Gandalf Vs. The Witch King [Archive] - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex

02-14-2006, 12:32 PM

This thread apparently never dies! ;)
I think the never ending arguments about who is more powerful, Gandalf or the Witchking, are beside the point.
In the book the moment when they are poised against each other at the gate is full of tension, just because it is not clear to the reader who might be stronger. Gandalf is not without fear (as Pippin notices, in the book), but to show him thrown to the ground and looking helpless and hopeless is so out of character. He should just stand there and not give way. The dramatic moments are obviously never dramatic enough for PJ - he has always the tendency to overdo them, which, for me at least, ruins them. (Same with the Sammath Naur scene)Guinevere, my head was nodding so much in agreement reading this that it almost fell off. What stopped it was the last sentence in brackets. But that's worthy of ANOTHER thread in itself!!!!! I thought the Sammath Naur scene (though different) worked really well movie wise!

Anyway back to Gandalf / WK - Absolutley - I think you've hit the nail on the head. I have been so vociferous against posters who say Gandalf's DEFINATELY stronger than WK blah blah blah - he may well have been but we DON'T KNOW THIS.

What you state is so true to what I think Tolkien was getting across here. There is SO much tension whilst reading this in the book. To get this scene full of tension (for NON book readers who are in the majority - sorry but that's true - these films were for them just as much as for us - even the EE I would hazard to guess) - PJ added more of a situation in Gandalf looking weaker so that we can see the Rohirrim, and therefore the World of Men, saving the day.

But to show Gandalf thrown to the ground and apparently beat I now admit to not liking - But only because Guinevere states a very good case, not just GANDALF IS FAR BETTER THAN THE WK, or in other words my dad's bigger than yours.

Cheers Gunivere! After just over 1 year I finally concede that by having Gandalf prostrate on the Floor is a bit over the top!

Mansun

02-19-2006, 12:59 PM

Gandalf feared the Balrog in the book & film but defeated it. He was anxious of the WK due to its great ability to influence the battle for ME on Minas Tirith (in the book). But the likelihood is that he would be too much for the WK in the end ...... the WK would withdraw after finding out for itself that it can match Gandalf but cannot defeat him, & would then cast its terror on the battlefield instead etc.

I don't think that Gandalf was ever going to destroy the WK ........... not unless the WK stayed long enough to battle for hours (as was the case with the Balrog of Morgoth). I also think Gandalf was much more terrified of a possible encounter with the Balrog, far more than with the WK. Only a hint though that the Balrog was more dangerous than the WK. The truth rests with Mr Tolkien.

Guinevere

02-19-2006, 01:37 PM

Come to think of it, this encounter in the book is in quite a different setting - it is much more important than the one in the movie!
In the book scene Grond has just broken the great gate of Minas Tirith and no enemy has yet entered the City. Gandalf on Shadowfax alone stands there to hinder the Witchking from entering.("all fled before his face")
And when the horns are heard, it is indeed the Rohirrim who save Minas Tirith from being invaded.

In the Movie encounter, the enemy is already in the City.( PJ wanted some more fighting!) The arrival of the Witchking on the fell beast is impressive, but not all that important. Gandalf just standing unmoving and steadfast wouldn't make that much sense, since he's not guarding the gate against the invasion. Even if Gandalf would defeat the WK, what would it help the City?
Even the arrival and the brave fight of the Rohirrim aren't that important either. In the end it's the ghastly green termite-army of the undead who saves the town.

A lot of changes which in turn caused other changes ... (most of them not to my liking, since I am not at all fond of battle and fight scenes. I usually skip them when watching the DVD!)

Essex

02-20-2006, 03:09 AM

We have to remember also, in the book, that Rohirrim's forces were also fading. When they saw the ships with the black sales all hope was lost. So therefore, Aragorn and his men also saved the day. In the film, as you point out Guinivere, that In the end it's the ghastly green termite-army of the undead who saves the town.I've tried to answer this one before. If we do not have the men of the Dead in the Pellenor, then we would have to have yet ANOTHER battle scene at Pelagir on the River. We would have to invest time in the men of the Dead fighting the Corsairs, Aragorn freeing the Slaves, Aragorn picking up all the other men, Aragorn freeing the King of the Dead and his people from their curse - in the book we had this told to us in retrospect - this would not work in a movie - all none book readers would be shouting 'where di all the green guys go?'

so without the 'green men' at Pellonor we would have to have ANOTHER big fight scene, lots of scene setting and dialouge which would SLOW the film down now that Jackson has helped skillfully bring it up towards a crescendo, and therefore we would have no surprise entrance into the Pellenor (as we have in the book) by Aragorn and co.

Therefore film wise, I can understand why Jackson had the Dead help fight Sauron's forces at Pellenor rather than at Pelagir. It was the lesser of two evils. Hey, I'd like a full length unabridged version of the text made into a mini series, and then we can have the EXACT scenes acted out as Tolkien described them. 54 hours of material (thats how long it takes to read it out aloud), with exposition, retrospective telling of tales etc cannot be fitted into three 3-4 hour movies.

alatar

02-20-2006, 10:26 AM

Therefore film wise, I can understand why Jackson had the Dead help fight Sauron's forces at Pellenor rather than at Pelagir. It was the lesser of two evils. Hey, I'd like a full length unabridged version of the text made into a mini series, and then we can have the EXACT scenes acted out as Tolkien described them. 54 hours of material (thats how long it takes to read it out aloud), with exposition, retrospective telling of tales etc cannot be fitted into three 3-4 hour movies.

But couldn't we have cut one dwarf drinking scene in exchange for showing Aragorn freeing one of many slaves, so that when the little green men do 'deboat,' they do so along with other non-ghost help?

Essex

02-20-2006, 10:58 AM

yes, why not? free a few slaves and let them jump off too and fight. don't think that would need too much exposition to do. maybe pj thought of this but didn't want the thought of even more fighters at the Pellenor people would have to keep track of. hang on, is he a baddie or a goody? I know that guy with the painted face is a baddie. but what about these other 'humans'?

just trying to see WHY he did it this way. yes, the films aren't perfect and there are occasions where we see things we could have done much better (I can't wait until we meet faramir in the TT discussion thread!)

Mansun

02-22-2006, 11:11 AM

I take back the comments originally posted - PJ has explained these elsewhere already. :smokin:

Argonath

03-02-2006, 02:49 PM

Wow! It's been a little over a year, and this thread is still sparking heated conversation as I never thought I would arouse. Thank you everyone for your shared intellect and well mannered behavior, I would expect nothing less.

Essex

03-03-2006, 10:12 AM

Argonath,

talk about 'Light the blue torch paper and retire'

I take it you like setting off Fireworks then!

:D

alatar

03-22-2006, 03:06 PM

narfforc

03-22-2006, 04:28 PM

I have played this game, having recently bought it. You are able to play as Evil or Good. I have played both, and utterly destroyed both Gandalf the White and The Witch-King against each other, defeating Sauron is not too difficult either. Playing as Sauron is pretty cool though. Both Battle for Middle-earth and Battle for Middle-earth II are great games, but are not the answer to this question. For instance, I defeated Gondor using Saruman and a Balrog. The games are great for what if's, you can even have a dragon to control.

alatar

03-23-2006, 01:14 PM

Both Battle for Middle-earth and Battle for Middle-earth II are great games, but are not the answer to this question.
Too cool. But note that I'm still willing to undertake conducting the experimentation at other's expense.

narfforc, shhh! I'm trying to get someone to buy me the game...;)

narfforc

03-23-2006, 04:52 PM

Mansun

08-10-2006, 08:02 AM

Best of luck Alatar with your attempts at getting your hands on a freebie copy of the games, I have always found the best way is to borrow it from someone, and then forget who lent it to me, pleading ignorance when my irate ex-friend turns up at my door purple-faced and talking in a foreign language full off four letter words. Once you have got hold of one of the games, I hope you do enjoy them, playing as Gandalf the White is good, you get to call for Shadowfax and charge into battle. I destroyed The Witch-King with the beam from his staff, the one you see in the film, this is called The Light of the Istari, however I killed Gandalf by continually landing on his head whilst riding my fell-beast, now why didn't Peter Jackson think off that instead of that silly grovelling scene, ummm......

