Where did the idea of wizards using staffs even come from? Moses? Did Merlin use a staff? Sure wisemen and shit had them but at what point were staff carrying old men associated specifically with wizards and magic?
>>46391619
Probably Odin, which inspired Gandalf, which inspired the arhcetypical D&D wizard.
>>46391619
I always thought of staffs as being giant wands and seeing as you see old men with walking sticks, it was a no brainer that the magical staff came into being for wizards.
>>46391619
>why would something usually seen as old men from the middle ages carry around middle ages versions of spinal support/walking aid?
No fucking clue, op.
>>46391661
Why the association of staves with biblical prophets, than? Ancient Hebrews couldn't possibly have had contact with medieval Scandinavians.
Staffs and rods, due to their phallic imagery, are symbols of masculinity, authority, the soul, and creative power. This can be seen in stuff like scepters or gavels. In tarot, which is a really good resource for understanding Western traditional beliefs and symbology, the wand is a symbol of masculinity, creative power, and the soul. This is because masculinity was seen as more concerned with matters of higher importance, in contrast to femininity which was seen as materialistic. (Masculinity was also seen as being emotionally unstable and in need of the calm emotional support of the feminine, so it's all balanced in its way. There are also more attributes assigned to the masculine and the feminine, which are equally positive and negative.)
Basically though the idea of the wand (and the rod and the staff) as being the primary tool of magick is because phallic imagery represented masculinity and masculinity carried connotations of being concerned with matters of higher importance, being powerful, and being commanding. Combine high concerns and being powerful with wisdom and you basically also combine being a man and being old, producing an old man. An old man wouldn't use a wand or a rod, but rather a staff, because he is old, which further adds into the whole everything is symbolic and every symbol has particular connotations... thing.
tl;dr: symbolism
>>46398993
But magic was a feminine activity throughout most of human history for innumerable cultures.
>>46399584
In terms of illusion or curses mostly. The feminine aspect of magic is mostly lies and dreams, uncreative, fitting with the idea of materialism. One thing in magical traditions is the idea of false magic versus truth, as many people accused magicians of faking their powers. There's a difference between moving already existing things around to give the illusion of creation, and true, divine creation. Handling materials is a feminine trait (forming and holding the baby), but true creativity is a masculine one (producing the semen). I'll say this, that women are known through history as being seers or psychics, but again, that's just looking at things that already exist, not divinely affecting or creating a new thing.
>>46399584
Also, traditions are all different across the world, and even those change over the years. Prehistoric societies attributed power and creativity to the feminine element for example, and the reason why is debated (but probably because women were more valued in society then). Different cultures attributed different values to different symbols at different times, but in general in the West, the associations I listed were the most pervasive and probably the most influential on Tolkien.
>>46391619
Why does no-one ever draw Durin's Bane properly? Even artists who take care not to copy the style of the movies consistently draw it as some kind of demon, straight from the finale of Fantasia.
Isn't it supposed to be almost indistinguishable, aside from a vague silhouette? It's radiating so much shadow outwards from it, like a beacon of anti-brightness, that nobody can make it out aside from it's hair, face and hands/weapons.
Also, why is it always fucking huge? It's not described as being 20 ft tall
>>46401131
The Balrog's description is sparse (but effective) and couched in allusion. There's no definitive image of it.
>>46401237
it's description is sparse because the one thing that's emphasized is that it wraps itself in such a deep darkness that nobody can get a good look at it, and as such suffice to call it a walking man-shaped shadow. That in itself is a descriptor.
Odin and Vainamoinen, two old man mythological figures with magic powers.
The staffs just walking sticks, really.
>>46391619
who would win in a fight between Tom Bombadil and Sauron?
>>46401674
but Gandalf's staff is a catalyst for his sorceries
So I understand that the 3 Elven Rings are meant to grant powers of protection and life-giving, but I'm still not entirely sure what they do.
Galadriel's ring is what's powering the enchanted environment of Lothlorien, right? I'm not sure how it's power physically keeps evil out, though. If an army of orcs were to invade the forest with the aim of sacking it, would the Ring's power just cause them to get lost and walk in circles forever, or something?
I'm even less clear on what the others do. /tg/ pls help me stop being such a pleb
>>46397072
Moses was a shepherd. Shepherds have staves as a function of necessity.
>>46401770
Bombadil. He's stronger then all the Maiar as he was created in the aftermath of Eru's music.
>>46401832
That's more a movie-thing than a book-thing.
>>46402090
Elrond specifically says that if Sauron were to learn that Bombadil had the Ring, he would bear the full weight of his strength on the Old Forest and that Bombadil would lose. It would take a long time, but he would not be able to prevail in the end
>>46402127
When the heck does he say that?
>>46402230
At the meeting at Rivendell when they were discussing what to do with the Ring.
>>46402230
During the Council of Elrond, when Frodo asks "well why don't we just leave the ring in the Old Forest with Bombadil, and let it stay there undiscovered forever? Bombadil won't use it nor tell a single soul that he has it, and all knowledge of it will pass away"
Elrond has two responses:
1. Bombadil gives so little fucks about the Ring that he would most likely lose it, which opens the possibility of some other poor wretch finding it again in the future, which only delays the inevitable.
2. if Sauron were to ever learn that Bombadil had it, he would not be able to stand against Sauron's 100% pure concentrated might, were it all laid directly against him
That was the basic logic behind giving Frodo the Ring at all, since otherwise giving it to Bombadil would be a very smart choice
Could it be also a design cue from depictions of Classical philosophers? I recall that depictions of Socrates and Plato are of bearded, robed old men with staves.
>>46402470
its because they are old blokes who need walking sticks
So how powerful is Sauron by the time of LOTR?
I'm reading the Silmarillion right now, and the crazy shit that Morgoth pulls off makes Sauron in the 3rd age look like a pale, impotent shadow of his master's power.
Am I misinterpreting this, or are Men really so weak that they cannot stand against such a feeble imitation of the evil that existed in the 1st Age? Or is Sauron stronger than I'm imagining?
>>46399584
It doesn't make it any less a phallic symbol.
Also lady magic is birth-related.
>yfw all human magic is basically about fucking.
>>46398993
>>46402577
I am fucking tired of this "phallic imagery" shit, 99% of all tools can be seen as "phallic", it doesn't mean a fucking thing, Christ.
>>46400210
this is some hard-core Freudian projection, my friend
>>46402623
But it's true, anon. We even built things with which to fuck the sky.
>>46402623
Misandry is for plebs, anon.
There are tons of things that are phallic, just like there are tons of things that are yonic. Brains are giant pattern banks and images matter. Now point on the doll where the bad lady touched you.
>>46402623
This. It's stupidity psychologists and other pseudo-intellectuals like to make up to sound smarter than they actually are.
>>46402547
morgoth at the beginning of time is the second most powerful being in existence, and the only person beating him is literally omnipotent, so it's not necessarily a fair comparison. sauron is plenty strong but it's all relative.
>>46402636
Nope, that's fairly accurate. Freud also categorized the male personality as creative, in case you were curious.
>>46402547
Well for one thing Sauron tends to use more subtle means than Morgoth, corrupting his foes from the inside before he destroys them. Also remember that while more powerful than anything else around at the time of LotR, Sauron was still only a demi-god, where Morgoth was a full-blown deity.
>>46401348
>it can only be defined as undefinable
>but wye's dair no GUUUD deepickchun?!
Gee, anon. I wonder.
>>46402693
>I'm scared of penises
I'm sorry.
>>46402547
Sauron's just got more military power than the bickering and fractured nations of men and dying race of elves. That's most of it. Orcs and trolls have been building up for an age.
There are no demigod elf superheroes left to stop him.
>>46402748
>implying I'm scared of something I own
>implying that men just automatically make everything in the shape of cocks because of some retarded fixation we don't even realize
>implying Freud wasn't a hack and the grand majority of his theories debunked within fifty years
>>46391619
Old age is generally seen as a sign of wisdom.
as such white/gray hair or no hair and staves, are prevalent in anything that wants to project a wise or intelligent image.
