The Deceits of the Enemy

[Jim Deutch]

When Frodo and Sam are invited to look in the Mirror of Galadriel, she
tells them

"For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do
not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same
words for the deceits of the enemy."

What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

On the Elvish magic side, we have the Mirror, the cloaks, the rope
(perhaps: I've always agreed with Sam that it untied itself on
command), the way Elvish swords glow when Orcs are nearby, and many
others. Sauron's magic is evident in the Silmarillion in several
places, but I can't think of anything at all in LotR except for the
Ring itself -- and that's nothing so very different from the Elvish
Rings -- and the Palantir, which is not Sauron's at all.

I am puzzled. There is magic associated with the Nazgul, but that is
Ring-based and again fails to qualify: it is Elven magic corrupted by
Sauron, not Sauron magic that is different in any fundamental way from
the Elven. What deceits is she talking about?

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

[Stan Brown]

Post by Jim Deutch
When Frodo and Sam are invited to look in the Mirror of Galadriel, she
tells them
"For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do
not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same
words for the deceits of the enemy."
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

[examples of non-Enemy "magic" snipped]

Jim, you raise an interesting point. I've always noted that line of
hers and nodded "Yes, I agree," but I see now I never really thought
about it.

As you say, there were examples in /Silm/, but the only one from
LotR I can think of is the corpses in the Dead Marshes, and I'm not
at all sure that was Sauron's doing.

[Jim Deutch]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:05:47 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Jim Deutch
When Frodo and Sam are invited to look in the Mirror of Galadriel, she
tells them
"For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do
not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same
words for the deceits of the enemy."
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

[examples of non-Enemy "magic" snipped]
As you say, there were examples in /Silm/, but the only one from
LotR I can think of is the corpses in the Dead Marshes, and I'm not
at all sure that was Sauron's doing.

I have never believed the corpse-lights were Sauron's doing, though
the ghostly images probably did deceive Gollum (Sam believed that he
had tried to reach them to see if they were edible - yuck!). As far
as I can remember, there were no Orc-lights in the marshes, only Elves
(and Men?). In my first readings of LotR, I suspected that the Elven
souls had been trapped there by some magic of the Enemy, but once I
discovered JRRT's concept of Elven fëar and their journey to Mandos,
that notion became unsupportable.

But what they actually are, I have no idea. If Elven "art", then why?
If deceit of the Enemy, again, why (and for who)? They seem to have
no purpose, except to make for a cool scene in the book <g>.

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

[Coinneach Odhar]

Użytkownik "Jim Deutch" <***@compuserve.com> oznajmił spokojnie,
choć można było wyczytać już zapowiedź nadciągającej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

[Tanner Williams]

choæ mo¿na by³o wyczytaæ ju¿ zapowiedŒ nadci±gaj±cej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

IMO Sauron doesn't get to show his "magical ability" because he isn't shown
in the saga. It's not Tolkien not giving examples it him not giving us
Sauron.

Tolkien likes to make "magic" a sort of human term which incorporates the
sorcery of evil things and technology of elves. Its a term used because it
incorporates a lot of mysterious things which humans do not understand. I
have no doubt that electricity and atomic weaponry would fall under magic in
the realm of tolkien if a character like Frodo or other mortal race saw it.

That being said I think we have examples of Mordor magic with Nazguls and
other creatures not associated with the rings and their uses. First the
Witch King IS referred to as a sorceror just as Sauron as a necromancer,
both appellations suggesting some form of arcane spell casting ability. But
if you wish specific examples of either, well for the Witch King he DOES
cast a spell in ROTK. When the grond (i cant remember if thats spelling)
strikes the walls of minis tirith he must speak some words of power. We can
take this for a spell for simple reason that its how Gandalf casts magical
spells. The Balrog, though i do not believe words are spoken, does
specifically cast a spell according to gandalf. Both to are the same type of
being as Sauron thus one may infer he does similar powers in similar ways.
The mouth of Sauron also we is told he learns magic and by it extends his
life. Both he and the witch king one could assume, are using powers which
sauron must also hold, or else they might use different magic entirely.
since while Witch King may have his own abilities, he probably learned
something from Sauron after his fall just as the Mouth of Sauron did. So I
think though Sauron is shown no power himself in saga, every magical beings
acts can be seen as an extension of what type of power he must also possess.
The fact that he is so much more powerful is perhaps the reason we do not
see it. We are to assume that it is just that much greater.