The above statements are irrelevant to this thread. If you wanted to discuss these games, try all those idiots on the online format of the game.

One thing I wanted to clear up was - why did Sauron give the WK an added demonic force? Was it to prevent the upgraded Gandalf from making the current WK looking like an overrated lowly adversary, to destroy Gandalf, or just to scare off anyone else (e.g. Aragorn) who dared challenge him in his attempt to capture Minas Tirith? I think it was the former or the latter of these, but not the middle ground. Afterall, Sauron doesn't even have his Ring, so just how much power could he afford to suck out of him & onto his servant? Not enough power to destroy Gandalf I think!

Trotter

08-11-2006, 12:51 PM

Hey,

This particular scene had me yelling at the TV in unspeakable rage when I first saw it! I cannot fathom why this scene was portrayed as it was. PJ's excuses don't do it for me. Fact is, (all arguements about Gandalf's and WK's power aside) it was a weak scene that served no purpose when it could have been a strong scene that was full of it! It is a sad thing indeed, for had this scene been filmed the way that Tolkien wrote it, it could have been one of the most dramatic scenes in the film.

narfforc

08-12-2006, 12:48 PM

I am saddened for I thought on this website someones likes or ways would not be disparaged. It seems that after reading Tolkien for 35yrs and having a library of over 300 books on the subject, if I play the odd game then I am irrelevent, Alatar and I have been linked with 'all those idiots, then I obviously cannot have any say. The fact that our light-hearted comments have been taken out of context this way saddens me, this thread has gone round and round, duplicating the same arguments over and over, for what harm our comments made to it, I am sorry, however as there is no forum for these games on this website, and maybe, just maybe others (that is people who are not you), could have wanted to know of these video games, and as they are linked to the movies visually, well that is why the subject arose.

All that is written is not clever
All who play games are not daft
If you think your way for ever
Maybe it's at you next could be laughed.

P.S Thank you Mansun for your humane understanding of other peoples pass-times, whatever you do don't let on that you train spot, do flower arranging or read silly fairy stories, you know how the morons will class you an idiot for having a hobby other than theirs.

Mansun

08-12-2006, 03:37 PM

P.S Thank you Mansun for your humane understanding of other peoples pass-times, whatever you do don't let on that you train spot, do flower arranging or read silly fairy stories, you know how the morons will class you an idiot for having a hobby other than theirs.

It is no coincidence then that I share the same hobby as you, as I own BFME I & II, as well as the Fellowship of the Ring, Return of the King, & the War of the Ring. However, these games should not be discussed here - there are PLENTY of games forums & online chat rooms available (including on the games themselves). And I said idiots as a slang term, not an insult - something that probably better refers to the younger generation of gamers like me & many others.

The reason why this thread does get more than its fair share of comments (sometimes repeated albeit) is because it is a highly contraversial scene in the movie, & EVERYONE is entitled to discuss this scene regardless of how exhausted the topic may seem to get to you, particularly those who are new to the Barrow Downs, or those who may want to find answers to different angles of the topic.

Essex

08-12-2006, 05:27 PM

Mansun,

read the line "The fact that our light-hearted comments have been taken out of context "

they were having a laugh.

Luckily, we can have a laugh on this forum - a well as having serious inepth discussions (as we have done esp on this thread) - so they were not irrelevant.

To me if someone comes up with a reason why gandalf is stronger than the WK from the game of the movie, it's JUST as relevant as someone else saying 'but Gandalf was stronger than the Witch King' from reading the books as we have no proof of this in this matter, as everything on this matter is CIRCUMSTANTIAL at best.

I though it was funny anyway guys!!!!

Mansun

08-12-2006, 07:08 PM

The 1,000 Reader

08-13-2006, 12:58 AM

We can now finally answer the question posed by this thread. The new The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II video game website (http://www.ea.com/official/lordoftherings/thebattleformiddleearth/us/home.jsp) has both Gandalf the White and the Witch-King on the Fellbeast. Each character is modeled as in the PJ films. If someone or persons would like to pitch in, buy and send me the game, I will volunteer my scientific background to put this question to the test.

A HD monitor (23" or greater) may yield more convincing results ;).

Using a game franchise in which Gandalf was once practically Eru on Arda and the Witch-King is about to get an expansion which will give him the ability to summon enormous spiritual werewolves and destroy entire armies with it does not answer anything involving Tolkien's work.

I can see it now; Gandalf will be riding a tidal wave and lifting up rocks with his mind while shouting "I am God!" On the other side of the battle field, the Witch-King will be flying through the air (without a fell beast) shooting lightning from his hands shouting "Power! Unlimited power!" Overblown Gandalf and Super Sidious to be do not account for Regular Gandalf and Regular Witch-King.

Overall, Tolkien does nothing to suggest that any warrior is stronger than the other in the showdown at the gate. Gandalf has been grim regarding the possible fight, and the Witch-King shows no fear of Gandalf at the gate. Gandalf may be a maia, but the book shows that he's probably thinking "This guy might kick my butt" at the gate.

In the end, they didn't fight, so there's no need to look at this confrontation with a telescope in the books. As for the movie, that was a, so to speak, "badass-proving moment." (Yes, I know, you don't like swears, but I'm making a point here.) Overall, that scene was pretty much just to create an "Oh snap" moment for Gandalf fanatics who bought the EE.

The Saucepan Man

08-13-2006, 12:01 PM

A light-hearted aside concerning computer games does not constitute an off-topic discussion.

Were the thread to descend into a full-blown discusion of the games, then it would have veered off-topic, but that has not happened here.

Best leave the modding to the mods, Mansun.

And can everyone please remember to keep the discussion polite and courteous.

Thanks.

The 1,000 Reader

08-13-2006, 02:04 PM

I've noticed that many fans (even here) seem to forget that when Gandalf told the Witch-King to go away, the Witch-King laughed in his face, called him a fool, and drew his sword. Rohan wasn't an excuse for the Witch-King to run, Rohan was an interruption in the battle. The Witch-King left to support and save his army, and Gandalf wanted to make chase so that the Witch-King wouldn't do what Gandalf was trying to prevent, said deed being protecting and leading the army. The Witch-King did not cower out. Aragorn, Legolas, Faramir, etc would all have done the same thing if enemy reinforcements arrived, causing panic within the troops.

Essex

08-13-2006, 06:23 PM

excellent points on your last two posts, 1,000th reader

to repeat myself for the 1,000th time, there is no evidence, one way or the other to state whom is stronger than who in the aforesaid battle, except for circumstantial evidence.

and the end result was the same in both book and movie. the battle was finished by the horns of the rohirrim who came to save the day. the only difference was that gandalf was prone on the floor in the movie - a point I finally conceded about 6 months or so ago on this thread if I can remember correctly.

I was just glad to get somtething akin to the book in the EE edition of this movie, even though parts were different.

PS - Come the World War III, with a few of us lucky (or unlucky) ones sitting in our nuclear bunkers or under a mountain, we will still be here arguing whether Gandalf was stronger than the Witch King............ ;)

The 1,000 Reader

08-14-2006, 01:15 AM

excellent points on your last two posts, 1,000th reader.

Thanks. It's nice to have people compliment you to your face instead of with a rep.

PS - Come the World War III, with a few of us lucky (or unlucky) ones sitting in our nuclear bunkers or under a mountain, we will still be here arguing whether Gandalf was stronger than the Witch King............ ;)

There'll be more things than that. We'll have robotic-like fans, good guy (and bad guy) zealots, weirdos that hate the movies simply because they're movies, people who don't realize how demeaning it is for Sauron to lose to a dog, people who still debate power level stuff as if this was DBZ, etc. Like any fanbase, Tolkien's works have the rabid packs as well.

narfforc

08-14-2006, 05:35 AM

If anyone could kindly read post #262 of this thread they will see that right from the off I said the games were not an answer to this question. At the time I was responding in a light-hearted manner to a fellow Downer, on a thread subject that was stagnant, and I still think has blown its fuse. Once again I apologise for the 3 or 4 replies out of the 270 odd.

