relaxing and informative. Thank you and keep up the good work!
I cried during this video - your understanding of magic in Middle-Earth, but also metatextual aspect of it, as in effect Tolkien's writing has on us and what it meant to him, it was and it is what captured me in his works and still strikes me with it's moody and deep, deep beauty.
Your the verst persoon to give me this perspective on magic, thank you. I’ll try to put this info to good use
I loved the outro talking about the magic of tolkien work. You probably already know it but some " spiritual' and other magic movement like wicca or Obod love to talk about the magic of art , especially written and talked ones. Thats why you need "spell " ( like in spelling ) to create magic, to cast a spell is manifesting the unatural. Always loved that. Who havent feel the magic of a grrat text, a wonderfull song or a deep poem. Anyway. Love your videos and hope you the best with this channel. Take care and blessed be 🙏🏻✌🏻
8:30 (-ish) - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
By which I only mean to draw attention to the idea that "magic," per se, seems to be simply a different form of "science," or rather "technology." In the universe of Arda, blacksmiths & shipwrights and wizards (e.g.) all seem to me to be experts in their own quite technical fields. Each of these fields can be mastered with time, study & practice given the proper individual gifts or bent of talent. As such, the practitioners of "magic" are simply artisans in one of many fields. They may or may not be skilled in any other such fields, and they can freely use their talents for good or for ill.
Love your videos! I have been watching your entire channel recently and I am so excited for more! ❤
I'm so glad you've been enjoying them!
I really appreciated this video! I loved the dive into the academic/philosophical stuff, it was really helpful for framing the discussion of not only Tolkien but Frankenstein, Dune, Arthurian Merlin, etc. I had never heard of the Goetia vs Magia distinction and I love it. Thank you!
I wish I could like this 1000 times. This is my favorite video of yours so far. Very thought provoking, and I appreciated the colorful Venn diagrams too.
I love the background music in this video! I know you already talked about the magic systems of CS Lewis in this one a little bit, but I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on that applied to his specific stories when you do your big magic systems video.
For a different sort of magic system, check out the Codex Alera series by Jim Butcher. Another, somewhat macabre system can be found in David Farland's Runelords series.
I'll definitely check that out! I've quite enjoyed the Jim Butcher that I've read.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Codex is written for a YA audience and bears little resemblance to the Dresden Files. Still, a good read, IMO.
I just discovered your channel and subscribed.
Thank you for sharing such accessible & thoughtful videos. I am an aspiring writer and I watched your video as I am seeking to develop a magical system for my manuscript.
Your video provides a well-rounded set of observations on how magic is depicted differently; how it is accessed, possible results to the user, etc.
Good food for thought. Thanks!
Thank you for making this video. My taste in/view of magic has changed a lot in recent years, and I've really struggled to explain it, let alone find the kinds of stories that satisfy it. (The most I could do is let it influence my own writing, which is both invigorating, and sometimes really frustrating when even I don't know what I want.)
The concepts you brought up in this video almost perfectly describe what it is I've been looking for/feeling. Both C.S. Lewis and Tolkien have been *huge* influences on my love of fantasy (I'd even say the Chronicles of Narnia was fundamental to it), so I suppose it makes sense that their ideas on what magic is like would resonate deeply with me. But I'd never realized that they both wrote about it outside of what's in their actual books, let alone that they described it so well!
Now I want to see if they've written more about it, but even with just what you included in this video, my imagination has already taken off running. So, thank you again for making it. It's given me a lot to think about!
Just found this channel, you make really amazing videos! The attention to detail and when you add context or addition information it's done so naturally and is so interesting. Wish you all the best luck in your future TH-cam endeavors!!
Edit: please please do a dune video about Paul dealing with prescience
I think that part of the reason some people find magic in The Lord of the Rings confusing, is because they expect it to be "FLASH BANG" and it isn't. Magic is generally subtle, and often takes time. Magic is more likely to urge things in a direction, or enhance something, than to blow it up, or instantly turn it into something else. Magic was also tied to places, or bound to objects, the One Ring, the lesser rings, various swords, etc. through crafting. Magic is woven onto the world so it is generally present, while also not being in your face.