>>46402680
>>46402713
>>46400210
>>46398993
I fucking hate this shit
>OH WOW LOOK EVERYONE, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO SEX! SEX, AND DICKS!!! WE'RE ALL JUST DRAWING DICKS!!! IT'S DICKS, ALL THE WAY DOWN, A BOTTOMLESS OCEAN OF PHALLUSES FROM WHICH WE DRINK WHEN WE CRAFT
You most frequently discover the symbols that you're hunting down. If everything seems like sex and dicks, you need to pause your work and get laid, or jerk off, before coming back to it.
Freud was a hack, and this retarded gender studies / psychology trend of pigeonholing literally everything into "does it look like a cock or a cunt" should have died with him
>>46402784
>There are no demigod elf superheroes left to stop him.
there's glorfindel but i think he's under the same rules as the wizards
>>46402801
>implying a phallic shape isn't natural
>implying nature doesn't specifically make things meant to slide, penetrate, or move with minimal resistance phallic because the shape is really good at that
>greentexting meme-plications
It's easy to overcome your fear of dicks, anon. I recommend exposure therapy.
>>46402728
goddamn Fingolfin must have had 99999999 AGI to be able to dodge blows from a weapon that size
>>46402801
>implying you own your dick instead of the other way around
Not him, but I'm also tired of phallic imagery bullshit. If it has a handle it must be phallic! Well how else would we hold shit?
>>46402673
I suppose we should've just made gigantic spherical buildings instead?
>>46402680
>If it's circular it's a vagina!
>If it's straight it's a dick!
>If it's neither choose one!
What?
It's so weird that the idea "everything we think or do revolves around sex" is so accepted. It's a motivator, but putting it as the reasoning behind everything is just lazy. Reminds me of that anon who cut his oranges to have a single peel he could toss out, and then someone told him they look like dicks when he does that, and it sent him on a psychological journey into his soul to determine if he'd been secretly gay the whole time.
Dude wanted easy orange peel disposal, that's all.
>>46402820
I don't really care if you hate it. I doubt you've actually read anything of Freud's beyond some high school interpretation. He wasn't the "sex guy," anon. People latch on to the dicks and vaginas because they, like you, only want to scratch the surface.
No one is deliberately looking for phallic shapes in nature. They just happen to exist. The penis shares shapes and characteristics with other entities in nature, which is why the comparison is so common.
>>46402821
what's the deal with Glorfindel? I haven't read the Silmarillion or any of Tolkien's other extended works, so I only know him as the elf from Rivendell who was implied to have some serious powerlevel in hiding
>>46402869
>I suppose we should've just made gigantic spherical buildings instead?
No, because then we'd all be subliminal slaves to Disney. It's only through our literal dick-headedness that we persevere.
>>46402906
>it's a rod
>it's an oval
oh wow gee, sex symbols are literally everywhere, even in the trees!!!
feel free to stop being such a tryhard at any time
>>>/sex studies department/
>>46402869
>Green strawmen
Well that's disappointing.
No one said sexual imagery was the "reason behind everything," just that a staff could very well be interpreted as a sexual metaphor. It represents a male figure who has conquered time and regained an important facet of his manhood while still being old. Or it could just be a walking stick.
The point is it's an interesting interpretation. Critical thinking shouldn't scare you. If it does, well, read more.
>>46402945
Not a sex symbol, a shape. A sex symbol requires sexual context, not just a shape.
You seem really uncomfortable with sex and sexuality in general.
>>46402869
Nah man. Dudes gayness was repressed in a corner of his mind even his subconcious wouldn't touch and it was leaking out in day to day activities that he ultimately invented just to vent. its like how every night you touch your dick but you gotta ask yourself is it you touching your dick for you or your gay you touching your dick for you for gay you. If you can't break down the walls of self-loathing and repression in today's highly "openess" charged we'll never grow as people or a species. So next time you take a crap or piss and go "damn does THAT feel good." Ask yourself why. And i mean really ASK yourself. And not the self that can answer either. Ask the silent majority you inside you.
>>46402924
Dude killed a god that was second only to God. He's like the wizards though or something and can't just open cans of whoopass even though that would just be problem solved.
>>46391619
Old men are wise.
Old men use walking sticks.
Walking sticks symbolize wisdom.
>>46402952
>The point is it's an interesting interpretation.
But it's not, it's the laziest symbol. See: >>46402945
>>it's a rod
>>it's an oval
>oh wow gee, sex symbols are literally everywhere, even in the trees!!!
I find it interesting you say those are strawmen when those are the basis for almost all sexual imagery. I'm also curious what you mean when you say
> It represents a male figure who has conquered time and regained an important facet of his manhood
What facet does holding a staff represent? The ability to get it up? If that's what you consider an important facet of manhood, well... Good for you, I guess. Now I wonder what cultures have "being able to pop a stiffy" as part of the rites of manhood. Do the judges sit around and stare at the young man/young boy and wait for his dick to get hard?
>>46402924
glorfindel was a first age elf who killed a balrog, but died in the process. tolkien later confirmed this is the same elf as appears in LotR, sent back along with the wizards to help middle-earth against sauron. there is some confusion about whether or not they were originally intended to be the same person.
>>46402974
And I'm telling you that you're too busy trying to find sexual context in even the most absurd situations that you're incapable of taking a step back and realizing how dumb you sound
>sorcery is masculine, because sorcery creates new objects, unlike illusion and prophecy. Creation is man's domain because of how men alone produce semen
this is not only one of the most convoluted logic trains that I've heard all week, it's fucking dumb. If you were were trying to make an argument based on gendered notions of creation, any "creation" aspects would go to women, since women alone create new human beings by way of their vaginas. Your logic roundabout in the extreme, and backward as fuck. That's, like, failure squared. (F)^2.
>>46403008
It's possible to feel good without being gay, David. That whole shpeel about his inner gayness leaking out is bullshit. Your whole blurb there stank of Freudism. "Next time ask your Ego, not your Id. Your Ego knows who you truly are!" Ugh.
>>46402821
>the same rules as the wizards
What were those rules? It was explained to me once, but it seems like a good portion of them just ignored the rules.
>>46403089
And you don't understand what I'm saying because you're terrible at this whole reading thing.
A sex symbol, by definition, requires sexual context. A shape is not enough. It's a strawman to say that any oval or rod is a sex symbol, because that isn't what was being discussed in the first place.
>The ability to impregnate a woman is an important facet of manhood.
Yes, yes it is.
>Now I wonder what cultures have "being able to pop a stiffy" as part of the rites of manhood.
None of them. Again, the strawmen you're posting are really limiting your argument. An erection is a sign of sexual maturity but "manhood" is a cultural artifact. In all cases, however, the point of coming-of-age rites is to inform the man in question and his community that he is ready to mate and procreate.
I await more strawmen. This is kind of fun.
>>46403152
I'm not trying to find anything. I posted one possible interpretation of a wizard's staff as a sexual symbol. I didn't post what you greentexted.
What were some of the other convoluted logic trains you've heard this week? Or did you just post that to sound intelligent? Do you analyze the logical premises of everything you hear?
>>46403202
I dunno milton. Psychologists will tell you thaf shit you hold back, shit you don't even know is shit, will fond ways of leaking out in things you do that you don't even know you do and because their trained they can smell that shit stink on you given enough time. I'd trust their words too cause their whole career is to sniff out peoples shit and fix it and they seem to be doing it right otherwise why would they still be a thing. It doesn't HAVE to be gayness either. that was merely an example you can touch your dick all you want and not be gay just ask yourself why next time.
>>46403276
>what were some of the other convoluted logic trains you're heard all week
management at work trying to justify their decisions
>do you analyze the logical premises of everything you hear?
you don't?
>>46403324
Well that's a conveniently general answer that requires no real explanation. Shine on, you crazy diamond.