P.S Why did it take nearly five months to figure out that our posts were irrelevant, maybe because the thread was nearly as dead as The Witch-king.

alatar

08-14-2006, 01:21 PM

The above statements are irrelevant to this thread.
Mayhap is, mayhap not. My point, besides a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get someone to buy me not only the Middle Earth video game but some super cool hardware, was to show that, possibly, there was a way to glean more information about the Gandalf versus Witch-King debate. Having formerly been a scientist, or at least having played on TV, I tend to see the world in a particular way. I would like to see Gandalf (book or movie) square off against the Witch-King, and see what happens (note that I would prefer to have control over as many variables as possible in an attempt to rule out other factors affecting the contest, like roosters, Rohan and Pip). Maybe run the event 10 times to make sure of the results. However, whether the books or the movie, I cannot do this as it is a one time event - it happened, no data, that's it - and so was looking for another way.

Hence the game post.

Now, it's possible that the game programmers know nothing of Tolkien :eek: , and care nothing about the maia or man's ranking in Arda. So Gandalf could win or lose on any given play. Ted Sandyman may or may not be able to best the Balrog, and Rosie Cotton could give Galadriel fits. In that case, there would be no information. We'd be back shouting across the trenches.

If the programmers assigned some type of ranking to the characters so that the most probable outcome were that some creatures would almost always best others (again, single combat, no other help, etc), then we would like to find out why they ranked said characters higher than others. Was it whim, the programmer's personal feelings (i.e. if it were me, Gandalf would be able to whoop three Witch-Kings with one staff tied behind his back), or was some guidance/information provided by some outside source? Was this source linked to the Tolkien estate or to Peter Jackson/WETA/New Line? If so, then there is new information available that would help us in this discussion. Can we get that information? I'm not sure. Someone might be able to get hold of a programmer/spokesperson for the game and see if s/he can help. I volunteered to use my analytical skills with the game to see what I could find out. I didn't think that purchasing the game myself was ethical, as..., well, I'll get back to you on that one ;).

So, you see that, though I used a chirpy tone, I actually had a serious question in my original post, which I will restate: Do the games, based on the Peter Jackson movies, contain any new information regarding the Gandalf versus Witch-King debate? Right now, as we have none, any information would be something other than forum members' opinions.

And by the by, anyone who wants to get a real taste of my in-depth serious dissertation-style posting tone, well, stop by the SbS.

If you wanted to discuss these games, try all those idiots on the online format of the game.
I did, and though I read the walkthrough for the Gandalf on the Wall of Minas Tirith level (of the EA Return of the King video game), I still can't finish that level. That then puts me a level or two below idiot, and I would wholeheartedly agree - I used to be so good at games, then I got slow. Tis surely a shame. ;)

Come the World War III, with a few of us lucky (or unlucky) ones sitting in our nuclear bunkers or under a mountain, we will still be here arguing whether Gandalf was stronger than the Witch King...
I can see some supervillian in the future's sole goal, not to take over the world but to get the last word, once and for all, in the Gandalf versus Witch-King debate.

Cape or no cape?

narfforc

08-15-2006, 12:17 AM

Yeh I was gonna say that Alatar.....................................

Mansun

08-15-2006, 01:27 PM

Mayhap is, mayhap not. My point, besides a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get someone to buy me not only the Middle Earth video game but some super cool hardware, was to show that, possibly, there was a way to glean more information about the Gandalf versus Witch-King debate. Having formerly been a scientist, or at least having played on TV, I tend to see the world in a particular way. I would like to see Gandalf (book or movie) square off against the Witch-King, and see what happens (note that I would prefer to have control over as many variables as possible in an attempt to rule out other factors affecting the contest, like roosters, Rohan and Pip). Maybe run the event 10 times to make sure of the results. However, whether the books or the movie, I cannot do this as it is a one time event - it happened, no data, that's it - and so was looking for another way.

Hence the game post.

Now, it's possible that the game programmers know nothing of Tolkien :eek: , and care nothing about the maia or man's ranking in Arda. So Gandalf could win or lose on any given play. Ted Sandyman may or may not be able to best the Balrog, and Rosie Cotton could give Galadriel fits. In that case, there would be no information. We'd be back shouting across the trenches.

If the programmers assigned some type of ranking to the characters so that the most probable outcome were that some creatures would almost always best others (again, single combat, no other help, etc), then we would like to find out why they ranked said characters higher than others. Was it whim, the programmer's personal feelings (i.e. if it were me, Gandalf would be able to whoop three Witch-Kings with one staff tied behind his back), or was some guidance/information provided by some outside source? Was this source linked to the Tolkien estate or to Peter Jackson/WETA/New Line? If so, then there is new information available that would help us in this discussion. Can we get that information? I'm not sure. Someone might be able to get hold of a programmer/spokesperson for the game and see if s/he can help. I volunteered to use my analytical skills with the game to see what I could find out. I didn't think that purchasing the game myself was ethical, as..., well, I'll get back to you on that one ;).

So, you see that, though I used a chirpy tone, I actually had a serious question in my original post, which I will restate: Do the games, based on the Peter Jackson movies, contain any new information regarding the Gandalf versus Witch-King debate? Right now, as we have none, any information would be something other than forum members' opinions.

And by the by, anyone who wants to get a real taste of my in-depth serious dissertation-style posting tone, well, stop by the SbS.

I did, and though I read the walkthrough for the Gandalf on the Wall of Minas Tirith level (of the EA Return of the King video game), I still can't finish that level. That then puts me a level or two below idiot, and I would wholeheartedly agree - I used to be so good at games, then I got slow. Tis surely a shame. ;)

I can see some supervillian in the future's sole goal, not to take over the world but to get the last word, once and for all, in the Gandalf versus Witch-King debate.

Cape or no cape?

Lets get back to the main theme of the thread, the titanic confrontation between Gandalf vs WK which promised so much but delivered so little in the ROTK, rather than turning it into a Punch & Judy thread.

davem

08-15-2006, 01:40 PM

Lets get back to the main theme of the thread, the titanic confrontation between Gandalf vs WK which promised so much but delivered so little in the ROTK, rather than turning it into a Punch & Judy thread.

The movie messed up. The incident in the book is essential. Gandalf turns from the confrontation with Angmar in order to save Faramir. He does the right thing, because he is the only one who can save Faramir. It is an act of trust in Eru, that in the end a good act will be rewarded. Frodo makes the same choice with Gollum if you think about it. Gandalf rejects the belief that the end justifies the means, that it would be ok to let Faramir be killed in order to win the battle. To desert Faramir would have been immoral. Gandalf had no choice if he was to stay true to himself & what he was fighting for.

Mansun

08-15-2006, 01:54 PM

The movie messed up. The incident in the book is essential. Gandalf turns from the confrontation with Angmar in order to save Faramir. He does the right thing, because he is the only one who can save Faramir. It is an act of trust in Eru, that in the end a good act will be rewarded. Frodo makes the same choice with Gollum if you think about it. Gandalf rejects the belief that the end justifies the means, that it would be ok to let Faramir be killed in order to win the battle. To desert Faramir would have been immoral. Gandalf had no choice if he was to stay true to himself & what he was fighting for.

True, but in the book Gandalf was all too aware that the WK could not only kill more people if he was not confronted, he could even bring ruin on Minas Tirith itself since knobody else at the time had the courage to challenge him. If Gandalf had gone on to challenge the WK, it may have been that Theoden would have still lived, & by Gandalf halting the domination of the WK on the battlefield, that in itself would have at least given the soldiers of Gondor & Rohan more belief that victory was still possible. I would therefore not have blamed Gandalf for going after the WK in this situation, as Gandalf could not have just relied on hoping that a prophecy would avail. A prophecy is just that - it is a prediction & not necessarily a means to an end.