Since Magic is drawn from the Melkor element in the world one could argue it
is inherently evil, a sort of gnostic material taint. So i suppose you could
argue that there is some inherent corruption in any form of magic, even
elven, though you could also say that simply because it comes from Melkor,
if its Melkor in the beginning, it does not mean its evil. I think the fact
that Gandalf is able to use powers to have an affect on the world may
suggest that its not so much him drawing on Melkor element as some power
within himself. Same with elves. But because his words are spoken in
different mortal langagues it could also suggest it IS drawing on melkor
power. So i think this is something that could be said either way, I think
we have to assume its ones intent that matters in the magic at hand.

Wow i rambled a bit, sorry hehe

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Tanner Williams
Tolkien likes to make "magic" a sort of human term which incorporates the
sorcery of evil things and technology of elves. Its a term used because it
incorporates a lot of mysterious things which humans do not understand. I
have no doubt that electricity and atomic weaponry would fall under magic in
the realm of tolkien if a character like Frodo or other mortal race saw it.
That being said I think we have examples of Mordor magic with Nazguls and
other creatures not associated with the rings and their uses. First the
Witch King IS referred to as a sorceror just as Sauron as a necromancer,

I wonder where Isildur got the power to caste a curse on the guys from the
Army of the Dead.

[Dorte Schuenecke]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
I wonder where Isildur got the power to caste a curse on the guys from the
Army of the Dead.

They cursed themselves, IIRC. They broke their oath, and oaths are
pretty important in Middle-Earth as Feanor had to learn the hard way.
Don't hit me when I'm wrong, I haven't read ROTK for 3 years (but I'm at
TTT and I'll be there soon..)
- Dorte

[Georg Schönegger]

Post by Tanner Williams
Since Magic is drawn from the Melkor element in the world one could argue it
is inherently evil, a sort of gnostic material taint.

?? where does that come from ??
is there a passage you can cite?

georg

[s***@nomail.com]

Georg Schönegger <***@aon.at> wrote:
:>
:> Since Magic is drawn from the Melkor element in the world one could argue it
:> is inherently evil, a sort of gnostic material taint.

: ?? where does that come from ??
: is there a passage you can cite?

: georg

It is from "Morgoth's Ring" Volume X of the History of Middle Earth,
from the essay in "Myths Transformed" that gives the volume its name.

"Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He
did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' of physical
matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it.
A vaster, more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to
the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside of the
Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient',
and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it
were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none
of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies
had an effect upon their spirits."

"Moreover, the final eradication of Sauron (as a power directing
evil) was achievable by the destruction of the Ring. No such
eradication of Morgoth was possible, since this required the
complete disintegration of the 'matter' of Arda. Sauron's power
was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a particular form
or shape made of a particular portion of total gold. Morgoth's
power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute (for
he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent. (It was this
Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for
such 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.)"

Stephen

[Georg Schönegger]

Post by s***@nomail.com
:>
:> Since Magic is drawn from the Melkor element in the world one could argue it
:> is inherently evil, a sort of gnostic material taint.
: ?? where does that come from ??
: is there a passage you can cite?
: georg
It is from "Morgoth's Ring" Volume X of the History of Middle Earth,
from the essay in "Myths Transformed" that gives the volume its name.
"Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He
did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' of physical
matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it.
A vaster, more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to
the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside of the
Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient',
and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it
were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none
of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies
had an effect upon their spirits."
"Moreover, the final eradication of Sauron (as a power directing
evil) was achievable by the destruction of the Ring. No such
eradication of Morgoth was possible, since this required the
complete disintegration of the 'matter' of Arda. Sauron's power
was not (for example) in gold as such, but in a particular form
or shape made of a particular portion of total gold. Morgoth's
power was disseminated throughout Gold, if nowhere absolute (for
he did not create Gold) it was nowhere absent. (It was this
Morgoth-element in matter, indeed, which was a prerequisite for
such 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised with it and upon it.)"
Stephen

but this does relate to:
- 'magic' and other evils as Sauron practised -

the paragraph states that there was a morgoth-element in matter (maybe
similar to the original sin in catholicism), influencing, explicitely,
the body:
- and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits -
which reads (for me) that the spirits as such are free from any such
'morgoth ingredients'. that all magic should be 'drawn from the melkor
element' seem a bit farfetched.

georg

[Stan Brown]

Post by Tanner Williams
That being said I think we have examples of Mordor magic with Nazguls and
other creatures not associated with the rings and their uses.

