Wouldn't "analogical" mean not "without logic" but "without nalogic" (whatever that is)?
This rule of analogy is one well-known aspect of magic, but not a complete one nor even a necessary one. There is, for instance, the related but different procedure of contagion - a voodoo doll, for instance, works not just because it is the likeness of a person, but because it has part of that person's essence (traditionally a strand of hair) in it.
But there are also other, quite different, principles of magic. Neither likenesses nor contagion play any real part in Earthsea, whose magic is based on the principles of the balance of reality (change that balance even slightly, and more massive consequences will follow) and of knowing True Names.
The Harry Potter type of magic functions basically through words of power (even the wands are only focusing devices). Such spellcasting as there is in Tolkien is also mostly word-based. Thus Tolkien and Rowling, polar opposites in some respects, are alike in another.
All these principles are well-known in primary-world beliefs about magic. If you're interested, I suggest reading Real Magic by Isaac Bonewits, a philosophical/anthropological study of the subject.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-02 05:51 pm (UTC)This rule of analogy is one well-known aspect of magic, but not a complete one nor even a necessary one. There is, for instance, the related but different procedure of contagion - a voodoo doll, for instance, works not just because it is the likeness of a person, but because it has part of that person's essence (traditionally a strand of hair) in it.
But there are also other, quite different, principles of magic. Neither likenesses nor contagion play any real part in Earthsea, whose magic is based on the principles of the balance of reality (change that balance even slightly, and more massive consequences will follow) and of knowing True Names.
The Harry Potter type of magic functions basically through words of power (even the wands are only focusing devices). Such spellcasting as there is in Tolkien is also mostly word-based. Thus Tolkien and Rowling, polar opposites in some respects, are alike in another.
All these principles are well-known in primary-world beliefs about magic. If you're interested, I suggest reading Real Magic by Isaac Bonewits, a philosophical/anthropological study of the subject.