The film however does not really make out that the WK is critical to the success of Mordor, aside from being the General. If Gandalf had taken him out, Mordor would still have been well in charge of the battle of the Pelennor fields.

Essex

08-15-2006, 03:06 PM

davem

08-15-2006, 03:14 PM

The Saucepan Man

08-15-2006, 07:01 PM

Lets get back to the main theme of the thread, the titanic confrontation between Gandalf vs WK which promised so much but delivered so little in the ROTK, rather than turning it into a Punch & Judy thread.Let's let people post what they would like to post on this thread, provided that it remains within the forum principles and tangentially relevant to the subject at hand, shall we? :rolleyes:

If you do not wish to read particular posts, you do not have to. As I have said previously, please leave the modding to the mods. That's kind of what we are here for ...

The 1,000 Reader

08-15-2006, 09:50 PM

In the end, there was no clear advantage to any side, none backed down or quivered in their boots, and they were both pulled away from the fight before it could start. In the end, it's best to look at it like a battle of equals. Enough said.

Mansun

08-16-2006, 05:46 AM

as DaveM said, Gandalf took the moral choice (as I pointed out about 6 months or so, but great minds think alike Dave, LOL!)

Mansun, if Gandalf had gone after the Witch King and defeated him (sending him packing, but not killing him as the Propehcy foretold) - then Middle-earth would have been lost....

Refer to my earlier posts on this - this thread is a very good read but I'm afraid it's mostly all been said before...........

Gandalf took the moral choice? Of course he did - but that does not mean it was necessarily the right choice. At the time, the choice was finely balanced, Gandalf was undecided & his instinct was to protect Minas Tirith from the WK, & for that knobody could blame him if he did go after the WK. In the end he had to rescue (after intense persuasion from Pippin) Minas Tirith from another evil which had set inside to corrupt the heart of the City.

It is interesting to note that, by Gandalf confronting the WK & telling him to go back, he was actually giving the WK a choice to return to Good, which the WK rejected utterly due to it being subdued to the Evil will of Sauron & thus its demise followed quickly thereafter. The same could be said for the Balrog also, when it confronted Gandalf.

Mansun

08-16-2006, 06:12 AM

Let's let people post what they would like to post on this thread, provided that it remains within the forum principles and tangentially relevant to the subject at hand, shall we? :rolleyes:

If you do not wish to read particular posts, you do not have to. As I have said previously, please leave the modding to the mods. That's kind of what we are here for ...

Where did The Saucepan Man name originate from? Sounds like a superhero who could take on the Witch-King & wallop him with the pan while it is still hot. No need for Gandalf to take on the WK afterall!

The 1,000 Reader

08-16-2006, 08:04 PM

It is interesting to note that, by Gandalf confronting the WK & telling him to go back, he was actually giving the WK a choice to return to Good, which the WK rejected utterly due to it being subdued to the Evil will of Sauron & thus its demise followed quickly thereafter. The same could be said for the Balrog also, when it confronted Gandalf.

I think you're overcomplicating that. I think it was, in basic terms, like:

"Get the **** out!"
"Bring it on, *****!"

Pretty simple.

Mansun

08-18-2006, 12:12 AM

I think you're overcomplicating that. I think it was, in basic terms, like:

"Get the **** out!"
"Bring it on, *****!"

Pretty simple.

I am actually basing my ideas from the excellent Spark Notes study guide for The Lord of the Rings (written by ex-Harvard University students who have a real passion for the subject). Although we are discussing the movies on this thread, I very much recommend that people buy this study guide, as it really does add another dimension to one's thinking - 232 pages all for just £2.99.

Gandalf, being a symbol for Good, really did give the 2 big villains of the LOTR (save Sauron) a choice to turn away from Evil. That, I guess is what he was sent to middle-earth for.

alatar

08-18-2006, 08:43 AM

Lets get back to the main theme of the thread, the titanic confrontation between Gandalf vs WK which promised so much but delivered so little in the ROTK, rather than turning it into a Punch & Judy thread.
Sorry. Thought that you might be interested my reasoning regarding why I posted thus.

Gandalf, being a symbol for Good, really did give the 2 big villains of the LOTR (save Sauron) a choice to turn away from Evil. That, I guess is what he was sent to middle-earth for.
Gandalf the Confessor? That's an interesting take on the text. Does he only give the choice to the more powerful main characters (i.e. the Balrog, the Witch-King, Saruman) as he seems never to ask any of the orcs or wargs to turn from their evil ways before he despatches them? My understanding of the text is that he is offering his opponent a way out, as he sees its end, and that it is nigh, and so tells said opponent that it may want to retreat.

A common courtesy from the exemplar of Good Guys.

Saruman truly gets a chance to turn, but does Gandalf have the power to absolve the other White Wizard's sins? I think not; Saruman would be judged by his behaviour (works) after he were to leave Orthanc.

And though this too is off-topic, to me in Middle Earth there is a strong correlation between 'human-attractive' form and the chance for redemption. The Witch-King, having no real form, had no chance to turn away from evil.

Mansun

08-20-2006, 12:30 AM

Come to think of it, a Punch & Judy showdown between Gandalf vs Witch King would be quite funny.

The 1,000 Reader

08-20-2006, 03:29 AM

I don't think Gandalf would be too happy with that since the Witch-King's gauntlets would basically be iron knuckles.

Mansun

08-20-2006, 04:22 PM

I don't think Gandalf would be too happy with that since the Witch-King's gauntlets would basically be iron knuckles.

Gandalf has his solid oak staff to stave off the Witch-King. We may have a stalemate here.

The 1,000 Reader

08-20-2006, 05:30 PM

He won't have that staff if it's a Punch and Judy fight.

Mansun

08-21-2006, 02:24 AM

He won't have that staff if it's a Punch and Judy fight.

They usually use a cosh or something to immitate a staff. :p

The 1,000 Reader

08-21-2006, 07:48 PM

And a mace will tear right through a staff, or it could get set on fire.

Mansun

08-22-2006, 11:05 PM

And a mace will tear right through a staff, or it could get set on fire.

What? The old wizard would probably have wacked the head off the Witch-King by then with his staff. Take that as a lesson - always respect your elders.

Am I the only one who thinks the WK is badly overrated in the movies & the book? :eek:

ninja91

08-24-2006, 07:13 AM

Respect your elders? How do we know that Gandalf is older than the Witch-King? (I am expecting to be proven embarrassingly wrong)

Mansun

08-24-2006, 08:10 AM

Respect your elders? How do we know that Gandalf is older than the Witch-King? (I am expecting to be proven embarrassingly wrong)

The Gandalf puppet would have a very long white beard indeed. The Witch-King would probably look like Darth Vader. Who would you think to be older?

ninja91

08-24-2006, 08:27 AM

Well, the Witch King is basically a magically enhanced evil spirit of a king who died centuries, possibly even an age or more ago. Was Gandalf around even before then? And was it because he was one of the Maiar?
yeah... post #300 on this thread
go me

narfforc

08-24-2006, 11:25 AM

Gandalf/Olorin was present before the Creation of Ea, The Witch-king is a man by origin, so even if he was the oldest man alive/dead, then he would still be Ages younger than any Maia, for the Sun rose only in the First Age of Middle-earth. I hope that clears up who is older.

CSteefel

09-27-2006, 10:48 PM

I think one has to distinguish between consistency within the movie itself and the issue of whether the book was followed or not.

Clearly, the scene in which the staff of Gandalf is broken by the Witch King is very different from the book. In the book, I think the battle was meant to be either a standoff, or one in which Gandalf might have won eventually due to the reasons given above, the Maia origin, the return to Earth after the fight with the Balrog with new powers, the fact that the Black Riders are driven off early on by Aragorn, later on the Pellennor Fields by Gandalf himself. But equally clearly, Tolkien wanted the humans (Eowyn and Merry specifically) to bring about the end of the Witch King, thus establishing their own heroic claims. It would not make for much of a story to have Gandalf simply deal with all of the enemies.