Yes, we do. But those were all real effects. The question is, what
did Galadriel mean by "the _deceits_ of the Enemy" as looking
magical to mortals?

[The American]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Tanner Williams
That being said I think we have examples of Mordor magic with Nazguls and
other creatures not associated with the rings and their uses.

Yes, we do. But those were all real effects. The question is, what
did Galadriel mean by "the _deceits_ of the Enemy" as looking
magical to mortals?

Anything unusually lucky or any good fortune that happens upon your enemy
can be said to be magical to save face or reputation.
If your enemy gets the upper hand you can always say that they used magic
against you.
Galadriel could be talking about the comments made by mortals through the
Ages in this regard.
Also any technology that is unfamiliar can be said to be magical.
If this tech is used in such a way to trick a foe then it could be called
using magic.
Some sort of battlefield strategy.
Maybe she knew about Saruman's gunpowder too.

I think Galadriel was using this term very broadly with no specifics in
mind.
imho.

T.A.

[Stan Brown]

Post by The American
Galadriel could be talking about the comments made by mortals through the
Ages in this regard.
Also any technology that is unfamiliar can be said to be magical.
If this tech is used in such a way to trick a foe then it could be called
using magic.
Some sort of battlefield strategy.
Maybe she knew about Saruman's gunpowder too.
I think Galadriel was using this term very broadly with no specifics in
mind.

I agree that all of those look like tricks in the sense of clever
stratagems that most people can't duplicate. But she didn't call
them tricks, she called them deceits. It just doesn't seem the right
word for those examples. A deceit is something that is different
from what it appears. Saruman's gunpowder was _exactly_ what it
appeared.

[R Dan Henry]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:05:38 -0400, in a fit of madness Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Tanner Williams
That being said I think we have examples of Mordor magic with Nazguls and
other creatures not associated with the rings and their uses.

Yes, we do. But those were all real effects. The question is, what
did Galadriel mean by "the _deceits_ of the Enemy" as looking
magical to mortals?

Well, it has recently been discovered that two of the Nazgul were named
"Penn" and "Teller". There's also the early drafts where the Witch-King
asks Gandalf to "pick a card" during their confrontation at Minas
Tirith. And then there's Sauron's odd publicity campaign to convince
everyone he's a giant eye.

(Serious response to thread in another post.)

R. Dan Henry (***@inreach.com)
"He stood up, and seemed suddenly to grow taller."
- JRRT, LOTR, I.10 "Strider"
Yeah, standing up will do that.

[R Dan Henry]

[I thought out new thoughts as I wrote this, so if it seems I change my
mind in the middle, I suppose I did.]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:25:10 GMT, in a fit of madness "Tanner Williams"

Post by Tanner Williams
That being said I think we have examples of Mordor magic with Nazguls and
other creatures not associated with the rings and their uses. First the
Witch King IS referred to as a sorceror just as Sauron as a necromancer,
both appellations suggesting some form of arcane spell casting ability. But
if you wish specific examples of either, well for the Witch King he DOES
cast a spell in ROTK.

Earlier than that. I cannot call his breaking of Frodo's sword at the
Ford anything but a spell. But when it comes to deceits, well they tempt
Frodo to wear the Ring (if this had failed, the assault at Weathertop
would have been more difficult -- rather than hiding him, the Ring
exposes him to the Ringwraiths) and their aura of fear may be called a
deceit.

I think that the destruction of blades that touch the Witch-King is a
personal spell, rather than wraith-nature. Aragorn speaks of it as a
property of "that dread King" rather than of the Nazgul in general.

And for all that Sauron learned from the Elves, they learned from him.
The Rings of Power, even the Three, were based on a combined knowledge
that suggests Galadriel's division between Elven and Sauronic power is
not so neat as she would have it.

