>> > inherent in places and things than in people. I don't know if this
helps
>> > much, but the fact is that "magic users" were few and far between, and
the
>> > ones who did have it were very powerful, but used it sparingly. If you
> ...
> > Don't forget that some of the "magic" things were really
> > the application of advanced knowledge and skill, like Gandalf's
> > fireworks show for Bilbo's party.
>
> Begging to differ, but what about Gandalf's smoke rings in
> _The Hobbit_? They are described as being multicolored, and moving
> around on their own, I believe. It certainly seems that Gandalf was
> using MAGIC, and not skill. And this for mere entertainment.
> I'm sure it was a minor spell, and _The Hobbit_ is a bit
> different from the other books, but still.
>
> Didn't Gandalf also use spells to produce light in dark places?
> Again, it's minor magic, but it is used casually.
Yes, he did use those kinds of magics in a few spots. But his powers were
assumed to be *FAR* greater than that, and he used those abilities very
sparingly. If you want to pick at nits, that's OK. But I don't believe
that minor exceptions like that invalidate the overall argument.
Consider as well that Frodo attempted on several occassions to give the One
Ring to folks he felt were better qualified, but they refused to take it
because its corrupting influence combined with their already powerful magic
would make them as bad as Sauron. I stick by my assertion that casual use
of strong magics was a Bad Thing(tm) in Tolkein's universe
Jim
"One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them"
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