As far as other magic systems to look at, I would be curious for you to look at the magic system, or possibly systems of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. It has gods, and demons, though on occasion these are the same beings, just wearing different hats, and witches, who all seem to have their own individual systems, and wizards, and sorcerers, who are kind of like wizards, only much more so, and "L" space, and those shops, and the luggage.
Leaving you with a few quotes that seem appropriate.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." (Gehm's Corollary) Barry Gehm
Magic is that which we think is beyond our understanding, science is that which we think we can understand if we poke it enough, and technology is that which we have become so familiar with it no longer fascinates us, even if we no longer understand it.
Bravo! Kept seeing you crop up in my recs but jumped at it right away when I saw this videos topic and you hooked me. A deeper inspection than most have given, and for that you've earned a new subscriber in me. Although I always pronounced it Go-a-tay-a in my head...
I mean, Tolkien did have the elvish concept that we would equate with magic be more appropriately describe as “craft” compared with the lies of the Enemy.
Great video, this really helps le to think about how the magic in the story i'm writing works. Not that I hadn't thought of it before, simply a new way of thinking about it.
Something I've grown to respect and find fascinating in LotR is that how very little magic actually goes on on the page, or at least very little of what we commonly might think of magic in a fantasy story. Not only that but, the world of Middle Earth in Frodo's age is a world where "magic" is rapidly fading. As the long age of elves comes to an end and makes way for the age of men, it seems to speak to a renewed world where mankind is left free to prosper and flourish without the interference of powers beyond their reckoning.
I just found out your channel thanks to this video and I'm loving it! As far as my favorite magic systems go, I would consider them the elemental bending of Avatar, the Allomancy of Mistborn and that whole mess that was happening on the web serial Pact.
Your video essays are excellent as always. Thank you for sharing this!
Your videos are so detailed and well presented! Thanks for sharing
THANK YOU for this! Seriously!! The timing is also quite opportune, since I’ve been thinking a lot about magic and its role in modern fantasy lately, and trying to find a way to express my frustration with the apparent fixation so many people seem to have with how various authors define their “magic systems.” I’m a huge fan of more realistic and grounded fantasy settings, so when people recommend fantasy literature to me, they often mistake that for a love of “hard fantasy,” which in fact I mostly can’t stand. To me, when you treat magic like science, it loses something. Magic is NOT science - it’s magic - which I believe means that at least some part of it will always be immaterial and undefinable. The distinctions you’ve described here between Magia, Goetia, and indeed Faërie, really drive this idea home for me, but also help to define some of the difficulty I’ve been having in categorizing slightly “harder” magic systems I actually do like (a fantastic example of which is the one created by Susanna Clarke for her novel, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell).
Anyway, once again, thank you so much for making this video, and I will certainly be keeping an eye out for more!
Your videos are very chill and informative.
I loved this video! I get really put off by a lot of fantasy that obsesses about their magic system as if it's just another discipline of science. For me magic works best as a story telling device when it leans into experience, connection, wonder and mystery. Sometimes I wonder if it is a folly of our contemporary thinking that everything needs to be explained, rather than just experienced.
I love the magic of Miyazaki's Studio Ghibli films, where nature is bathed in magic, often simultaneously epic and simple, Elif Shafak's magic in the ordinary, and of course Ursula Le Guinn's Earthsea Cycle needs a mention.
One of my absolute favorite magic systems is from "the Malazan book of the fallen"
Somewhere between magia and goeteia (sp), some have connections to elemental planes called warrens that they can train to be able to harness, travel through, and in some limited way control, but it wears at them to do so
One must wonder how much of our knowledge and theories will be scoffed at in the future. I can’t think of much, but that’s for them to know
Dr. Justin Sledge's channel, Esoterica, goes into extensive detail about the Renaissance study of magic.
Love your content Jess! U popped up on my feed a couple weeks ago and I've been binge watching ever since! Thanks for all ur insight and all u do!