Post by Tanner Williams
Since Magic is drawn from the Melkor element in the world one could argue it
is inherently evil, a sort of gnostic material taint. So i suppose you could
argue that there is some inherent corruption in any form of magic, even
elven, though you could also say that simply because it comes from Melkor,
if its Melkor in the beginning, it does not mean its evil.

Well, reading this, perhaps I see Galadriel's point. I believe Elven
magic draws on the native powers of the Elves alone, although the making
of the Rings may have involved some (unrecognized) tapping of the
Morgothian taint. Sauron's own power would be no different from this,
but the Nazgul, the Mouth of Sauron, and all those others who have
practiced dark arts are drawing on this Melkor element and while it
promises much, it is damning. *That* could be the deceit she is speaking
of -- promising gain, but giving loss, like the Lord of Gifts.

Yes, I think as a serious attempt at interpretation, that's what I must
settle on for now: the "magic" on Sauron's side is mostly tapping into
Melkor's power, a "deceit" because it is full of false promise. It
offers power, but it leads to slavery.

R. Dan Henry (***@inreach.com)
"He stood up, and seemed suddenly to grow taller."
- JRRT, LOTR, I.10 "Strider"
Yeah, standing up will do that.

[Ancalagon The Black]

Post by R Dan Henry
Earlier than that. I cannot call his breaking of Frodo's sword at the
Ford anything but a spell. But when it comes to deceits, well they tempt
Frodo to wear the Ring (if this had failed, the assault at Weathertop
would have been more difficult -- rather than hiding him, the Ring
exposes him to the Ringwraiths) and their aura of fear may be called a
deceit.

I'm not sure if the aura of fear wrapped around the Nazgul is a deceit as such,
since the same fear was projected by the Dead Men of Dunharrow, and also by the
wraith of Helm Hammerhand. True enough, both Helm and the Dead Host were truly
*dead*, and the Nazgul were not, but the Nazgul were long past the point of
death, so perhaps they would project this visceral fear anyway.

This fear seems to be a property of the wraiths of mortal Men - neither Elves
nor Dwarves seem to project it, although Dwarves seem to be as badly affected
by it as living Men are.

Post by R Dan Henry
I think that the destruction of blades that touch the Witch-King is a
personal spell, rather than wraith-nature. Aragorn speaks of it as a
property of "that dread King" rather than of the Nazgul in general.

Yes, alone of the Nazgul, the Witch King seems to be a sorceror.

Best,

[Conrad Dunkerson]

Post by Ancalagon The Black
Yes, alone of the Nazgul, the Witch King seems to be a sorceror.

"Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty
in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."
Silm, Of the Rings of Power

[Ancalagon The Black]

Post by Conrad Dunkerson
"Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty
in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."
Silm, Of the Rings of Power

My mistake. My post was based on the fact that alone of the Nazgul, the Witch
King seems to be singled out for his "achievements". Apart from a lack of
writing on Tolkien's part, is there a story-internal reason why there was so
little known about the Nazgul as a whole and/or as individuals?

Best,

[Stan Brown]

Post by Ancalagon The Black

Post by Conrad Dunkerson
"Men proved easier to ensnare. Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty
in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old."
Silm, Of the Rings of Power

My mistake. My post was based on the fact that alone of the Nazgul, the Witch
King seems to be singled out for his "achievements". Apart from a lack of
writing on Tolkien's part, is there a story-internal reason why there was so
little known about the Nazgul as a whole and/or as individuals?

Because I think they were not meant to be individuals. They were
like faceless bureaucrats to the Nth degree, (_literally_ faceless,
in fact), completely subservient to Sauron's will and with hardly
any identity of their own. In fact, most of them had hardly any
_will_ of their own: remember how they could not bear to cross
running water, and how even a piece of wood with fire on one end
repelled them, despite their having blades and outnumbering the
seasoned fighters at Weathertop by five to one?

Sauron discouraged any individuality among his upper servants; I
think it's no accident that the Mouth had forgotten his name. And
the Nazgul had been Sauron's servants for thousands of years longer.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[about the Nazgul]

Post by Stan Brown
Because I think they were not meant to be individuals. They were
like faceless bureaucrats to the Nth degree

Shouldn't that be 9th degree?