>>46403234
>A shape is not enough.
>a staff could very well be interpreted as a sexual metaphor
You're literally shredding your own arguments. Also, quite a jump to go from "staff" to "The ability to impregnate a woman."
Basically what I'm seeing is someone asked why wizards are associated with staffs, and half of the responses are "because wizards are depicted as old and in need of a staff," while the other half say "because wizards are powerful, and having a dick is powerful, and staffs look vaguely like dicks!" Occam's razor comes to mind.
>>46403300
>otherwise why would they still be a thing
While I half agree with you, Bryant, I'd also like to point out psychics are still a thing, astrologists are still a thing, reputable bridge sellers are still a thing...Not gonna lie, everyone getting a random name is amusing in its own way.
>>46403394
No, I'm not. A wizard's staff is not just a shape. It's a symbol. I only posited that there can be a sexual interpretation of it.
And again, your predictable strawman. I did not equate a staff with impregnation. That was an answer to your previous strawman, where you somehow misunderstood how an erection relates to manhood.
You're really, really bad at this. You need to slow down and try your best to focus.
>>46403394
Also as I said, Odin and Vainamoinen.
These are the progenitors of "wizards" as we know them. Old magic men with big beards and hats. Odin used a wide-brimmed traveler's hat and a walking stick as a disguise, Norse loved the whole "that mysterious man you met on the road was actually GOD" twist.
>>46403515
If it even needed to be said, Odin's traveler's hat became what we all know as the pointy wizard hat.
>>46403492
>a wizard's staff is not just a shape, it's a symbol
what madness is this? a staff is shaped like a staff because a rod is a useful shape as a fulcrum between you and the ground. have you ever heard of walking sticks shaped like hula hoops? am I being trolled?
whatever symbolic significance the staff's shape may have is of your own invention
>>46403567
No, please, show off your ability to be deliberately obtuse. Certainly more impressive than your rhetorical skills.
>>46403633
Even if you consider it as such now, the "wizard staff" was an innocuous object long before it ever became a "symbol of power".
>>46403492
>I did not equate a staff with impregnation.
Let me lay this out in bullet-points.
1. You say "a staff could very well be interpreted as a sexual metaphor. It represents a male figure who has conquered time and regained an important facet of his manhood while still being old."
2. I ask you, "... what you mean when you say > It represents a male figure who has conquered time and regained an important facet of his manhood"
3. You answer: ">The ability to impregnate a woman is an important facet of manhood."
I mean, maybe I'm not so good at the Englishing, but I'm pretty sure that's how asking a question works. I ask, you answer, I take your answer to my question as an answer to my question...
This is from your post.
>A sex symbol, by definition, requires sexual context.
This is also from your post.
> a staff could very well be interpreted as a sexual metaphor.
Where's the sexy times in an old man holding a staff?
Mmf, dat gilf. I'd touch his staff.
In all seriousness though, quit trying to put a stranger on the internet down to make yourself look intelligent and maybe keep notes on what you're saying so you don't contradict yourself more.
>>46403515
I appreciate your answer, it seems like the most probable cause. That or the Egyptians.
>>46403681
Holy shit, a cogent response.
Again, I wasn't talking about a wizard's staff as an innocuous object. The specific question was about the wizard's staff as a symbol of wizardry, not just a staff. I gave one interpretation, you and others aired out your sexual insecurities, and now we're here.
Did I miss anything?
>>46403449
Well, gladys. Its obvious you're suffering female delusions of grandeur, which is common so don't let that worry you, but all those "sham" professions you stated have been thoroughly checked and labeled trash by the world and science in general whereas actual psychology freeformish as it is has quantifiable and repeatable evidence that shows it works in when used by skilled hands much like neurosurgery is a thing even though every brain is different to a degree.
You really should look into this want of
"everything is false and all we know is so simple" attitude, it may be why you're prone to the vapors.
>>46403739
people are questioning why you would ever make the connection between a staff and a penis in the first place. That isn't a common, or straightforward, connection to make. The fact that you accuse anyone who doesn't share your interpretation as being sexually insecure does not help your case.
>>46403567
>walking sticks shaped like hula hoops
Madness i say!
>>46403687
Thanks for the bullet points, it makes this part easier.
1. My response was to the question about wizard's staffs, not just staffs in general. I was responding to the question at had.
2. You asked how an erection correlated to manhood. I responded to you explaining how that was, literally, the sign of sexual maturity and an important facet of the male ideal. You did not ask me anything.
3. I answered that, yes, the ability to maintain an erection to impregnate a woman is an important facet of manhood.
An old man using a phallus to control nature is absolutely a sexual context. It's only one of several. I don't need to put anyone down, your complete inability to hold a coherent thought together for more than one post does that for me.
>>46403786
Not. Just. A. Staff.
The question was about a wizard's staff. A wizard's staff is a phallic symbol of power. It's very similar to Norse cauldrons being yonic symbols of power, literal bubbling voids from which armies and plenty arose.
It's more straightforward than you think, and again it's just one interpretation. I agree that the wizard's staff is more often just used to highlight old age, but particularly in newer depictions of wizards, it highlights power and youth.
Came for the staffs, stayed for the laughs.
Something something everything's a penis.
>>46403949
>a wizard's staff is a phallic symbol of power
>a phallic symbol of power
>a phallic symbol
>phallic symbol
you have yet to explain why you're considering it phallic in the first place
>>46391619
Probably something to do with old men in the Middle Ages carrying these great ass staffs/sticks to both walk around with and whoop yo goddamn ass if you annoyed him
>>46403853
Woops. you did not ask me anything about a staff representing a conquering of time or anything.
>>46403952
Not the argument, but thanks for your contribution.
>>46402623
Apparently any tool that uses the concept of leverage only works because we think of it as masculine and strong.
>>46403760
>it is has quantifiable and repeatable evidence that shows it works
Yeah... My psychology professors beg to disagree with you. At best psychology experiments can come close to having similar results, but duplicating the results of an experiment is nigh impossible, and as that's a criteria for a serious science, well....
>>46403853
Oh ok, so you can't follow conversation from post to post and have no idea how to answer a question.
>My response was to the question about wizard's staffs, not just staffs in general.
We're discussing why staffs are associated with wizards. Your response is that wizard staffs are associated with wizards because- well who cares, you literally just ignored the question.
>An old man using a phallus to control nature is absolutely a sexual context.
As >>46403786 pointed out, what makes the staff a phallus? Nothing! The staff is not a phallus unless sexual context is present, as you yourself said, and controlling nature is not sexual in any way. The only way you could argue this is if the method of control the wizard uses is literally fucking the element with his staff.
This is less a case of everyone else being sexually insecure and more a case of you need to get laid or jerk off since your brain can't think of anything without sex contaminating it.
>>46403981
Its roughly shaped like my dick and they both shoot shit thats not allowed to be shot in public or around children.
>>46401770
>>46402090
>>46402127
Y'all niggas need to watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY
Point of order, aren't rands and staves considered 'phallic' because they were, in fact, used sexually during witches rituals? In Seder, magic comes from knowing the words, the runes, and from Semen. This is why Loki mocked Odin for knowing a womans art, because it literally involved drinking semen. Wands are considered phallic because they were dildo's used in the ritual frotting for magic.
>>46403981
I have. You've ignored what I've written.I'm not repeating myself.
Hey, did you notice that Gandalf's staff was originally made of wood? It had natural components in it. And that Saruman's staff was made of something that looked very much like metal or maybe hewn stone?
Now I know this is a discussion about symbolism, so you'll probably misunderstand it or just air out more sexual insecurities, but do you think, maybe, those images might be important to their characters and purposes in the story?
>>46403853
>An old man using a phallus to control nature is absolutely a sexual context
See, this is what I meant as to why the wizard staff was innocuous.