I'm so glad you've enjoyed my videos! It's lovely to have you in the community
Thanks Jess, this was even more insightful than usual! I’d love to hear your perspective on the mechanics of magic in A Song of Ice and Fire.
Amazing amount of detail regarding magic in this video that I was not aware of. Thanks👍
My enjoyment of this video has been tarnished at about the halfway point because im now thinking we could have almost actual magic if academia and grant funding allocation wasnt so fucked.
Picture a promising study on something wild like immortality going unfunded because we gotta discover yet another particle so an old theory makes sense and egos arent bruised
Your oratory/editing style and scholarship invariably bring a smile to my face. =) Thank you.
I wasn't expecting such a deep dive but I really appreciated it. Impressive work.
This was an excellent introduction to Tolkien's thoughts on magic. Thank you! Would you consider doing a video on his ideas about (and coining of the term) "eucatastrophe"?
Thank you for the discussion of magic in LotR.
For magic systems, I would echo an above suggestion for the system in Ursula K. LeGuin’s Earthsea Trilogy and its notion of balance.
I might also suggest the way magic is handled in Jack Vance’s Dying Earth stories.
Just found your channel, Awesome videos. Just to add to the subject, "goetia" from the "Ars goetia" a XIIth century book on Demon summoning (itself part of the bigger Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis a treaty on summoning magic) based on Solomons supposed imprisonement of demons. Goetia is opposed to Theurgia and Magia naturalia (Demonology vs Magic vs Religion ) especially in late Middle-Ages early Renaissance. Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa discusses those 3 aspects in his Three Books of Occult Philosophy (1533). He said : "Now the parts of ceremonial magic are goetia and theurgia. Goetia is unfortunate, by the commerces of unclean spirits made up of the rites of wicked curiosities, unlawful charms, and deprecations, and is abandoned and execrated by all laws." As such both Theurgia and Goetia are ceremonial in essence whereas Magia Naturalia deals with natural force directly it is "nothing else but the highest power of natural sciences" and could be considered as the early sciences.
This treaty Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis was rediscovered in the early XXth century through occultist group (Samuel Mathers and Aleister Crowley ) which helped those concept gain more attention.
You touched upon Shippey's book and I noticed that paperback copy, which was displayed in your shelf in your last video, is missing. An obvious fact that you picked it up to use it for this video essay. I notice these subtle differences as I am familiar with almost any and every Tolkien book, and all those yearly editions - whether books by Tolkien or on Tolkien.
It's funny. I got into a discussion on just this subject with a group of friends of mine last year. The one takeaway that I got that defined Tolkien Magic vs most others (D&D, Dresden, most every other Fantasy setting) is that magic is not supernatural. It is a part of the natural world and It is through the working of natural processes that one can "do" magic. Can Gandolf shoot fire at a Nazgul. Yes. But it is his nature to be able to do that. When Elves hammer light into an object, that is a natural function of the world that they have learned how to do through many generations of men. While often times described as "soft", magic in Arda is just part of the world like air and gravity. It is more subtle than some, but no less potent for it.
The Elves, very charmingly, don't like the word 'magic.' They say, 'We don't know what you mean by this word.' But to the Hobbits they are obviously magical.
1. I haven't read The Dark Tower yet but Ka sounds like a very interesting magic system to me.
2. I really am glad that you acknowledged how the intent behind the overtly industrial acts in LoTR matter because a lot of reactionary, anti-Tolkien hot takes like those from Michael Moorcock paint Tolkien as essentially being a figure who was against certain kinds of progress. Magic is, as you pointed out, also used for evil but is not inherently evil. Science and Magic simply are and don't reflect any kind of subjective morals, unlike political systems.
3. On the matter of Dune, I highly recommend reading 'The Spice Must Flow: The Story of Dune, from Cult Novels to Visionary Sci-Fi Movies' by Ryan Britt.
4. It is absolutely great that you uploaded this and are planning on a whole other video on magic systems because recently I've been compiling and editing the main points found in the summary sections of On Writing and Worldbuilding volumes I-III by Timothy Hickson into two separate documents for myself to serve as personal guides, and I wanted to ask for some feedback on how to make the following points regarding magic systems stronger (and hopefully they'll help enrich your upcoming video):
Hard Magic Systems
1. Broadly speaking, a softer magic system means the magic has a vague, undefined, or mysterious set of rules and limitations to being used in the story. A harder magic system, on the other hand, has more clearly defined rules, consequences, and limitations that govern what one can or cannot do with magic.
