URGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHH
Off I go. People's ignorance makes me really angry. No one seems to understand the �magic� usage in Lord of the Rings. Some Christian circles claim its evil. Some secular circles laugh at Christians who accept Lord of the Rings and reject Harry Potter because both use magic.
BOTH ARE VERY WRONG.
The �magic� in Tolkien�s universe was vastly different than ordinary fantasy magic. Basically, his interpretation of magic is more like advanced technology. The elves and the maia understood more about science, physics, elemental properties, and knew how to rearrange things within the bounds of possibility. This is supposed to be stuff anyone could do if they understood the world better. They aren�t drawing off of any strange supernatural powers, they aren�t doing impossible things. They aren�t messing with the fabric of the universe. The elves were more like scientists than magicians. It�s all very reasonable.
Or at least, that�s how I�ve understood it. �Miracles� by C.S. Lewis, illustrates this concept. Not of magic, but of the universe and his theories on how the world and its �laws� work. I think it�s probable that since Lewis and Tolkien were friends, they bounced this idea between the two of them. And so the theory manifested itself in the possibilities of �magic� from Tolkien.
You can find traces of traditional magic in his books, but always used by the dark forces.
One other point I should mention, are the differences between elves and men, and the difference between Gandalf and almost everyone else in Middle Earth. Elves had inherent powers men didn�t. Thusly, they could do things men could not. And men were awed by this, and the lesser ones who didn�t understand, called it magic. Gandalf was a maia, which essentially means, that he was a divine being, an angel. He had even more inherent powers than the elves did. He could do things neither race could, because of who he was.
(Note: Inherent powers are also in Harry Potter. The title character himself has a lot of inherent powers. In fact, all of the witches and wizards in Harry Potter have inherent powers which distinguish them from Muggles (ordinary, non-magic practicing people) which allow them to practice magic.)
Tolkien was inventive with his �magic�, and recreated it in an original, more plausible manner. It�s not evil in his context at all. It�s almost science.
Whereas J.K. Rowling drew off trite clich�s to compound her methods of magic. That�s why I dislike J.K. Rowling. I really don�t think her books are evil and that one should steer clear of them because they are �occult�. I just don�t think she was extremely original. Sure, I suppose her work has merits of originality, but after I watched the first two movies a couple times (which I hear are very very close to the book), I realized the core essentials of her story are basic and trite. These are suspense mystery stories after the fashion of Nancy Drew or The Hardy Boys*, with the fantasy twist. So sure, that�s a neat idea and hasn�t been done before, and they�re not bad books, but I think there is a lot more much better fantasy out there. Maybe it�s fairly good children�s fantasy literature. I�d even allow that. But once you get to a certain level of maturity, I think you can do far far better than Harry Potter. It�s not great, inventive literature. It�s sugary sweet children�s fare.
Maybe I�m wrong. Maybe I should read all the books and make a verdict on Harry Potter again. I�d do that. I�m not going to argue with a hardcore HP fan over these essentials, because obviously they know more than I do. But I won�t concede to them all the way. I want to make firm judgments for myself.
In any case, I do think I know enough to make a clear distinction between Tolkien�s magic and Rowling�s magic. They are extremely different. They�re incomparable. Tolkien has stone doors opening, river waves in semblances of horses�and what else I can�t remember. Not much. Rowling has domestic animals turning into wine goblets, floating candles, self moving staircases, flying broomsticks, magic wands, traditional potions, and so much more. The same? I think not.
I'm sure I could make this more in depth and complicated, but really, who wants to know that much? Bah.
And that is the obligatory rant from the ever skeptical and reasonable Tolkien fangirl geek.
*Here�s a piece of random trivia I bet no one knew: I read a lot of Nancy Drew, Bobbsey Twins, and Boxcar Children mystery series when I was little. I had about 16 Nancy Drew books, and two dozen Bobbsey Twins and two dozen Boxcar Children books.
That�s not near all I read either. I started reading 3rd and 4th grade chapter books in 2nd grade. So I took in a lot. During my childhood, I read: British children�s classics (Lousia May Alcott, Frances Hodgson Burnett), Beverly Cleary (Ramona was awesome), Judy Blume (Fudge! I remember the tv show too�I used to watch it), Laura Ingalls Wilder (I was a hardcore Laura fan), the American Girls series, Mrs. Piggle Wiggle, and slews of scattered other writers. Other literature includes some Road Dahl (James and the Giant Peach and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), E.L. Koingsburg, Madeline L�Engle nigh the end of my childhood, lots of �award winning� authors (don�t ask me who now�I remember reading Stuart Little, The Trumpet of the Swan and Charlotte�s Web, but the author slips my mind) and lots of required school reading.
The blemish of my reading: I read the Babysitters Club books. I read almost the entire series in one week during winter vacation when I had nothing else to read. My cousin, who was only 5 months older than me, outgrew them and passed them down to me. Which was goofy, because I was a bigger, more mature reader than she was, and the age difference was scarce. They didn�t really know that though. Anyway, I was very bored, so I read. And I did minimally enjoy them�Not that I�d want to go back and read them today�
I am proud to say, that through my parent�s efforts, I never read a trashy horror book. Goosebumps�I remember when those were the height of popularity. Not one ever passed through my hands. I never ever read a Goosebumps book. I regretted not being in on that trend when it came through, but now, I�m very glad that I was never inundated into that mindless cycle. I went for better books�
I always want to help. I don�t always have to be the one that helps�I don�t want to be a hero. I don�t want to help for whatever I might gain.
I want to help because I hate to see anyone in pain. I hate to see anyone in a bind, or trouble, no matter how big or how small. I can�t stand it. I�d take all the worries, pains, and cares of the world on my shoulders if I could. Not because I want them to love me, not because I want gratitude, a person could ignore me, spit on me, or step all over me after I save their life for all I care. I just want to see them saved. I just want to see them happy again.
That�s what makes me such a doormat. Such a stepping stone. I care far far too much, and people these days like to trample all over that. I�m not saying that everyone does. I�m just commenting that that�s what people do, and that�s why I�ve been run over by crowds before.
I know everything wrong with this kind of inclination and these behavioral attitudes though. I�m by nature, too indulgent of others. I�ll give them candy when they desperately need their vegetables. I�ll spoil them rotten. I�m learning to counter balance that, and I think I can be tough now and again when the situation demands. Sometimes I think I could dole out kindness in the form of pain. At least I understand I need to. But I haven�t become very good at that yet. I�m still searching for my happy medium.
The happy medium.
Again. Because I am an extremely unbalanced nature, desperately in need of the happy medium. We�ll meet one day. She and I. I�ll chain her to my side. She will filter me. And I�ll be a better person. One who knows when to stay and when to let go. One who will actually and finally be able to do that she wants to do most, help.