Vainamoinen was a magic man who woke the land and tamed the world, but it wasn't through his staff. It was with his voice and music. His staff just helped him walk (and symbolized his connection to nature, using living wood).
Vainamoinen and Odin as prototype-wizards had staffs. Thus, later wizards had staffs. It's an inherited legacy and completely mundane. This is the answer to OP's question of
>at what point were staff carrying old men associated specifically with wizards and magic?
(The answer is when staff carrying old men were actually gods.)
The whole "wizards channel magic through their staff" idea came a whole lot later.
>>46404031
>controlling nature is not sexual in any way.
So creating and controlling life is not sexual in any way?
There is no possible way of connecting the creation, nurturing, and control of life with sex?
I've spent more time answering your questions than anyone else. You choose to ignore, deliberately misinterpret, and obviously troll.
>What makes it a phallus?
As I've explained, twice now, it's shaped like a dick and it operates in a sexual context in one interpretation.
So again, please, keep posting. This is great.
>>46404049
Don't engage them, they're dedicated to being difficult.
>>46404067
...Which was the fucking question. Why are staffs associated with wizards and magic?
I gave one interpretation. I agreed that the staff was originally just a sign of age.
>It's an inherited legacy
And it has other attributes assigned to it now than it did originally. You yourself call Odin and Vainamoinen proto-wizards, as in, modern interpretations are similar, but certainly not the same as, these guys.
>>46404128
well I think that it may or may not be shaped like a dick, and that any interpretations in which it operates in a sexual context are retarded.
therefore it's not a phallus. therefore freudfags can shut the fuck up
>>46404216
And I say you're an idiot. Read a book or twelve, try to find some without pictures.
>>46399584
Actually, at least in Finland, 80% of the witches that stood accused were male.
>>46404190
Modern interpretations find their basis in older material. The modern image of a wizard being a robed man in a pointy hat with a staff is directly descended from Odin.
OP didn't ask "why are wizard staffs more majjickal in modern fiction than they used to be".
>>46404128
>So creating and controlling life is not sexual in any way?
>There is no possible way of connecting the creation, nurturing, and control of life with sex?
W-what? Is that what wizards do? Shit, DnD has it waaayyy the fuck wrong. Here I thought controlling nature meant, I dunno, controlling nature. Turns out wizards just walk around makin babies despite their advanced age, and show this off by carrying a staff.
>As I've explained, twice now, it's shaped like a dick
So we're back to a staff is a phallic image because it's shaped like a dick. But wait!
>A sex symbol, by definition, requires sexual context. A shape is not enough.
I left off the bit where you said it operates in a sexual context because, again, it does not. Dicks don't control nature, anon, they do not let us call lightning or summon fire from nothing. Hell, they don't even make babies. Women do that. As was pointed out earlier, men are NEVER considered the creators of life, women are. Men are also NEVER considered the nurturers.
B T dubs, I'm apparently not the only one "misinterpret"ting what you're saying since you've answered at least 4 other people now.
>>46404128
creating and controlling life is feminine you fool.
men don't give birth
>>46404303
Then whatever. I've spent more time than is healthy arguing here.
All I did was provide one interpretation. What followed was a hilarious romp into the realms of sexual insecurity, illiteracy, and rhetorically atrocious responses to one post stating one point.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes 4chan is just 4chan. Night.
>>46403981
Let me guess.
You think the song "A Wizard's Staff has a Knob on the End" isn't about penises, either.
>>46404351
>n-no u guyz are just sexually repressed
for all your posturing, you really are bad at arguments
>>46404351
> WHATEVER GUISE I'M LEAVING XDDD A STAVFF IS OBVIOUSLY A BENIS XDDDD YOUR JUST TOO DOME 2 RELIZE IT >:(
>>46404313
Jesus Christ, how fucking basic can you be? Do you read anything? Have you ever finished a novel?
Creating life IS controlling nature, you fucking idiot. It's one symbol of many. The fact you can't see the obvious juxtaposition of a frail, weak, elderly old man and a strong, virile, controlling force of nature channeled through him is just laughable.
I have to believe you came into this thread just to troll. I refuse to believe anyone, even a 4channer, can be this fucking stupid.
>I left off the bit where you said it operates in a sexual context
Because you're a fucking moron who can't reconcile intellectual arguments and it's convenient.
"BT dubs" you're apparently not the only slack-jawed moron browsing 4chan tonight. Shocking.
>>46404396
No I'm not.
>>46404419
I never said that was the only interpretation, just one.
>>46404351
>What followed was a hilarious romp into the realms of sexual insecurity, illiteracy, and rhetorically atrocious responses
I will agree with that, watching him try to last stand his poor position with sheer dedicated bluster was pretty hilarious. B T dubs, it wasn't all to just one point, it was to pretty much every pint you tried to make- all of which stemmed from three poorly made arguments.
>Wizards are associated with staffs because wizard staffs are phallic
>wizard staffs are phallic because wizards control nature
>controlling nature is sexual
Man, I haven't had a good religious debate in a long time. That was what, four circles?
SO ANYWHEY, Wizards have staffs (staves?) because of Odin and the other guy. Ok. /thread
Now we post wizard art!
>>46404543
>>46404543
Old men are wise.
Wise men can use magic.
Old men use staves.
Ergo, wise men use staves.
>>46404543
And now we're into religion, for some reason.
The arguments weren't poorly made, you selectively responded to the points I raised, because you can't really address entire arguments honestly.
>Wizards are associated with staffs because staffs are phallic.
I literally never said that. At all. Not once.
>Wizard staffs are phallic because they control nature
Yes, that's one interpretation.
>Controlling nature is sexual.
Yes, in one interpretation.
See, you can't respond to any one argument without entirely changing it around. You've done nothing but strawman this entire thread, because you lack the intellect to just, you know, address a point.
>>46404448
>Creating life IS controlling nature, you fucking idiot.
Except men don't create life. Women do. In what culture are men the life bringers?
Also, WIZARDS DON'T FUCKING DO THAT! Jesus christ. You're saying a wizard's staff is sexual because wizards control nature through it, which is sexual. That right there is a circular bit of logic, but what confuses me is the bit where wizards control nature according to your definition. What the actual fuck does manipulating metaphysical forces have to do with making babies?
>>46404578
>>46404596
*Wise Magic men use staves.
>>46404543
What came first? The wizard or the staff?
>>46402547
Wasn't a whole bunch of people in that age super overpowered? Plus Morgoth had gods he had to contend with. By the time of LotR, the gods had left the fate of Middle Earth to the hands of mortals and they pretty much only had Gandalf to guide their hand.
>>46404448
that was a whole lot of words to say very little just now.
out of all the possible symbols of power you could choose from, you are laser-focusing on the sexual. this is your choice, out of everything. doing so does not make you deep, or make you sound smart. you aren't pointing out anything that people haven't tried to say before.
it doesn't take intelligence to point out sexual imagery, mostly because of how absurdly easy it is to force. that's part of why it's so obnoxious -- it's trivially easy to introduce a sexual element into goddamn near anything, and pointing that out doesn't say much at all. it's not even really insightful. it's the least interesting symbology you could ever choose to pick, unless you're interested in retarded bullshit like feminist criticism.
so please cease jerking yourself off over how much smarter you are than everyone else ITT. it's all plain as day to see what you're trying to do. people don't like it because it's essentially the trivial case of literary criticism. babby's first symbol.
>/tg/ doesnt understand that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
why are you so obsessed with dicks
>>46404611
>Except men don't create life. Women do.
Were you absent the day they taught sexual education?
You honestly believe women spontaneously just "create life?"
>>46400433
>Prehistoric societies attributed power and creativity to the feminine element for example
not really
>>46404633
>It doesn't count because I don't like sexual imagery.
Ok, whatever.
>come to the thread looking for discussion on lotr and historic and mythological wizard figures
>90% of the thread is just arguing over dicks
what the hell, tg.
>>46404633
I'm just defending my position, like any good arguer. I provided one, and only one, possible interpretation. I never said there weren't others.