As far as the movie is concerned, some of these same arguments can be advanced, although Peter Jackson is not necessarily adhering to the hierarchy of Middle Earth discussed elsewhere. So there is just the question of how Gandalf is able to drive off the Nazgul at Weathertop, and then again on the Pelennor Fields.

My main problem is that the breaking of Gandalf's staff seems gratuitous, since Tolkien provided a perfectly good mechanism by which the final confrontation between the Witch King and Gandalf can be avoided in the interest of the dramatic tension of the story. That is, the Witch King is called away by the arrival of the Rohirrim, while Gandalf is called away by the threat to Faramir. In the book, the confrontation between the two is merely delayed in the minds of the Witch King and Gandalf, except that Theoden is killed in the interim (which Gandalf bemoans in the book, pointing out that he might have saved him, as he did Faramir earlier) and then Merry and Eowyn finally dispatch the Witch King, fulfilling the prophecy of Glorfindel some 1300-1400 years earlier.

So yes, for me this was the worst scene in the movie and the one that seems the most out of place, although I come at the movie after having read the book about 10 times. Still, even in the movie we see the defeat of the Balrog by Gandalf, even at the cost of his own life, and then the return with apparently enhanced powers, so this breaking of Gandalf's staff simply does not make sense.

alatar

09-28-2006, 11:17 AM

But equally clearly, Tolkien wanted the humans (Eowyn and Merry specifically) to bring about the end of the Witch King, thus establishing their own heroic claims. It would not make for much of a story to have Gandalf simply deal with all of the enemies.
Even in the books, Gandalf is just there to keep the 'playing field' level. He never attacks the forces of Sauron, but simply defends. He shepherded Faramir and the wounded home, and drives away fear when the Nazgul appear. Gandalf faces down the Witch-King at the Gate, but does not attack him.

PJ, I think, as you say, wanted to make sure that humankind had its role, but he may have diminished the role of Gandalf too much in order to pump up Aragorn's.

So there is just the question of how Gandalf is able to drive off the Nazgul at Weathertop, and then again on the Pelennor Fields.
Note that in the movies Gandalf never sees the Nazgul until the Pelennor Fields (if memory serves). In Gondor Gandalf uses his magic spotlight, which, being so much like the Searchlight Eye of Sauron, drives the Nazgul from their prey. However, Gandalf cannot use this same ability later as (1) you can only use a spell once per day per AD&D rules or (2) he ran out of batteries. ;)

My main problem is that the breaking of Gandalf's staff seems gratuitous, since Tolkien provided a perfectly good mechanism by which the final confrontation between the Witch King and Gandalf can be avoided in the interest of the dramatic tension of the story. That is, the Witch King is called away by the arrival of the Rohirrim, while Gandalf is called away by the threat to Faramir. In the book, the confrontation between the two is merely delayed in the minds of the Witch King and Gandalf, except that Theoden is killed in the interim (which Gandalf bemoans in the book, pointing out that he might have saved him, as he did Faramir earlier) and then Merry and Eowyn finally dispatch the Witch King, fulfilling the prophecy of Glorfindel some 1300-1400 years earlier.
Much agreed.

CSteefel

09-28-2006, 09:34 PM

Even in the books, Gandalf is just there to keep the 'playing field' level. He never attacks the forces of Sauron, but simply defends. He shepherded Faramir and the wounded home, and drives away fear when the Nazgul appear. Gandalf faces down the Witch-King at the Gate, but does not attack him.

Good point, I had not thought of it this way, but I believe you are right. Even the fight with the Balrog could be thought of this way, since he is basically defending the Fellowship.

Still (and perhaps you agree), breaking Gandalf's staff goes well beyond this, implying that Gandalf cannot defend himself. I still find this hard to swallow even without the books, because in the movie, the return of Gandalf the White is certainly played up, and it makes no sense to have him sent back as a Maia with apparently enhanced powers and then have him ignominiously de-staffed by the Witch King.

alatar

10-04-2006, 08:05 AM

I did read last night, in the Return of the King, that when the Nazgul withdrawal from their attack on Faramir's retreat, due to the coming of Gandalf, that it states something like (and maybe someone can provide the exact text) the Witch-King did not want to contest the White power at that time. This, to me, means that the Witch-King would eventually go after Gandalf, the Boss for the good side, but did not do so rashly as his foe would not be easily defeated.

Essex

10-04-2006, 08:44 AM

.... it makes no sense to have him sent back as a Maia with apparently enhanced powers and then have him ignominiously de-staffed by the Witch King.As mentioned on this thread here many moons ago and here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12587&highlight=staff

What's so important about breaking Gandalf's staff? It's really just a symbol rather than a weapon really. OK, so Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, but he was just showing what power he himself had at that point. I think that's what PJ may be trying to do here, to show that the Witch King has grown in power too.

As I mentioned on the thread above. to summarise:

here's where I can see the use of gandalf's staff in lotr

breaking the bridge in moria

making a faggot burst into flame on caradhras

Facing the wargs he held his staff up to ward off the wargs, but used a flaming branch and a spell to finish them off, not his staff

He tried to use his staff to open the doors of moria to no avail

He used it as a torch in moria and to flash a bolt of light to see what was about

He ‘lifted up his staff’ - possibly to ward off the blows of the 3 hunters when he met them in fangorn

He raised his staff in edoras making ‘a roll of thunder and to blot the sunlight out

But notice this: no mentioned of his staff against saruman – “He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.”

And notice saruman has a staff when the company overtakes him – but obviously no power to run ‘through’ it.

So really I see the staff as possibly a conduit of his power. But I don;t really believe Gandalf needs a staff to use his power.

Indeed, he uses his hand to break Saruman's staff, both movie and book wise, and his hand to ward off the nazgul on the pellonor fields bookwise

My final point from another thread where I (sacrilegously maybe) blame the Author: the staff makes it EASIER to cast spells, why does he not use his staff on the two of the most important confrontations - 1/ on the door to the chamber he had to say a Word of Command - which spent him of most of his power and 2/ breaking Saruman's staff - neither of these occasions did he use his staff, but in the case of number 1 - Ten minutes later he DOES use his staff to break the Bridge. Very confusing I have to admit....... a mistake by the Author??????

alatar

10-04-2006, 09:06 AM

Essex, it's all clear now. The reason Gandalf uses his staff only in specific cases is so that he doesn't have to bend at the waist - bad back and all. If the object/person is in reach, then he just raises his hand; if not, he gets out his stick. ;)

Trotter

10-04-2006, 09:28 AM

So really I see the staff as possibly a conduit of his power. But I don;t really believe Gandalf needs a staff to use his power.

Indeed, he uses his hand to break Saruman's staff, both movie and book wise, and his hand to ward off the nazgul on the pellonor fields bookwise :

Agreed, the staff being broken doesn't bother me so much as Gandalf falling upon the ground with that look of fear on his face! Book Gandalf never would have let an enemy see his fear. PJ could have at least scripted a duel between the two that ended with the WK flying off to confront the Rohirrim. Or better yet, he could have shot the scene as it was in the book! :rolleyes:

Mansun

10-07-2006, 04:02 PM

Agreed, the staff being broken doesn't bother me so much as Gandalf falling upon the ground with that look of fear on his face! Book Gandalf never would have let an enemy see his fear. PJ could have at least scripted a duel between the two that ended with the WK flying off to confront the Rohirrim. Or better yet, he could have shot the scene as it was in the book! :rolleyes:

Or better still, he should not have included this scene at all as it serves no purpose other than to start a long debate about who is mightier of the two (my vote goes to Gandalf the White by some margin)!

Essex

10-08-2006, 12:40 PM

Mansun

10-08-2006, 12:46 PM

but it doesn't really matter in the long run WHO is more mightier than the other. If the strongest aways won each fight, how boring would life be? if the strongest won, how comes Sauron didn't win? Middle-earth thankfully isn't as black and white as this.