2. The more a reader comprehends and understands the magic system as an element of the narrative, the more it can be used to solve problems in the story in a satisfying way. The less a reader comprehends and understands the magic system as an element of the narrative, the less it can be used to solve problems in a satisfying way. Hard magic going wrong will be more often due to mistake, misuse, or lack of understanding.
3. One issue with a vague limit of energy requirements or willpower is that because these things are unquantifiable, stories that use them are prone to power creep or inconsistency with the cost being largely ignored when the plot requires it. In turn, this weakens any sense of consistency and predictability.
4. Where the limitations or weaknesses in your hard magic system create strong enough rules for your characters that they establish that sense of predictability and consistency required, it may not be necessary to have a large cost. Likewise, if the cost of your magic is large enough, it may be necessary to have strict limitations or weaknesses.
5. While the aesthetics of your magic system are important, it is the predictability and consistency, and the limitations weaknesses, and costs within those that will play into the conflicts, problems, and character interactions of your story the most.
Soft Magic Systems
1. A major challenge with soft magic is that tension is incredibly difficult to build if your reader has no idea of the capabilities of your characters. A common way to get around this is to have a very soft magic system overall with few limitations, but the individual characters might only have specific powers with clearer limitations, costs, and weaknesses.
2. A soft magic system is virtually never a problem if it causes tension. It is a lot easier to have antagonists with vague powers than protagonists. What is more important when it comes to using soft magic to cause tension is to be consistent with that antagonist’s powers.
3. If magic exists outside the point of view character, you can align the reader with them to view magic as this mystical and unknown force in the world. This works well for a soft magic system, which is inherently mystical and unknown. That sense of mysterious unknown can be harder to achieve from the perspective of a character who must understand something of your magic.
4. Giving characters little control over their passive magic allows you to keep tension in the narrative because they still have to rely on their intelligence, ingenuity, and skill to solve problems, especially if said magic is unpredictable. Soft magic can frame the tension but not resolve it. It is often used to make stories more interesting.
5. Writing from the point of view of a soft magic user can be made easier with an unpredictable magic system, making them unsure of the limits, consequences, or capabilities. This helps retain that feeling of mysticism without you needing to explain precisely how it works.
6. However, it will be stronger writing if unpredictable magic affects the course of the story in not just positive, but negative and neutral ways as well. Those neutral and negative consequences to magic create a sense of risk and stakes in using it that makes those few times that it succeeds more palatable to the reader.
7. Having multiples magic systems allows your magic to be more versatile, diverse, and allows for both hard and soft systems. A major advantage to soft magic is that you are not limited to a few styles like hard magic. Aesthetics are more important with a soft magic system.
Magic Systems and Storytelling
1. A magic system cannot exist in isolation. Consider how it can be worked in with your worldbuilding, narrative, and characters.
2. If you remove your magic system and your worldbuilding will not change, then it is possible you have not considered its implications deeply enough. Worldbuilding is a many-way street. It is not simply about how magic systems affect politics, history, geography, and culture, but how those things affect the magic system.
3. Exposing in detail how the magic either creates or changes conflicts that your characters experience in the narrative can be really interesting. Your magic system is a source of conflict unique to your story, and as an author, you can capitalize on that.
4. Tying your magic system to character arc by emphasizing its importance in them becoming stronger and overcoming challenges. This approach also places magical prowess secondary to character growth. It is important to note that the more consequential the character change or greater the power, the more it should be foreshadowed beforehand, or it risks feeling cheap and unearned. However, if you want a wholly hard magic system or you do not wish a character’s powers to take the same path as their character arc, then perhaps this is not the setup for you.
5. Magi-babble is where a character says a lot but means very little, and it is a thin veil for bad writing, particularly where authors write themselves into a corner.