>babby's first symbol
Which is really disturbing, considering at least two of these people completely miss the point.
>>46404767
>90% of the thread is strawmanning and whining about minutiae
Yep, it's /tg/ alright.
>a magical walking cane is a phallic symbol
It is not.
>>46404611
> In what culture are men the life bringers?
Ancient Greek. In the Eumenides, Apollo winning argument states that the father is the creative force and the monther only provides a receptacle for his life-giving sperm.
The creative impulse is also masculine in Eastern philosophy of Yin and Yang. Haven't you read Akira?
>>46404825
Yes it is.
>>46404612
>>46404578
These are nice.
>>46404627
I'd imagine "thing I use to not fall and break a hip" came before "person capable of subverting nature to his will."
>>46404602
>you selectively responded to the points I raised
>you can't respond to any one argument without entirely changing it around
so wait, can I respond to singular points or can't I?
>>Wizards are associated with staffs because staffs are phallic.
>>I literally never said that. At all. Not once.
Perhaps not "literally," but here it is in slightly different words:
>No one said sexual imagery was the "reason behind everything," just that a staff could very well be interpreted as a sexual metaphor. It represents a male figure who has conquered time and regained an important facet of his manhood while still being old.
That facet, as you'll recall, is the ability to make babies. Erego, the staff is phallic imagery because it represents the man's ability to make babies.
>>46404687
So, what you're telling me, is that cultures all over the world have it wrong when they symbolize mothers as the life givers. Lo, tear down their fertility goddess statues, and in their stead erect GIANT DICKS!
>>46404767
That .gif is gold.
>>46404855
What does a support for the elderly have to do with dicks?
>>46403949
>A cauldron must be yonic because it has a hole where things come out of
This is why I hate "sexual imagery" bullshit like this. It's used in the vaguest way possible with a bunch of logic back flips to the point the usage doesn't really mean anything since it can basically be applied to everything.
>>46404896
>a bunch of logic back flips to the point the usage doesn't really mean anything since it can basically be applied to everything.
That's because nearly every shape in the world is vaguely oblong or spherical.
Did we mention Freud did a lot of crack?
>>46401999
>If an army of orcs were to invade the forest with the aim of sacking it, would the Ring's power just cause them to get lost and walk in circles forever, or something?
Pretty much. It would also fill them with feeling of dread and foreboding until they left.
The ring Gandalf held was the ring of Fire, and as such it prevented him from "burning out." in the metaphysical sense, this meant that Gandalf was unaffected by the encroaching malaise and fading which plagued the elves and other Maiar in middle earth. It additionally strengthened his resistance to illusions and beings of shadow.
>>46404865
>Perhaps not "literally," but here it is in slightly different words:
So you admit you deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying for the sake of a strawman?
>GIANT DICKS
What do you think skyscrapers are?
>>46398993
>femininity which was seen as materialistic.
Well everything checks out there at least.
>>46404967
What's this about rings?
>>46404967
what does the 3rd do?
>>46404896
>Provide deliberate example with very clear and obvious imagery.
>"vague"
Like, really? You can't see how a bubbling cauldron, traditionally a woman's responsibility in the household for cooking and whatnot, being the spawning vessel for an army of men isn't yonic?
It's not bullshit, what's bullshit is your response to the question. Like shit, do dicks and vaginas upset you that much?
>>46404982
>what do you think skyscrapers are
buildings meant to maximize usable space while at the same time minimizing the impact of square footage on the street
>>46404982
>What do you think skyscrapers are?
A very efficient architectural structure.
They're not monuments to the almighty D.
They're actually functional methods of creating large spaces of utility in a compact land area (X and Y dimensions) by taking advantage of the airspace (Z dimension).
>>46404687
Men provide one half of the required genetic material while women incubate the child and give birth to it. Life creation is far more in the realm of women than men.
You know, OP never got an answer on Merlin. did Merlin have a staff?
>>46404982
Oh no no, it was pretty fuckin clear what you meant. I just didn't feel like leaving the "I didn't LITERALLY say that" loophole open for you.
Let's try this again.
Pretentianon, why do you think wizards are associated with staffs?
>>46402701
Didn't Morgoth get his shit slapped by Tulkas though?
Or was it the whole host + Tulkas?
>>46402346
>>46402127
The basic logic was that while Bombadil could withstand Sauron himself, he was powerless outside the old wood. Sauron could cover the forest in choking clouds as he had Mordor, poison the rivers and streams feeding into it, burn out the lands around it and smother the trees in ash. As the old forest died and shrank back, Tom's place of power would be similarly crippled, and eventually he'd fade away.
>>46405030
Again, the Ancient Greeks and Taoists disagree.
>>46405010
Why do you insist everyone must have a problem with dicks or vaginas? It's more they don't care for retarded symbolism. Symbolism in general is fucking retarded 90% of the time. Sometimes the curtains are just blue and sometimes the cauldron is just magical and not based on a vagina.
>>46405111
The Ancient Greeks and Taoists can choke on my balls.
>>46405066
>You know, OP never got an answer on Merlin. did Merlin have a staff?
No. Merlin and his prototype, Myrddin Wyllt, are not as much of the source of modern wizardry as Odin or Vainamoinen are.
Myrddin Wyllt was a madman and prophet. Merlin was less insane but even more prophetical, 99% of the "magical" things Merlin does is predict the future with shocking clarity and precision. He does some enchanting here and there, but there are no lasting descriptions of how he does it. Remember-- later Arthurian mythos is very christian, and magic is heretical in christianity, a power given by Satan. (Merlin himself is a cambion, a half-demon, who was baptized immediately on birth so he's "safe". Even so some stories linger of him being perverted and having a taste for young virgin women.)
>>46405068
it was like, the host minus tulkas was fighting morgoth to a standstill, then tulkas did an orbital elbow drop channeling his inner MACHO MAN and tipped the scales
>>46405007
I don't remember, come to think of it. I don't think it ever came into focus.
>>46405010
first off, by the very sentence you just typed, there are 3 degrees of freedom between the object and it's significance as a symbol. So you're really not discussing a symbol at that point, it's more like a convoluted train of symbols that join end-to-end to reach your conclusion.
Second, it's because invoking sexual imagery is meaningless. Because you can force it into basically any arbitrary context with comparatively little effort, its worth as a symbol is virtually extinguished -- if it's a symbol in everything, it's a symbol in nothing. Outside of a gender studies paper, sexual imagery is worthless to consider 99% of the time (and gender studies papers have similar rates of utility). Trying to force sexual symbols on people as a form of showing off looks retarded and pretentious. It has no substance and showcases your lack of real knowledge on the topic -- because if you had it, you would be contributing something more substantial.
>>46398993
>Rider-Waite
>traditional
>>46405166
>Even so some stories linger of him being perverted and having a taste for young virgin women.
... I don't get why that's a weird thing, but ok. Unless that's literal taste, in which case ok, kind of agree, that's a little weird. Thanks, didn't know all that about Merlin.
>>46405227
>that aspect ratio
>>46405227
but he also reks him while he's bound by the chains made for melkor which melkor being wary of Tulkas insisted he wear.
It might just be that Tulkas is physically stronger but less powerful over all.
![4e6a7cd708cc010fb0a850edb5fe57ac[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oKgz20u.jpg "4e6a7cd708cc010fb0a850edb5fe57ac[1].jpg")
I'm pretty sure the idea of wizards has more middle eastern influence than celtic and norse stuff.
The notion those cultures had of magic was closer to druids, witches, etc.
>>46405068
Morgoth was the greatest of the Valar in sheer strength, but each of them had a role and skillet in which they excelled. As a result, while Morgoth was the undisputed master of his own role and could handily outmatch any other Valar outside their areas of expertise, it was still possible for the greater Valar to match or overpower him in the context of their strengths. Ulmo had greater control of the seas than Morgoth ever could, even though Morgoth is personally responsible for inventing the concepts of steam and frost.