I think it mattered to the people of Gondor at the time of war! Anyway, the two were about to draw fire with fire in the book - a direct confrontation of powers of Good & Evil. In this kind of scenario where the stakes are very high the victor is usually the Good one with the higher order of power, although the film did not follow this order of course. To see Gandalf so easily overmatched by the Witch-King in the film was a huge disappointment for his character, unlike his encounter with Saruman & the Balrog in the first movie.

By the way, how would you have gone about filming this scene Essex & nafforc?

Essex

10-09-2006, 09:04 AM

By the way, how would you have gone about filming this scene Essex & nafforc?I would have filmed it exactly as it was in the book. But I'm unsure of the dramatic tension it would have on screen as apposed to the tension it does have in the book. I think this might be one of the reasons why Jackson & co made their Sacrilegeous Change. - it's not possible sometimes to copy line for line and action for action from book to film. See my earlier post on how weak movie Harry Potter &TPS was compared to the written word.

Mansun

10-09-2006, 10:23 AM

I would have filmed it exactly as it was in the book. But I'm unsure of the dramatic tension it would have on screen as apposed to the tension it does have in the book. I think this might be one of the reasons why Jackson & co made their Sacrilegeous Change. - it's not possible sometimes to copy line for line and action for action from book to film. See my earlier post on how weak movie Harry Potter &TPS was compared to the written word.

I agree, but if PJ wanted to add more tension then how about the WK just hurling a bolt of fire at Gandalf, who with all his power just manages to block it (rather like when he staved off the huge fire sword of the Balrog)?

Rather than getting into a debate again over who was mightier than who, it wasn't even realistic that Gandalf could be finished off within 10 seconds of combat unless the Witch King was much, much more mightier. I doubt even whether Sauron could manage it so clinically - but according to PJ's logic the Dark Lord would be able to finish off Gandalf in 1 second!

Even people who watched all the movies but without indepth knowledge of book were probably left wondering why Gandalf was so easily overmatched by the WK when he overcame what appears a greater foe in the form of the Balrog.

In short, PJ should have stuck with the hierachy of power as with the Book; in some cases, knobody knows for sure who is more powerful than who, so the audience should be left with the same feeling rather than being given the answer in this false manner so simply. The same also applies for the scene where Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron - in the book he is more or less the equal of the Witch King so why was he so easily defeated in the movie??? Where is the logic????

Macalaure

10-09-2006, 02:45 PM

But I'm unsure of the dramatic tension it would have on screen as apposed to the tension it does have in the book.
I'm sure it would have the same effect and the same tension. In the book it is one of the tensest moments at all and I can understand PJ couldn't bring himself to drop it completely. The problem is, that it's a quite un-Jacksonesque kind of tension.

Let's imagine how it could have been.

Grond has just smashed the gate (without the Witch King's help, different from the book). We see the wolf's head swing back like we do in Jackson's vision. Then Gandalf tells his gondorian soldiers to stand their ground whatever comes through the gate.

The audience holds their breath. Now we're prepared for anything. A great onslaught of orcs and trolls and whatnot probably?

No.

We see the black hooves of a black horse slowly stride through the gate. Cut to Gandalf. He does not move, but his face does show fear. We see the faces of soldiers showing a lot more of it. But Gandalf is in control.

The camera moves from the hooves up, and there we see the figure cloaked in back: A Nazgûl, no, the Nazgûl. The bowmen stand paralysed, no dart is shot. We see the Witch King moving his head, taking a glance at the defenders.

A moment of silence.

The Nazgûl theme rises.

And there goes the trademark Nazgûl scream, worse than ever. The defenders drop their weapons and flee.

*Nêbâbîtham Magânanê*

Gandalf alone remains on Shadowfax, stern and unmoved, less fearful now. The music stops again.

"You cannot enter here etc."

The Witch King is dismayed, but little. That does not suffice to drive him away. Again a moment of silence. Then he lifts his arms, he leads his hands to his hood. Do we finally, after 2 and a half movies, get to see what's under those sheets? Yes! In slow motion he takes the sides of his hood and guides them to his shoulders. Now we see his crown (an iron bracelet with some sort of spikes and dark gems) and his eyes(!) (glowing red, I would say)

"Old fool! Old fool! This is my hour"

He lifts his sword at the word 'my'. Flames run over it (this part is, minus fell beastie, the same as PJ did it). The Witch King then delivers the rest of his line.

Skip the cock. The Witch King charges towards Gandalf. Gandalf is ready to meet him and then...

...well, horns and stuff, Rohan came. The Witch King turns and rushes out the gate where his fell beast awaits its master.

And that's it. We'll see Pippin keeping Gandalf from hunting the Witch King only after the Rohirrim attack.

Now don't crush my innocent ego by saying this wouldn't work. :(

Alright, do it! I dare ya! :p

alatar

10-09-2006, 02:56 PM

Note that the Witch-King Gandalf problem does not start up by the citadel, but much sooner. Gandalf's doubts about Frodo and the war (when he had to lean on both Aragorn and Saruman respectively in RotK) showed that he was failing well before he loses his staff. In the Seq08 post of the RotK SbS, I'll note another scene where Gandalf is shown to be losing hope, and now that I'm seeing it in detail, this is even worse than being destaffed.

Essex

10-09-2006, 05:29 PM

I'm sure it would have the same effect and the same tension. but your script below, very well put together I must say, is different from the book. You say Skip the cock. The Witch King charges towards Gandalf. Gandalf is ready to meet him and then...

...well, horns and stuff, Rohan came. The Witch King turns and rushes out the gate where his fell beast awaits its master.You are adding in action (ie the wk charging at gandalf) here to heighten the scene on screen. What I'm saying is that you can't do this scene on celluloid with the two of them standing yards apart talking to each other and one of them brandishing a sword. You had to add action to bring us to a point where the Rohirrim 'saved the day'.

PS your way would look a lot better to me though than PJs version. But I also think PJs making the WK look stronger than gandalf so it gives eowyn and merry even more of a heroic stature than they already have - someone who could perhaps defeat gandalf killed by a mortal woman and hobbit.

PPS as said months back on this thread - the countless times I've read this scene in the book I always have a feeling that Gandalf is somewhat bluffing - I seem to get the feeling myself that the WK IS stronger. (though I don't like gandalf prostrate on the floor - that is too much I admit)

The 1,000 Reader

10-09-2006, 05:59 PM

What? The old wizard would probably have wacked the head off the Witch-King by then with his staff. Take that as a lesson - always respect your elders.

Wrongo. Mortal weapons don't work. As for you opinion, I think that you badly underrate the Witch-King. This is the only badguy who actually took over an enemy kingdom and ruled it for a full year.

I thought you guys already solved this: Gandalf didn't know if he could beat the Witch-King, and the Witch-King was confident he could thrash old GTW.

Macalaure

10-10-2006, 03:28 AM

You are adding in action (ie the wk charging at gandalf) here to heighten the scene on screen.Yeees, okay, you're right. It's not line by line the way it is in the book. But it's quite close, I think.
When I say the Witch King charges towards Gandalf, I didn't mean that they actually get to fight. The WK just approaches his enemy, like he probably would have in the book if the Rohirrim came some seconds later. It's just to show how close to really fighting the two are in the scene.

On whether the Witch King or Gandalf are stronger, of course we do not know. The Witch King has just been upped by Sauron and has the prophecy at his side. Gandalf has just been upped by probably Iluvatar and is a Maia.
I think Gandalf is stronger, but he couldn't have defeated his opponent, not because the prophecy says he couldn't, but because it says that he wouldn't. It would have been a draw even if they did fight.

Mansun

10-10-2006, 08:14 AM

PPS as said months back on this thread - the countless times I've read this scene in the book I always have a feeling that Gandalf is somewhat bluffing - I seem to get the feeling myself that the WK IS stronger. (though I don't like gandalf prostrate on the floor - that is too much I admit)

I think Gandalf the Grey more or less conceeded defeat to the Balrog by quaking in doubt & fear even before the battle began, yet who came out the victor? Gandalf isn't above fear - he would be a fool not to be anxious of doing battle with the dangerous WK. But my feeling is that the majority of his anxiety is based on lack of confidence in himself due to the storm of Mordor which was crippling Minas Tirith at the time. The WK obviously used this advantage to gain confidence. Tolkein meanwhile had achieved greater suspense to the confrontation, & I cannot help thinking that he decided to tonic the power of the WK at the last minute because he was concerned that the WK would otherwise not pose a threat to Gandalf the White, having failed to do so when Grey.