Power Escalation in a Magic System
1. One way to escalate power systems logically and believably while making powers feel earned is with character arc-aligned power systems. This helps with narrative cohesion by trying internal and external conflicts together. However, it is less suited to hard magic systems.
2. It is natural for power systems to escalate as the tension rises throughout a book or series. However, continual escalation can become power creep, which in turn undermines narrative tension by losing immersive elements or creating a lack of meaningful and believable stakes.
3. Power ceilings help powers feel earned and help set up expectations for the reader. They are more relevant to protagonists than antagonists.
4. One way to maintain tension without power escalation is through incomparable abilities, meaning becoming more powerful will not necessarily resolve the plot.
5. A second way to maintain tension without power escalation is through character challenges: when antagonists challenge the protagonist on a personal level, and the tension is derived from difficult moral choices they are forced to make.
Elemental Magic Systems
1. Originality is more about how you use the elements narratively than simply having a different elemental setup. One advantage to elemental magic is how it can be used as an analogue for character growth, theme, tone, and setting. However, this runs the risk of falling into cliches.
2. Pre-existing cultural associations with the elements allow us to code characters and places with traits without necessarily exploring them deeply. However, this can be less original. Consider new associations and expressions we haven’t seen before.
3. Elemental magic systems fit perfectly with common group dynamics like the five-man band and power trio, allowing you to reflect how they clash, bond, and change over time in the powers.
4. Consistency and predictability are fundamental to any magic system, but sometimes the relative tension of an obstacle is more important than precise rules and limits. Consider going deeper into an element before adding new powers.
I’ll have to check Ka out! And thanks for the Dune recommendation, I’m actually just getting into research on that now, so this will be super interesting.
As for your points on magic, I’m happy to offer what I can, though I haven’t fully begun my research on this topic yet.
Overall, I find these points to be leaning towards a preference for hard magic systems, which is totally fine. But there’s a definite value in soft systems. I think it all goes back to whether you’re viewing magic as a tool (sort of goeteian) or as a force (more magia).
Trying to use soft magic as a tool, in the same way that you would use a hard magic system would indeed be difficult. Its flexibility has become a problem. It’s like the sonic screwdriver from Dr Who, where it can be used to do pretty much anything, and it sucks some of the air out of the sails of the story. Unpredictability also becomes a negative trait in this use case. If you had a hammer that sometimes hammered nails in, and sometimes opened up dangerous rift in the space time continuum, most folks would switch from a hammer to a nail-gun. Et cetera et cetera.
I think soft magic flourishes when it is viewed not as a tool, but as an external force. It’s something users can tap into, can try and wield in their favor, but it is ultimately not something that can or should be used, in the way that a hard magic system could.
Maybe it comes down to language. The very phrase “soft magic system” implies that there must be a system, a level of scrutiny that soft magic simply does not always hold up to. In order to give soft magic its due, I think you have to take it out of the soft/hard binary entirely, and view it by its own merit, as a force or an energy or even a character in itself that defies systemization by definition.
I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but I hope it helps a bit! Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Thank you so, so much and I hope you enjoy the book! I believe that there was an interview where Sylvester McCoy said that the modern Doctors rely on the sonic too often and I totally get where he's coming from because the 7th Doctor was well-known for outsmarting and out-maneuvering his enemies. I've found that magic systems like the kind in Tamsyn Muir's Locked Tomb series sit best with me because the rules organically evolved as she was developing the story and had to figure out what would most greatly affect the characters. She didn't create the system first and then force the emotional beats to conform to those rules because the story and characters come first. Not to mention that just about every Miyazaki film captures a sense of wonder without getting bogged down by nitty gritty details. Magic should be fun and not overly complicated.
You should read Keith Thomas's book "Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England"
Covers this topic in great detail.
Another great parallel of Tolkien's magic, in the early ages magic was interwoven with twilight and rituals, and became almost simpler over time, alluding to how the great things waned over ages into less sacred and more mundane.