It just so happens that Tulkas' great gift lay in Kicking Ass.
>>46405066
Again, because it's convenient to your idiotic strawmanning tendencies.
And yes, let's try this again.
Wizards are likely associated with staffs due to earlier tribal practices of elder worship. Old men were considered pillars of their respective communities, and one of the most enduring symbols of the elderly is the cane. That is likely the source of the association.
I happen to believe that a wizard's staff, in its modern iteration, is more phallic and masculine in nature, given its vastly expanded powers over staves in older works.
I have never in this thread, not even once, claimed or said anything different. Is this easy enough for you? Is there anything I can do at all to make this more clear?
Or will you find another strawman up your ass?
O, the wizard's staff had a knob on the end.
It does! It does!
O, the wizard's staff has a knob on the end.
It does!
O, the wizard's staff has a knob on the end
And the wizard's staff is the wizard's friend.
It is! It is!
>>46405253
It's not convoluted at all, because they all relate to motherhood and traditional femininity.
I'm not going to argue with you about the viability of sexual imagery. I don't believe imagery of any kind is necessarily pointless, and I think saying so is a drastic simplification of the human experience.
>>46405382
Why would a staff be associated with dicks just because it's powerful? Are dicks powerful?
>>46405428
Traditionally, masculinity = power.
"Dick measuring" is not a turn of phrase for no reason.
>>46405382
You keep saying strawmanning. I do not think you know what strawmanning is...
Let me summarize your newest arguments.
>Wizards are old. Tribes worshiped old men. Old people use canes. Therefore wizards use staffs.
... Ehm.
>Modern wizard staff is phallic and masculine [redundant] because it has more power.
So what is sexual about having more power? As some great sage pointed out earlier, a symbol is only sexual if the context is sexual.
>I've been saying this the whole time!
You really haven't.
>Claiming strawmanning again.
Seriously though, do you know what it means? I might've done it once on accident, but after your first accusation I was careful not to do it again in any way, yet you continue to bring this up. you know that doesn't work in actual discussions, right?
>>46405516
>Traditionally, masculinity = power.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing associated with power.
In this case, a magic staff is associated with power because because of the magic shit it can do. Why would you associate it with dicks?
>>46405516
>dick measuring is not a turn of phrase for no reason
it's also regarded as juvenile and petty. attempting to introduce almost literal dick-measuring by such silly invocations of phallic imagery is also juvenile and petty
>be a teenager
>"hurr it looks like a dick"
>get told to shut up and act more mature
>go to college
>"hurr it looks like a dick"
>get an A on your paper for displaying insight into the way gender roles are woven into the media, and for your liberated sexuality
academia was a mistake
>>46404611
>Except men don't create life. Women do.
>stick egg in cunt
Nothing happens
>Jizz in egg
Make homonculus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YmLWnQGZhQ
>>46405536
A strawman is when you deliberately misrepresent someone else's argument to make your own reasoning more convenient. It's the mark of lazy thinking.
Your "summary" of my arguments is just one example. Far easier for you to redefine, misrepresent, and misquote than to actually continue the discussion.
>>46405588
You can't really separate the two in context.
>>46405591
Again, I'm not going to argue the viability of sexual imagery or imagery in general. If you think it's juvenile, whatever.
>>46405666
>You can't really separate the two in context
That's nonsense.
Power isn't the same as masculinity, even in cultures that think they are related.
>>46405734
I'm talking culturally, you're talking literally. No, literally speaking, power in a social context is not related to masculinity.
Yes, culturally speaking, power in a social context was traditionally related to masculinity.
>>46405757
It's still NOT the same thing. Even socially.
Even if it was, going by your logic, every symbol of power in such a culture would be automatically phallic... what?
>>46405307
Usually when you're an old man, hanging out with the high school babes is considered a little lacking in social graces.
>>46405611
>Stick product of sex organ into sex organ, nothing happens
>stick product of sex organ into product of other sex organ, something happens.
If you stick jizz in a cunt and there's no egg nothing happens then, either.
Let's try this again then. >>46405382
>Wizards are likely associated with staffs due to earlier tribal practices of elder worship.
This is not what you were saying earlier.
>Old men were considered pillars of their respective communities, and one of the most enduring symbols of the elderly is the cane.
Wizards are not considered pillars of their community, and a cane is not a staff. Your associations quite simply don't exist.
>I happen to believe that a wizard's staff, in its modern iteration, is more phallic and masculine in nature, given its vastly expanded powers over staves in older works.
>wizard's staff, in its modern iteration
We were discussing why wizards ORIGINALLY have staffs, not modernly, but ok.
> is more phallic and masculine in nature
Redundant.
>more phallic and masculine in nature, given its vastly expanded powers over staves in older works
So power = phallic and masculine? But, Pretentianon, earlier you said a symbol isn't sexual unless the context is sexual. The context here is that compared to older works, wizarding staffs are more powerful. Where's the sex?
>I have never in this thread, not even once, claimed or said anything different.
I mean there was that whole "The specific question was about the wizard's staff as a symbol of wizardry, not just a staff." "An old man using a phallus to control nature is absolutely a sexual context." You seemed pretty sure that staffs were associated with wizards because of their power to make babies.
>>46405907
By the way, still confused what wizards you're talking about. Mine use lightning, fire, arcane energies, that kind of thing. Mine don't "control nature" by making babies at an advanced age.
>>46402906
>he wasn't the sex guy
>psychosexual theory of development
Freud stumbled on to some very important and useful ideas (namely the basic idea of the subconscious and the seeds of the modern idea of childhood as a stage of mental development rather than just being tiny people). He influenced some very important people who would go on to influence other very important people.
That said, he absolutely was also the sex guy. His methods were preposterous. He used absurd rationalizations (poetic, considering the concept is tied to him so strongly) to trace back anything his patients said to things he was already convinced drove human behavior, which was mostly sex (yes I know also death drive and some other things, but it was also a fuckton of sex). This is why he came up with all those defense mechanisms - basically a means to twist around anything his patients said to say what Freud wanted them to say.
He once had a patient report a half remembered childhood dream about two motionless dogs staring at a window. He interpreted the motionlessness as rapid motion, which of course meant sex, and the two dogs watching as the man's parent's. So NATURALLY the dream meant the man peeked on his parents fucking as a child and repressed it. The fact that the man denied it only proved his point, obviously!
Freud was full of shit and disregarded absolutely anything in patient testimony that stood in the way of his pre-drawn conclusion. He is the epitome of psychology as not-science. It's a shame he got some things right (or at least pointed in the right direction), because we'll be dealing with the legacy of the shit he got wrong forever.
>>46405802
>every symbol of power in such a culture would be automatically phallic... what?
Towers, scepters, swords, spears...
The phallus is not the only symbol of masculinity, anon. It's simply the most enduring.
>>46405907
That's not the guy you're arguing with.
>>46405994
No, but his point was still kind of stupid.
I dislike it when people force the image of a dick on stuff like swords, spears, towers. Cutting people with a straight edge works; if you want to cut them better, make the cutting edge longer. Spears are literally knives with really long handles. Towers give the greatest floor space for the smallest X-Y value. Scepters you got me, those are kind of ridiculous. It'd be much easier to have your symbols of status be hoops so you could carry them. You can also still beat people about the face with hoops, just like scepters.
>>46405994
>Towers, scepters, swords, spears
NONE of these are based on dicks.
MAYBE scepters might. MAYBE.
There are only two practical ways of building tall buildings. Either a pyramid or a tower. Both are common.
Spears and swords are made that way because they are effective tools for killing people. They didn't make them to look like dicks.
Scepters are mostly ornamental so i'll give you a MAYBE but i still don't see any particular reason to consider them modeled after dicks.
Also back to the main point: You still haven't given a reason as to why powerful mage staves are based on dicks.
>>46405907
>This is not what you were saying earlier.