Unfortunatley, for me, the WK never lived up to his character in the book as a truly powerful force in the same way as the Balrog did. The damage to his character was already done after being held off by Aragron relatively easily at Weathertop, & of course by Gandalf the Grey before then without too much danger. The added demonic force suggests that he was a touch more dangerous than before - but that is all. For that reason, the scene in the movie just does not fit either.

alatar

10-10-2006, 08:22 AM

PS your way would look a lot better to me though than PJs version. But I also think PJs making the WK look stronger than gandalf so it gives eowyn and merry even more of a heroic stature than they already have - someone who could perhaps defeat gandalf killed by a mortal woman and hobbit.
Except that, after killing that which floored Gandalf, Eowyn then has to endure the 'running from the Gimp' scene, as for PJ, slaying the Witch-King just wasn't enough for poor Eowyn. No 'dieing scene,' where we are led to believe that after smiting such a foul creature Eowyn 'dies.' No pause in the movie to allow the viewers to consider what just happened. Merry, after stabbing the Witch-King, is not damaged enough to remain in Minas Tirith after the battle.

No big deal after all.

And regarding prophecy, I found this (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-10/100606case.html#i12) interesting and amusing.

Essex

10-10-2006, 09:52 AM

Except that, after killing that which floored Gandalf, Eowyn then has to endure the 'running from the Gimp' scene, as for PJ, slaying the Witch-King just wasn't enough for poor Eowyn. No 'dieing scene,' where we are led to believe that after smiting such a foul creature Eowyn 'dies.' No pause in the movie to allow the viewers to consider what just happened. Merry, after stabbing the Witch-King, is not damaged enough to remain in Minas Tirith after the battle.

No big deal after all.But we DO have the 'dying scene' and the Pause for dramatic effect BUT AFTER THE BATTLE IS DONE. We have Eomer wailing his heart out holding her 'dead' body - then we see Aragorn healing her wonded arm and body in the HoH.

We have Merry, lying near the mumakil, looking very beat up to me when Pippin finds him. If only we had the 'Are you going to bury me' line instead of 'I knew you'd find me'......

The 1,000 Reader

10-10-2006, 02:59 PM

I think Gandalf the Grey more or less conceeded defeat to the Balrog by quaking in doubt & fear even before the battle began, yet who came out the victor?

You do realize that the fear build-up was different, right? With the Balrog, it was pretty much a surprise, while Gandalf had a good amount of time to think about the fight with the Witch-King.

Gandalf isn't above fear - he would be a fool not to be anxious of doing battle with the dangerous WK. But my feeling is that the majority of his anxiety is based on lack of confidence in himself due to the storm of Mordor which was crippling Minas Tirith at the time. The WK obviously used this advantage to gain confidence.

No, as mentioned, Gandalf spoke of the possibility of fighting the Witch-King, and he was very grim while speaking about it.

Tolkein meanwhile had achieved greater suspense to the confrontation, & I cannot help thinking that he decided to tonic the power of the WK at the last minute because he was concerned that the WK would otherwise not pose a threat to Gandalf the White, having failed to do so when Grey.

He didn't fail to pose a threat to Gandalf at Weathertop, the reason he attacked with all of the Nazgul was that, for stealth, he and the others were weaker, and even then Gandalf just barely escaped and was held off by four Nazgul.

Unfortunatley, for me, the WK never lived up to his character in the book as a truly powerful force in the same way as the Balrog did. The damage to his character was already done after being held off by Aragron relatively easily at Weathertop, & of course by Gandalf the Grey before then without too much danger. The added demonic force suggests that he was a touch more dangerous than before - but that is all. For that reason, the scene in the movie just does not fit either.

He wasn't driven away by Aragorn, he simply left because his work was already done. As I also mentioned, Gandalf just barely got away and was then held off by four Nazgul. If it helps, I've always seen the added demonic force as Sauron allowing him full power. Honestly, considering that Morgoth and Sauron made their kingdoms in places nobody was, and considering they never beat their enemies, the Witch-King actually has a more accomplished track record.

Mansun

10-10-2006, 04:54 PM

You do realize that the fear build-up was different, right? With the Balrog, it was pretty much a surprise, while Gandalf had a good amount of time to think about the fight with the Witch-King.

No, as mentioned, Gandalf spoke of the possibility of fighting the Witch-King, and he was very grim while speaking about it.

He didn't fail to pose a threat to Gandalf at Weathertop, the reason he attacked with all of the Nazgul was that, for stealth, he and the others were weaker, and even then Gandalf just barely escaped and was held off by four Nazgul.

He wasn't driven away by Aragorn, he simply left because his work was already done. As I also mentioned, Gandalf just barely got away and was then held off by four Nazgul. If it helps, I've always seen the added demonic force as Sauron allowing him full power. Honestly, considering that Morgoth and Sauron made their kingdoms in places nobody was, and considering they never beat their enemies, the Witch-King actually has a more accomplished track record.

I think we will have to agree to disgree on the above - I am of the belief that Tolkein threw in the added demonic force for the WK so as to save his credibility of being some sort of threat to Gandalf the White, which might not have otherwise looked like the case.

If Mordor wasn't so easily infront in terms of numbers etc ahead of Gondor then I doubt if Gandalf would have been as anxious of the WK. I believe in battles of this sort the human on the Good side needs confidence to see out his full potential. This applies to the Bad side too - even the WK had in the past been shaken in confidence after the battle with Gandalf at Weathertop, & the narrow escape with Frodo's enchanted blade.

As for the Balrog encounter, the movie potrays things slightly differently in that Gandalf does not contest with it until it reaches the bridge; in the book Gandalf has already ''met his match & had been nearly destroyed'' by then after ''doing all he could'' - at this stage he did not know his nemisis but admitted it was one which never gave him such a challenge compared to anything else before (therefore including the encounter with all nine Nazgul).

Tolkein never got to show (out of choice) whether the powered-up WK had the power in him to match a Balrog, but just consider the scenario of a Balrog being defeated as easiliy as the WK was by Eowyn & Merry - impossible as it would be far too strong physically as well as through it's sorcerous armoury.

The 1,000 Reader

10-10-2006, 05:53 PM

I think we will have to agree to disgree on the above - I am of the belief that Tolkein threw in the added demonic force for the WK so as to save his credibility of being some sort of threat to Gandalf the White, which might not have otherwise looked like the case.

Since when did you speak for everyone in the thread? Also, if Tolkien was anything with his stories, it was picky. If Tolkien was going to make that confrontation, he would make it have meaning, not just some page filler.

If Mordor wasn't so easily infront in terms of numbers etc ahead of Gondor then I doubt if Gandalf would have been as anxious of the WK. I believe in battles of this sort the human on the Good side needs confidence to see out his full potential. This applies to the Bad side too - even the WK had in the past been shaken in confidence after the battle with Gandalf at Weathertop, & the narrow escape with Frodo's enchanted blade.

Gandalf never said he was dismayed by Mordor's armies, he was grim and doubtful only when talking about him fighting the Witch-King mano-e-mano. The Witch-King wasn't shaken when fighting Gandalf, and anyone would be slighty dismayed that they almost got killed by a specific weapon to kill them. Even then, he recovered pretty quickly from that.

As for the Balrog encounter, the movie potrays things slightly differently in that Gandalf does not contest with it until it reaches the bridge; in the book Gandalf has already ''met his match & had been nearly destroyed'' by then after ''doing all he could'' - at this stage he did not know his nemisis but admitted it was one which never gave him such a challenge compared to anything else before (therefore including the encounter with all nine Nazgul).