An study of mysticism and metaphysics would be beneficial for your approach to these matters, Jess. In the end, Mr. Tolkien was as much mystic and metaphysician as he was anything else, I will suggest. Certainly, I know of no instance when he claimed such a perspective openly, but I am suggesting that it is woven into his work in a subtle manner, which is typical in the attempt to express the ineffable through our normal material means of communication. Myth and metaphor, symbolic representation, poetic allusion ... these are among the ways and manner available to us to communicate our experience of that which cannot be compassed and bounded by material manifestation. All the good fortune possible go with you in this type of study, as, and if you take it up. It is not for the faint hearted, but is rewarding and fulfilling beyond anything else which may be experience, I will humbly offer from my own life's path. Thank you again for your interesting commentary. It is a pleasure to follow along. Onward.
I'm very interested in the place of animism in the magic of Middle Earth. It's extremely blatant in Narnia, with its dryads and literally anthropomorphized rivers. Middle Earth has its wicked trees and ornery mountains and playful, but dangerous, rivers.
YES! feel the spice flowing into you, rising within you, soon it will be YOU!!!
Thank you for the lovely sense of wonder you imbue in all of your videos videos.
As someone who is trying to finish an epic fantasy novel myself at the moment, I can say that magic is quite a tricky thing today, in the era of Brandon Sanderson. I, too, try to capture that sense of magic-is-the-core-of-the-world, that Tolkien did so masterfully, but it is really hard and I'm still trying to figure out how he did it. in my world, there are multiple types of magic that you can use depending on your species. However, the highest and purest form of magic is in the heart of all things and for humans (who are non-magical beings) it is only reachable through art. As you said, I think we as authors should sometimes not view magic as a system but as a part of the world that consistently appears in the story. However, this is very hard, because since Brandon Sanderson, magic is generally looked at with a very critical eye. In that sense, I'm really looking forward to your video on magic systems. It is always a pleasure to watch you, and great video as always.
btw, sorry for my English. I'm German.
1. Here's a monologue that @donnycates wrote for Loki in his run on Doctor Strange:
"I've been thinking about this for some time now. This business about magic always having some sort of 'cost'. Some sort of 'price'. It's quite silly, is it not? I think it's time we reexamine the rules a bit, yes? I am not now, nor have I ever been fond of 'the rules'. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think that you fair witches and warlocks should have the freedom to go about your duties without killing rodents and vomiting everywhere, don't you? I mean, honestly. Magic by its very nature is the antithesis of 'rules', yes? The 'rules' say that there's no rabbit in the hat. And yet poof! Here is a rabbit! So, where am I going with this? How about no more rules. How about no more 'price'".
2. Earlier I was chatting in the comments section with Jess about the points laid out on magic systems in On Writing and Worldbuilding volumes I-III by Timothy Hickson and she offered the following advice on regarding them:
Overall, I find these points to be leaning towards a preference for hard magic systems, which is totally fine. But there’s a definite value in soft systems. I think it all goes back to whether you’re viewing magic as a tool (sort of goeteian) or as a force (more magia). Trying to use soft magic as a tool, in the same way that you would use a hard magic system would indeed be difficult. Its flexibility has become a problem. It’s like the sonic screwdriver from Dr Who, where it can be used to do pretty much anything, and it sucks some of the air out of the sails of the story. Unpredictability also becomes a negative trait in this use case. If you had a hammer that sometimes hammered nails in, and sometimes opened up dangerous rift in the space time continuum, most folks would switch from a hammer to a nail-gun. Et cetera et cetera. I think soft magic flourishes when it is viewed not as a tool, but as an external force. It’s something users can tap into, can try and wield in their favor, but it is ultimately not something that can or should be used, in the way that a hard magic system could. Maybe it comes down to language. The very phrase “soft magic system” implies that there must be a system, a level of scrutiny that soft magic simply does not always hold up to. In order to give soft magic its due, I think you have to take it out of the soft/hard binary entirely, and view it by its own merit, as a force or an energy or even a character in itself that defies systemization by definition.
Actually, from what you are saying, I think Pixar's movie "Soul" may help...it shows what happens when a human, living thru their art, gets into the "zone", a place of transcendence where your spirit goes outside and beyond itself to a higher plane of consciousness.