Yes, it was. I said this in an earlier post.
>Wizards are not considered pillars of their community
They are generally depicted as advisers and wise men helping others.
>a cane is not a staff.
Needless distinction, if we're talking about them literally, as you are. They're just things to keep old people from falling over, right Idiotanon?
>We were discussing why wizards ORIGINALLY have staffs, not modernly, but ok.
And I addressed it.
>Redundant.
How? I thought you said phalluses weren't always related to sexuality?
>But, Pretentianon, earlier you said a symbol isn't sexual unless the context is sexual.
You know what? You're right. I did say that. And it's limiting. Score 1 for you.
>You seemed pretty sure that staffs were associated with wizards because of their power to make babies.
Nope, that's not what I think. But I didn't communicate that.
>>46406095
>>46406105
Then remove sexuality entirely from the equation, if it's that triggering.
Mages staves are not phallic in any way, shape, or form.
>>46405994
>Towers, scepters, swords, and spears are long so they must have been inspired by benis
This shit is literally fucking retarded. Let's look at the spear in particular. The only reason it's shaped that way is because it's the most practical usage. It's a simple weapon that in its base form is a sharpened stick. It's not inherently a phallic symbol unless it's used in such a context. Vivec's spear Muatra is very much a phallic symbol because of the obvious sexual innuendo involved. A regular spear by itself is not a phallic symbol because it doesn't symbolize anything in that state you fucking mongoloid.
>>46406156
Then it's not a phallus. Everyone wins.
>>46406105
his logic is that
wizard staff == power
power == masculinity
masculinity == dick
therefore, by the transitive property
wizard staff == dick
This is the basic argument for sexual symbolism -- reduce a concept to being either masculine or feminine, and then claim that it's either phallic or vaginal because of it.
Personally, I think that doing this is trivial, since close to fucking every single concept ever can be argued as masculine or feminine by some chain or reasoning, and therefore unironically doing so is a useless exercise. It adds no new information, you could simply stop at "masculine" or "feminine" and get the same results. Taking the leap into sexual symbolism is essentially going LOL IT LOOKS LIKE A COCK
>>46406186
Exactly right. But we have to move on now, since talking about this adds no new information to anything and is inherently useless.
We should talk about fictional wizards instead.
>>46406186
Exactly. In order to turn a wizard staff into sexual imagery you need to go into at least two separate tangents to make it work.
>>46406209
>we should talk about fictional wizards instead
we should, then the thread would be on-topic for once in 160 posts.
What were the two Blue Wizards doing in the East? Did they ally with Sauron?
>>46406262
We should probably figure out if that's going to be new and useful information before we discuss it.
Blue Wizards gonna Blue Wizard.
>>46406209
>fictional wizards
As opposed to the ones in real life that don't exist?
>>46405402
O, the wizard's staff is long and hard.
It is! It is!
O, the wizard's staff is long and hard.
It is!
O, the wizard's staff is long and hard;
And the wizard plays with it in his yard.
He does! He does!
>>46406286
Yes, anon. As opposed to those.
>>46406280
if we don't know what the Wizards were doing, then any information as to their activities would be new and useful. this is pretty basic stuff, anon
>>46406117
>How? I thought you said phalluses weren't always related to sexuality?
Whaaaaaat? Jesus, now THAT'S a strawman. How is a dick not sexual?
>Yes, it was. I said this in an earlier post.
If you'd care to point it out, that'd be great, because I'm only finding references to a wizard's ability to get it up, nothing about them being likened to tribal elders.
>They are generally depicted as advisers and wise men helping others.
They are also depicted in those circumstances as suspicious and only to be gone to when dealing with something even worse than they are.
>Needless distinction
We're discussing symbols (apparently) and you think being precise is needless? Next you'll start equating wizard staffs with scepters!
>You're right. I did say that. And it's limiting.
So what now, can a symbol be sexual without sexual context or does it still need the context?
>>46406153
>Then remove sexuality entirely from the equation
We're trying, but lazy people only want to give the simple answer.
>>46406186
I'm still trying to figure out how proving a staff is a symbol of sex explains why a wizard uses a staff. Apparently because wizards can still make babies?
>>46406302
If we don't have any information from any source about the Wizards apart from what scant descriptions are available, then our discussion is conjectural.
So, what do you think they were doing? And make sure it's useful this time.
>>46406262
>What were the two Blue Wizards doing in the East? Did they ally with Sauron?
I only read the Fellowship of the Ring trio and the Hobbit, what's this about Blue Wizards?
>>46406316
Hey guy, you win. I'm not arguing any more. Can't. Won't.
We're talking about wizards now, which is clearly a more important topic.
>>46406329
well, considering that I haven't read all of Tolkien's legendarium, I was not aware that specifics didn't exist. that, in itself, is new and useful information. so this discussion has already proven it's worth to me.
as for the conjecture, we cannot say for sure, but I would wager that if they were attempting to stop Sauron's allies in the East, they were not very successful.
>>46406336
Saruman and Gandalf and Radegast weren't the only Maiar sent to Middle Earth. Two others, the so-called Blue Wizards, were also sent.
And we know fuck all about them.
>>46406372
people need to stop bullying Radagast! He's a very competent wizard!
>>46406360
Ah, so the value of a discussion is equivalent to your openness to new information? Somehow I doubt your sincerity.
They were evidently skilled at magic rendering them hard to remember and difficult to spot. That's about all we know of them.
>>46406345
we were always talking about wizards
>>46406372
>Gandalf == fire
>Radagast == shapeshifting and illusions
>Blues == camouflage
what was Saruman's magic specialty?
>>46406446
Right again.
>>46406468
How is Gandalf fire? How is Radagast illusions?
>>46406503
gandalf is a master of flame magic, I believe he says so in the Hobbit
he tells the fellowship that Radagast's specialty is "power over shapes and illusions"
O, the wizard's staff proves he's a man.
It does! it does!
O, the wizard's staff proves he's a man.
It does!
O, the wizard's staff proves he's a man.
he gripes it firmly in his hand.
he does! He does!
>>46406572
>>46406288
>>46405402
>all these raunchy women with heads in the gutters
>>46391736
a wand, staff and stick are all exactly the same thing.
>>46406648
Please, don't start it again. I tried, I really did.
>>46405010
This is fucking retarded. You're free-associating and treating those linkages as if they had real metaphysical power. Symbols can mean whatever the fuck people want them to mean. Case in point: how every culture has a different set of magical numbers with a different set of associations. The universe is built on a ten-point scale in Kabbalah or a four-point scale in the classical elements or a two-point scale in Taoism. None of these fundamental symbologies are any more legitimate than the others, and they all contradict.
Call me sexually insecure again though.
>>46406710
Hey guy. You win. Symbols are stupid things for babies and we should never ever talk about them.
Wizards now. Sexual insecurities later.
>see wizard thread
>love wizards because no sense of right and wrong
>freudfagging everywhere
>not know wizards transcend all physical and mortal boundaries
>>46406753
Symbols are stupid things for babies when we act like they have causative power on their own. Acting like wizard sticks HAVE to be phallic because of esoteric linkages between sex and creation is putting the cart before the horse, the metaphor before the concepts it connects.
>>46406753
>taking the high ground now after you conceded that you lost the argument
>>46405010
But the Dagda had a magic cauldron and he's the iconic man's god, whose huge club is brazenly and explicitly a phallic symbol. Meanwhile I can't actually think of any goddesses or sorceresses who are known for their cauldron. Baba Yaga's mortar is similar I guess, but it'd be a stretch to find sexual imagery in her propensity for flying about in kitchen utensils.
>>46406826
I never said they HAD to be, I just said they COULD. And I did, for the record, attempt to draw out those linkages you apparently missed.
But please, we're talking about stupid things for babies. We need to get back to wizards.
>>46406833
That's a bad thing? I still think they're phallic, but I've failed to convince anyone. Moving on.