<ducks>

[Ancalagon The Black]

Post by Stan Brown
Sauron discouraged any individuality among his upper servants; I
think it's no accident that the Mouth had forgotten his name. And
the Nazgul had been Sauron's servants for thousands of years longer.

This is an interesting point. What did the Mouth Of Sauron have that the Witch
King didn't? In other words, why wasn't the Witch King, ostensibly Sauron's
most powerful servant, made his lieutenant?

Best,

[Martin Farrent]

Post by Ancalagon The Black
This is an interesting point. What did the Mouth Of Sauron have that the Witch
King didn't? In other words, why wasn't the Witch King, ostensibly Sauron's
most powerful servant, made his lieutenant?

The Mouth was "Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr", not of Sauron himself.

Best,

Martin

[s***@nomail.com]

Stan Brown <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:
: In fact, most of them had hardly any
: _will_ of their own: remember how they could not bear to cross
: running water, and how even a piece of wood with fire on one end
: repelled them, despite their having blades and outnumbering the
: seasoned fighters at Weathertop by five to one?

How does a lack of personal will have anything to do with a fear
of fire or water?

Stephen

[Stan Brown]

choc mozna bylo wyczytac juz zapowiedz nadciagajacej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

But in "The Last Debate" Gandalf said there was no doubt that
Denethor saw "that which truly is". Sauron could force Denethor to
see what Sauron wanted, but could not make the Palantír lie. "The
Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dûr can
make them do so."

[the softrat]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:04:17 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

choc mozna bylo wyczytac juz zapowiedz nadciagajacej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

But in "The Last Debate" Gandalf said there was no doubt that
Denethor saw "that which truly is". Sauron could force Denethor to
see what Sauron wanted, but could not make the Palantír lie. "The
Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dûr can
make them do so."

However there is such a thing as 'selective editing'.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
If someone annoys you, it takes 42 muscles to frown, but it only
takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and whack them in the head.

[AC]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:21:27 -0700,

Post by the softrat
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:04:17 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

choc mozna bylo wyczytac juz zapowiedz nadciagajacej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

But in "The Last Debate" Gandalf said there was no doubt that
Denethor saw "that which truly is". Sauron could force Denethor to
see what Sauron wanted, but could not make the Palantír lie. "The
Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dûr can
make them do so."

However there is such a thing as 'selective editing'.

The Free Peoples were, to be blunt, utterly screwed. They had absolutely no
chance of resisting Sauron by force.

[Gary E. Masters]

Post by AC
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:21:27 -0700,

Post by the softrat
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:04:17 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

choc mozna bylo wyczytac juz zapowiedz nadciagajacej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

But in "The Last Debate" Gandalf said there was no doubt that
Denethor saw "that which truly is". Sauron could force Denethor to
see what Sauron wanted, but could not make the Palantír lie. "The
Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dûr can
make them do so."

However there is such a thing as 'selective editing'.

The Free Peoples were, to be blunt, utterly screwed. They had absolutely no
chance of resisting Sauron by force.

Such an interesting quetion. As I read that, I thought of all the
contacts between men and Sauron's forces in the Northern lands since
the ring was lost; the Witch King, the battles of Gandalf and all that
the Hobbits would have known about had they been educated by the
Elves. Really, this was a lead that Tolkien never followed up on.
Had he done so, it could have been a longer and better story.

[mark edelstein]

choc mozna bylo wyczytac juz zapowiedz nadciagajacej

Post by Jim Deutch
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

It could be a broader statement-Elvish "magic" seeks to create a
certain kind of order and the magic of Sauron also seeks to create
order-order that Sauron often conciously tried (on his "best" days) to
echo or mirror the order of the Elves.

Tolkien also notes (outside of LoTR) that these two kinds of order are
less far apart then they might seem-one reason why the Noldor could be
tempted. Perhpas it is this perception that made Galadriel (and
Gil-galad too) reject the offers of Sauron in the Second age, as there
is, AFAIK, no given explanation why neither treated with him.