And it's a damned fine movie too.
Very insightful and informative. There is a lot more to Lewis than meets the eye!
When the difference between magia and goeteia was described, I immediately went, "Oh, so Gandalf was magia and Saruman (especially) was goeteia." I then was immediately humbled by the correction that both can be good. (I frankly am not sure if I agree with Tolkien here; at the very least, I feel that goeteia has more of a risk than magia.)
Something I do think, though, is that most of what we see with Saruman in LotR is goeteia, with his Voice, as shown at the parley of Orthanc, being the clearest sign of magia.
I still remember my sheer delight reading the Silmarillion and realizing that the world was sung into creation, and then looking back at the Lord of the Rings how songs had power in the story.
Loved your shout out about Thom Merrilin and The Wheel of Time. I highly suggest finishing the series. Outside of Lord of the Rings it is easily my favorite fantasy series. As such, I'd love your take on it's magic system in your video.
Wonderful discussion of magic in Tolkien and Lewis. Thank you
My favourite magic of any fantasy world, that I'd love for you to cover: true names, in the Earthsea world.
Hey Jess,
Your videos are incredibly well done and super interesting! A Sam Gamgee book vs movie video would be awesome! And also the topic that Sam was the real hero of the story in Tolkin's own opinion would be a great video topic!
Steven Greydanus has an excellent article at Decent Films comparing the cautionary use of magic with Tolkein compared to us of magic in Harry Potter.
Excellent analysis as always Jess, Thank you.
Have you ever read The Earthsea Cycle? The magic system is really simple, but it is my favourite
From someone who loves Tolkien and his works, also a Christian myself but the Bible is full of magic. The supernatural is the corner stone of it and something that I personally believe in. I've experienced some paranormal events in my own life and they've happened with witnesses with me so that helps in getting somewhat outside validation on the experience rather than just my own. Reading Lord of the Rings does feel like reading a religious book and to me, it is.
Thank you. This was a wonderful and magical explanation!
If you are looking for other magic systems to explore I might suggest Arthurian magic, vis-a-vie Mary Stewart and Marion Zimmer Bradley.
What a fantastic and erudite exploration. Thank you for sharing it!
I wonder about how Treebeard would've thought about hobbit forests, farms, and orchards.
I just found your channel today! I love it!
This was a really cool video.
While it seems obvious to me that Tolkien understood the history of magic on a high level, he didn't explain it well. This topic is one of my areas of specialization so let me see if I can clarify somewhat.
The Latin term "magia" was associated with a Persian sect during the Roman era whose interest in selling talismans and using astrology became famous. They entered Roman marketplaces and prophesied and sold charms, but were imitated by locals-- often badly. This term is associated with the wise men (wizards) who brought gifts to the infant Jesus in the gospels. By 100AD, around the time of the writing of the gospels, they had become very controversial and it's no longer clear what their presence means in the gospels. This lead to an ambiguity-- are they supposed to be wonder-workers passing the torch to Jesus, or shady con men confessing their sins? The terms magus, magician, and wizard are interchangeable.
The Greek term "goes" and "goetia" was associated with a much less reputable practice of wonder-working. The original term probably comes from professional mourners who would be hired to beef up the wailing at funerals, but it later meant to describe people who conjured up the spirits of the dead to speak with the living. By the medieval period Catholicism insisted that only deceitful demons could be conjured, that ghosts were not real, and the spirits of the dead inhabited Heaven, Hell and Limbo exclusively. This is how the term necromancy transformed from something like a gruesome spin on mediumship to unambiguous demonic conjuration. By the time we see books like the Key of Solomon in the Renaissance, it's got nothing to do with ghosts and only demons granting miracles. The terms necromancer and goes are interchangeable, but sorcerer and witch are in the same category but with slight differences of emphasis. Sorcery included curses and not just demonic conjuration (though they were often thought to be associated) and was a form of learned magic, while witchcraft was generally thought to be taught by demons and not studied from books.
The main difference between magic and sorcery is that the latter was always criminal, even in Roman times; and the former was only prosecuted as fraud when it was believed to be such. Even Roman emperors feared sorcerous curses and evil spirits. Wizards were less threatening.