>>46406852
Dude, symbolism and imagery is for squares. Like phalluses. Back to wizards, please.
>>46406852
Yeah, see, this is what I'm talking about. This idea that symbols have power of their own is completely sabotaged by the fact that symbols have drastically different meanings across cultures and contexts. In Chinese, 'four' sounds like death. That doesn't make four dangerous to Western ears, and if you argued that there are four horsemen of the apocalypse because of that you'd sound just as silly as I think you sound now.
>>46406854
>>46406876
Holy shit are you ever passive-aggressive.
>>46406852
Oh, but I can find it.
>mortar is a yonic symbol since it's concave, like the vagina
>pestle goes into yonic symbol mortar, is therefore dick
>baba yaga symbolizes her symbolic power over masculinity by grasping the phallic symbol symbolically and using it to move around in the world symbolically encased in her yonic symbol
Also probably something about traditional women in the kitchen thing.
>>46406910
Kind of like wizards.
So, the Valar? Caretakers or absentee fuckwits?
>>46406932
Come on, guy. Wizards are in, imagery is out. We have to get to the bottom of this. Really stretch out its boundaries, you know? Go as deep as we can and explore it thoroughly.
>>46406753
Thing is, we answered OP's questions. Thread is dead. That would be why I hung onto the conversation about wizard staffs for so long; the thread's original purpose had been satisfied, leaving it open to fulfill my curiosity. Now that we're done talking about that we... Have nowhere to go.
What are some of the cooller or lesser known Merlin stories?
I just really love wizards.
>>46407035
Well, we're not really done. We've reached an impasse. I just choose not to engage any longer, since it's a waste. You give no ground, I give no ground.
And please, curiosity? You responded to intellectual discussion with, well, whatever the fuck that was above.
The Last Defender of Camelot is an excellent Merlin story.
>>46406468
Crafting and industry, I believe. Also Gandalf's specialty is probably more like "inspiring hope" or being able to see clearly into the hearts of men. He's like a bard that turned wizard
>>46401348
Man-shaped shadow only really needs to be a difficult to see humanoid.
So yhea, I'm with you on that it should not be a creature clearly defined as fire and brimstone, it being a 20' Demon wouldn't be terrible stretch.
Plus, It's not terrible for a movie adaption, as the audience would different, and might not react the same to a dude they can't really see.
>>46402737
Fucking What?
>>46403997
so we all have a ork-like gestalt psychic field except it only works for fucking? neat.
>>46406710
>>46406753
>>46406797
>>46406826
>>46406833
>>46406852
>>46406854
>>46406876
>>46407106
>>46407102
>>46407072
>>46407035
>>46406963
wizard staff magic is all hand play.
I see! I see!
Wizard staff magic is all hand play.
I see!
Wizard staff magic is all hand play.
he works it first this; and then thataway.
I see!
>>46407102
You couldn't explain why mages staves were a phallic symbol and gave up.
You argument was basically "it's a symbol of power so it has to be linked to masculinity so it has to be phallic" which was bollocks as i explained.
But of course, that's just a recap, i'm not trying to restart this discussion or anything oh no no.
>>46407162
That's irrelevant.
Does a song with sexual innuendos about lollipops make them phallic symbols?
>>46406932
>Also probably something about traditional women in the kitchen thing.
That's the point though, she comes with all the trappings of a (old, peasant) woman's lifestyle because she's the original evil granny witch. You don't need to go reaching for anatomical imagery to demonstrate that she's an archetypically female figure.
>>46407267
>>46407234
Wizard staff magic works up a sweat.
It does! it does!
Wizard staff magic works up a sweat.
It does!
Wizard staff magic works up a sweat.
It's potent magic, you can bet.
It is! It is!
>>46407234
It's not bollocks, it just requires some critical thinking, which, as I explained, you are unwilling to devote even an iota of. I could have explained it better, true, but it's still a valid point.
So, Last Defender of Camelot. Great read and it's short.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9mbgaK6.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>46407318
Your point of view has been invalidated again and again, you fail to provide a defense of your point of view and give up on arguing and still you refuse to leave your high horse, resorting to "you're just not smart enough to understand, if you were smart you'd think as I do!"
>>46407234
Please don't, I was glad to see it end. Trying to parse meaning from him was tiring since he didn't seem to know what we meant either.
What are some other Merlin-esque figures?
>>46407388
Brother, I'm the one he was arguing with and I'M tired of it. Can we move on?
>>46407388
It wasn't invalidated at all. I failed to explain it clearly.
And no, I doubt you're smart enough to carry on a conversation about fiction of any kind, if your reaction to this thread is any indication.
>>46407414
>>46407396
>>46407388
>>46407318
The staff goes in and then goes out!
In! Out! In! Out!
The staff goes in and then goes out!
In! Out!
The staff goes in and then goes out.
Tighten the hand and start to shout!
In! Out! In! Out!
>>46407396
Anansi, Vainamoinen, Odin. Anansi depends, since sometimes he's an old man and sometimes he's a spider. I guess you could argue Legba, but he's more of a god than a wizard.
>>46407423
>I failed to explain it clearly
Typical excuse of someone who's afraid to change his mind.
>>46402974
OF ZOGGIN' COURSE I AM, HUMIE, WHY DO YOU CALL DAKKA-SHAPED STUFF PHALLIC?!?!?
>>46407658
Says the guy who hasn't changed his mind.
>>46407683
Because you didn't make a valid argument.
Even you said and admitted that.
>>46407729
I said I didn't explain it well enough. That doesn't mean it wasn't valid.
Come on, dude. Symbolism is for fags. Talk about wizards.
so is the freud dick talks over yet
>>46407748
>Symbolism is for fags
Stop claiming exclusivity on the subject.
>>46402577
>yfw all human magic is basically about fucking.
Human existence is all about fucking.
Niggas invented shit to get pussy.
>>46391619
From the habit of medieval priests walking with crosiers. Think about it, the two archetypical tools of the wizard is the mage staff (exactly a crosier) and a spell book (i.e. the Bible).
Priests are to wizards what lepers are to zombies.
>>46407802
Evidently not, you colossal fucking idiot.
>>46407814
i just wanna talk about wizards and shit man
>>46407805
Ooh, sick burn bro.
>>46398993
You fucking idiot. Your college education failed you.
>>46407831
Then talk about it.
>>46407871
At least he's got one.
>>46407808
>Think about it
You're already too smart for this thread.
>>46407888
Yeah. "Stick = Phalluses = Patriarchy" sure is something worth putting years and thousands of dollars into. It's morons like you and him that perpetuate every realized negative stereotypes found in Humanities.
A wizards staff is a priest's crosier. Any amount of actual, honest to God culture would have made you realized that.
This fucking thread illustrates how far /tg/ as fallen.
>>46407990
>>This fucking thread illustrates how far /tg/ as fallen.
>Implying it was something great and wonderful to begin with
>Implying your answer is the one true god
I mean, answer
>Implying Christianity had that much power over modern symbols
Staves are just staves. Old wise men use them and wizards are old wise men ergo wizards use them.
However, wands and rods are literally magical dicks that ejaculate cosmic spunk. This is indisputable. No old man carried around a bag of sticks to point at people.
>>46407990
You dislike critical thinking, so your stereoypes are self-fulfilling. We analyze text in humanities. Analyzing text requires understanding context, since we don't have the benefit of living authors 99% of the time. Understanding context requires researching cultural norms, authorial histories, and similar works from the period. We tend to ask a lot of questions about a given text. Sometimes the questions lead to new understandings, other times not. It's a learning process.
It's more than the stereotype you profess, but it's no use trying to convince you otherwise.
>>46408031
>>Implying Christianity had that much power over modern symbols
>Implying the overarching belief system of an era wouldn't be found in superficial aspects in the fictional representation of that era.
My answer is the one true God. And yes, Christianity still has that much power over modern semiology. Don't blame me for being right, you are the one who couldn't stop himself from bringing fucking dicks into it.