[Coinneach Odhar]

"Stan Brown" <***@fastmail.fm> rzekł spokojnie, choć można
było wyczytać już zapowiedź nadciągającej

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Coinneach Odhar
Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

But in "The Last Debate" Gandalf said there was no doubt that
Denethor saw "that which truly is". Sauron could force Denethor to
see what Sauron wanted, but could not make the Palantír lie. "The
Stones of Seeing do not lie, and not even the Lord of Barad-dűr can
make them do so."

But see the next sentence after that one... This is deceit, manipulation
or whatever you name it, isn't it?

[Stan Brown]

[cc'd to previous poster; follow-ups in newsgroup suggested]

bylo wyczytac juz zapowiedz nadciagajacej

Post by Coinneach Odhar
Visions in palantiri for example. Sauron was able to control what
Denethor could see. I would call it "deceit".

I did not write these words that you attribute to me, and in fact I
disagree with them rather strongly. I quoted them in my article for
the specific purpose of posting a LotR quote that disagrees with
them.

I assume you did this through carelessness, but please be more
careful with attributions.

[Stan Brown]

"Coinneach Odhar" <***@maupa.wp.pl> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
[snip]

I tried to e-mail you about your misquoting me, but the e-mail
bounced.

If you're going to use an invalid e-mail address, please follow
standards and put ".invalid" at the end of it.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Conrad Dunkerson]

Post by Jim Deutch
"For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do
not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same
words for the deceits of the enemy."
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

"But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there
is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between
`magia' and `goeteia'. Galadriel speaks of the `deceits of the Enemy'.
Well, enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad.
Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or
purpose of use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The
supremely bad motive is domination of other `free wills'. The Enemy's
operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but `magic' that produces
real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both
people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia
the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results
(like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic
effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never
deceive the Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the
difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction,
painting, and sculpture, and `life'.
Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who
have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil
effects - because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use
magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for
magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would
work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a
minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap betweeen the idea or desire and the
result or effect."
Letters #155

As to 'precisely'... consider all the times Frodo was impelled to think that
he should put on the Ring when that was the worst thing to do, or 'verily I
come' when he was trying to resist. Or the first age incidents with
servants of Morgoth impersonating elves and Morgoth himself putting
poisonous thoughts into the minds of others. Trickery and illusion of all
kinds. We don't see alot of it in LotR itself (and most of that is done by
the 'good guys'), but it shows up from time to time in the stories.

[Jim Deutch]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:27:53 GMT, "Conrad Dunkerson"

Post by Conrad Dunkerson
the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results
(like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic
effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never
deceive the Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the
difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction,
painting, and sculpture, and `life'.
Letters #155

Ah, so Galadriel is making a distinction based on _intent_. Though
both Elvish and Sauronic magic can deceive Men, the Elves didn't do so
on purpose.

Post by Conrad Dunkerson
As to 'precisely'... consider all the times Frodo was impelled to think that
he should put on the Ring when that was the worst thing to do, or 'verily I
come' when he was trying to resist. Or the first age incidents with

Yes, that would be a good example. Thanks, Conrad, that does clear up
the question significantly in my mind.

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

[Ancalagon The Black]

Post by Jim Deutch
Ah, so Galadriel is making a distinction based on _intent_. Though
both Elvish and Sauronic magic can deceive Men, the Elves didn't do so
on purpose.

One thing that I'd like to pick up on here. Both sides in Tolkien's world use
spells (a.k.a. magic) for various purposes, with various intents. However, has
anyone noticed that good guys are known as "conjurors" and "magicians", while
bad guys are known as "sorcerors"?

Galadriel was named as a "Sorceress" by Eomer, but that was only out of
ignorance. However, the Witch-King and the Mouth Of Sauron are both clearly
labelled as "sorcerors", while Gandalf and (to a lesser extent) Saruman are
not. Why does this distinction exist?

Best,

[Conrad Dunkerson]

However, has anyone noticed that good guys are known as "conjurors"
and "magicians", while bad guys are known as "sorcerors"?
Galadriel was named as a "Sorceress" by Eomer, but that was only
out of ignorance. However, the Witch-King and the Mouth Of Sauron
are both clearly labelled as "sorcerors", while Gandalf and (to a lesser
extent) Saruman are not. Why does this distinction exist?

Precisely to draw the distinction?