There is some evidence that in the earliest years of Christianity, Jesus was thought to be both Divine and a magician. In one of the earliest paintings of Jesus, he is seen holding what looks like a magic wand. On the other hand, Celsus in his anti-Christian writings condemns Jesus as a goes (sorcerer.) Similarly, Simon Magus was originally a rival of Jesus and not a sorcerer. Apollonius of Tyana was a magician whose miracles and asceticism were seen as so noble that he was propped up as a rival to Jesus by the Emperor Julian the Apostate.
In Roman times there were close to a dozen different terms for wonder-workers, each with a different ideology, origin, and specialization. You can read about this in Lucian's "Lover of Lies" aka the Philopseudes. As Christianity advanced to the Middle Ages these distilled themselves into two contrasting but overlapping concepts; magic versus sorcery.
By the medieval era sorcery had become all about spirits and exorcisms, but magic per se was often understood as "natural magic." Today that term often is associated with use of herbs and the like in Wicca, but this term was used to contrast with demonic magic AKA sorcery, and thus was permissible. Natural magic involved astrology, jewelry and gemstones and was thought to utilize hidden properties of nature which were gifts of God and basically indistinguishable from science, medicine and technology albeit in a medieval style.
These distinctions were made initially by St.Albertus Magnus, a Doctor of the Church, who practiced natural magic and even wrote a manual on it. He is surely yet another inspiration for Gandalf, as he was a great wandering wizard and was quite real. (He was the mentor of St.Thomas Aquinas who was much less cool about magic.)
During the medieval era magic was acceptable and sorcery was forbidden, but the Renaissance caused an unexpected switch. The condemnation of magic in Aquinas was taken seriously, and the Church increasingly condemned its practice. Much of this was Islamophobia because much of the literature on natural magic came from the Middle East. Sorcery such as in the Key of Solomon was based on the Rites of Exorcism and had an explicitly Christian character even though it summoned demons, and its users came to believe that this was safer for the soul. And this is why we have even more confusion on these distinctions today.
Merlin was originally a prophet and not a magician. You can find many English books of predictions attributed to Merlin, but very few books of spells. I believe that Merlin we know of today is a mix of him as a seer and the character of Nectanebus from the Alexander Romances, who is blatantly a magician. The Arthurian myths had a political dimension, and tried to spin England from a dirty former backwater of the Roman Empire to something full of mystery and wonder, so the legends became increasingly fanciful and weird. To our benefit.
When Tolkien calls Sauron the Necromancer, he's being playful about the ambiguity between the idea of ghost-conjuration and demon-conjuration. Sauron is the master of both ghostly creatures such as the Nazgul and the spirits of the Barrow-Wights who could conceivably be fallen Maiar merely pretending to be ghostly. Sauron also creates illusions about the dead in earlier ages. All of this is a nod to the belief that the dead are routinely impersonated by demons from medieval Catholic doctrine.
I wrote a blog post a while back on Tolkien and authentic lore about magical rings; it might be worth your time to skim. sorcerer.blog/2018/05/07/j-r-r-tolkiens-magic-ring/
You should be aware that some members of the Inklings definitely practiced magic, though not Tolkien. Charles Williams was an avid practitioner and an initiate of at least one esoteric Order, and there is growing evidence that C.S.Lewis was a member of a Christian esoteric order which practiced magic. His book "The Discarded Image" appears to be an introduction to medieval culture, but nearly every book referred to within it relates to the practice of magic. For someone who had little interested in practice, he had a very suspicious library. It's a speculation... but not without merit.
It was also very common in that era for practitioners of magic to denounce sorcery in public while practicing their flavor of magic in private. Arthur Edward Waite, who designed the modern style of tarot decks was the most prominent example of that. He was a member of the Golden Dawn who denounced sorcery later in life in public, while running a heavily Christianized Golden Dawn successor organization in private. This could have been what Charles Williams and C.S.Lewis were affiliated with.
Thank you for your work; please keep it going. I've been a fan for about a year.