Only the Istari are ever called 'Wizards' because Tolkien intended it to
convey a specific meaning... Wizard comes from the same root as 'wise'.
Essentially it means 'wise one'... which is also what Istari means... and
what they were called in English (or 'translated Westron'), 'the Wise'. The
term 'sorcerer' has rather darker connotations in the English language and
therefor frequently got applied to the enemies.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Ancalagon The Black
However, has
anyone noticed that good guys are known as "conjurors" and "magicians", while
bad guys are known as "sorcerors"?
Why does this distinction exist?

I've always used the words in just that way, independent of Tolkien.
A "conjuror" is a performer, an entertainer. Describing Gandalf as
one was Bilbo's ignorance, since Gandalf didn't work by sleight of
hand but actually created the effects. A "magician" is someone who
works magic, and a "sorcerer" is someone who works magic for
purposes ranging from less than pure to downright evil.

Look at "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and Gilbert & Sullivan's "The
Sorcerer", for instance.

[Odysseus]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Ancalagon The Black
However, has
anyone noticed that good guys are known as "conjurors" and "magicians", while
bad guys are known as "sorcerors"?
Why does this distinction exist?

I've always used the words in just that way, independent of Tolkien.
A "conjuror" is a performer, an entertainer. Describing Gandalf as
one was Bilbo's ignorance, since Gandalf didn't work by sleight of
hand but actually created the effects. A "magician" is someone who
works magic, and a "sorcerer" is someone who works magic for
purposes ranging from less than pure to downright evil.

Several terms concerning magic encompass the 'wizard' and 'performer'
meanings both. While I agree that the dominant sense of "conjuror" is
as you describe, one can also be said to "conjure spirits" -- while I
doubt Tolkien envisioned Gandalf's fire-magic in this way, such
effects might be attributed to the conjuration of salamanders, i.e.
fire-elementals, in certain magical systems.

The Tarot trump usually called "The Magician" is called "The Juggler"
in some decks -- cf. the scope of the Greek word _goeteia_. The term
"mentalist" implies the use of telepathy, but such "mind-reading" is
part of the stock-in-trade of stage-magicians. "Sorceror" and
"necromancer" are among the terms whose connotations are pretty much
confined to the field of 'occult' activities.

[Jim Deutch]

Post by Jim Deutch
Ah, so Galadriel is making a distinction based on _intent_. Though
both Elvish and Sauronic magic can deceive Men, the Elves didn't do so
on purpose.

I've had another thought on this, prompted by The Grubb's mention in
another thread. What about the "feigned voices" that the Elves of
Lorien used to lure the band of Orcs, chasing the Fellowship, to their
doom? Wasn't that a deliberate deceit? Could it have been merely a
vertriloquist's/impressionist's skill, rather than any kind of
"magic"? How do you tell the difference?

Seems to me this is an example of magic as "deceits of the Elves".

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Jim Deutch
When Frodo and Sam are invited to look in the Mirror of Galadriel, she
tells them
"For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do
not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same
words for the deceits of the enemy."
What deceits, precisely, is she talking about???

How about the Ring when it deceives people into thinking that they can
be mighty Kings (Boromir) and mighty, er, Gardeners (Samwise)? And how
about Saruman's deceitful use of his voice in the 'Voice of Saruman'
chapter. These are examples of deception, but not really relevant to
what Galadriel is talking about.

It is confusing precisely because we _do_ give the same name to 'magic'
of Sauron and his servants and the 'magic' of the good guys. Tolkien was
_trying_ to make a distinction between them, best explained in Letter
155 that Conrad quoted.

But the fact that we find it difficult to understand just confirms
Galadriel's original statement!

Christopher

[Jim Deutch]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 23:31:05 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
But the fact that we find it difficult to understand just confirms
Galadriel's original statement!

<g>

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

[Paul Bolton]

Post by Jim Deutch
I am puzzled. There is magic associated with the Nazgul, but that is
Ring-based and again fails to qualify: it is Elven magic corrupted by
Sauron, not Sauron magic that is different in any fundamental way from
the Elven. What deceits is she talking about?

I think what is implied is that magic derived from Morgoth and his devices
and works is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, whereas the elves use magic
which is within the scheme of Eru.