Yes, but when Gandalf was Gandalf the White (and thus stronger than Gandalf the Grey) He doubted that he could defeat the Witch-King in one-on-one combat. Therefore, the Witch-King was not at full power at Weathertop.

Tolkein never got to show (out of choice) whether the powered-up WK had the power in him to match a Balrog, but just consider the scenario of a Balrog being defeated as easiliy as the WK was by Eowyn & Merry - impossible as it would be far too strong physically as well as through it's sorcerous armoury.

If the Balrog was stabbed in the knee by a blade specifically made to cripple and kill it, I could very well see that happening. That was the catch with the Witch-King's death: it was a surprise attack that was done by quite possibly the most stealthy race in all of Middle-Earth with a powerful blade made to kill the Witch-King. If Merry's blade had an evil opposite, the same thing could have happened to Gandalf.

Mansun

10-10-2006, 06:12 PM

Since when did you speak for everyone in the thread? Also, if Tolkien was anything with his stories, it was picky. If Tolkien was going to make that confrontation, he would make it have meaning, not just some page filler.

Gandalf never said he was dismayed by Mordor's armies, he was grim and doubtful only when talking about him fighting the Witch-King mano-e-mano. The Witch-King wasn't shaken when fighting Gandalf, and anyone would be slighty dismayed that they almost got killed by a specific weapon to kill them. Even then, he recovered pretty quickly from that.

Yes, but when Gandalf was Gandalf the White (and thus stronger than Gandalf the Grey) He doubted that he could defeat the Witch-King in one-on-one combat. Therefore, the Witch-King was not at full power at Weathertop.

If the Balrog was stabbed in the knee by a blade specifically made to cripple and kill it, I could very well see that happening. That was the catch with the Witch-King's death: it was a surprise attack that was done by quite possibly the most stealthy race in all of Middle-Earth with a powerful blade made to kill the Witch-King. If Merry's blade had an evil opposite, the same thing could have happened to Gandalf.

Since when did I speak for everyone??? Oh dear ......... all you have done with the above rabble is just that & for that you are out of order. A lot of this subject is down to sheer opinion, & no proof can be clearly put to one point precisely above another in some cases - that is why I said we must agree to disagree, & accept the fact that it is mainly down to one's OWN interpretation. Some will see the WK as being more formiddable, others less so.

As for the WK being shaken by the fire of Gandalf at Weathertop, I am sure somebody in an earlier post mentioned that one of Tolkein's letters or from another reliable source stated just that.

alatar

10-11-2006, 08:46 AM

Let's keep in mind that we're talking about both the movie and book characters. The recent posts seem, to me, mix the two. Note that the following characters exist in both the books and the movies:
Gandalf the Grey
Gandalf the White
Witch-King (pre-Morgul signal)
Witch-King (Pelennor)

I'm getting confused as book Gandalf the Grey drives four Nazgul from Weathertop; movie Gandalf the Grey or White does not encounter any Nazgul until he and Pippin reach Minas Tirith. The Witch-King could have overestimated his own abilities; Gandalf could have underestimated his. Plus, like many superhero brawls, assume that Gandalf can easily hold his own against the 'powered up' Witch-King. Assume that Gandalf even knows this, and also knows that according to the prophecy that he himself will not slay the King of Angmar. So I guess he shouldn't have anything to fear? But the Witch-King, being on the evil side, could attack Gandalf via the hobbits, Theoden, other innocents, etc., and this thought may concern Gandalf. He may know that, regardless of the Witch-King's boasting, that the only way that Gandalf could be overcome would be for the Witch-King to make him submit, drop his staff as it were, as the WK would have taken Merry or Pip hostage.

One possibility, hopefully clearly stated.

The movie confrontation, the more I look at it, definitely has the Witch-King and Gandalf the White at least on the same level. Peter Jackson then has the Witch-King destaff the old wizard, and to that would prove that PJ's WK is more powerful than Gandalf. Though, as some say, that doesn't indicate the outcome of a battle...

And note that, in the movies, Merry's sword is not magical. My argument is that Merry's sword, when first shown to Eowyn, is noted to be dull. Narsil and Sting, both magical swords, do not require sharpening. Also, when Eowyn sees Merry's sword, she does not make any comment about it, and she has seen many a sword to be able to note something different. And Aragorn gives the swords to the hobbits on Weathertop where he casts the bundle of them on the ground. Is this the way a person handles special swords? Anyway, that's my case.

Essex

10-12-2006, 04:12 AM

I'm getting confused as book Gandalf the Grey drives four Nazgul from Weathertop; movie Gandalf the Grey or White does not encounter any Nazgul until he and Pippin reach Minas Tirith. The Witch-King could have overestimated his own abilities; Gandalf could have underestimated his. Plus, like many superhero brawls, assume that Gandalf can easily hold his own against the 'powered up' Witch-King. Assume that Gandalf even knows this, and also knows that according to the prophecy that he himself will not slay the King of Angmar. So I guess he shouldn't have anything to fear? But the Witch-King, being on the evil side, could attack Gandalf via the hobbits, Theoden, other innocents, etc., and this thought may concern Gandalf. He may know that, regardless of the Witch-King's boasting, that the only way that Gandalf could be overcome would be for the Witch-King to make him submit, drop his staff as it were, as the WK would have taken Merry or Pip hostage.But Gandalf has the body of a human and can be killed with a sword though, correct? (esp a flaming one LOL) - so he CAN be beaten, even if he IS stronger than the WK........

PS - in the weapons and warfare movie tie-in book - it states that the sword Merry uses on the Witch King is Thedoen's sword he had as a child. Why PJ wanted to do this, he only knows........

The way I approach the film is that the stuff we do not see in the movies still actually happens. ok sometimes we have some conflicts, but to me, the movie hobbits DID meet Tom Bombadil, we just didn't see it. so merry gets his sword from the barrow-wights in my mind. (he was just given an extra one by Aragorn LOL) And therefore you could also say that movie Gandalf fought off the Nazgul on weathertop too.....

PS - Movie wise, how can you convey the brilliant text of Tolkien explaining why the Witch King was defeated? I suppose we could have Gandalf mention it later, but then how would HE know?

alatar

10-12-2006, 08:00 AM

But Gandalf has the body of a human and can be killed with a sword though, correct? (esp a flaming one LOL) - so he CAN be beaten, even if he IS stronger than the WK........
The Balrog wasn't able to kill Gandalf; Gandalf just ran out of juice and color...

PS - in the weapons and warfare movie tie-in book - it states that the sword Merry uses on the Witch King is Thedoen's sword he had as a child. Why PJ wanted to do this, he only knows........
So, in PJ land, Theoden's play sword is from the Barrows of the North? Could we complicate the story more? ;)

The way I approach the film is that the stuff we do not see in the movies still actually happens. ok sometimes we have some conflicts, but to me, the movie hobbits DID meet Tom Bombadil, we just didn't see it. so merry gets his sword from the barrow-wights in my mind. (he was just given an extra one by Aragorn LOL) And therefore you could also say that movie Gandalf fought off the Nazgul on weathertop too.....
Think that you may have mentioned that once or twice before ;). But, regarding Merry's sword, the hobbit says that it's dull, and surely the Barrow wights would have taken better care of such an important artifact.

Essex

10-12-2006, 10:40 AM

From The Istari, Unfinished Tales.....Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years......whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.

PS, re Think that you may have mentioned that once or twice beforeyeah I know - but everyone else is repeating themselves over these 330 odd posts that I thought I would too ;)

alatar

10-12-2006, 11:19 AM

...but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain;
Okay, but exactly what does that mean? Gandalf fell from a height of who knows while battling a Balrog. He survives the fall, and after a swim, continues the chase. We have no idea what hardships and creatures that he faced while in the depths of the earth. Afterwards, he fights and defeats the Balrog atop the mountain. At this point his spirit leaves him or something (please supply the text if possible :) ), and then he's sent back.

At what point does he physically die, and what is the cause of death? Exhaustion?

but coming in shapes weak and humble...
That just means that the Istari didn't get off of the boat looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan (http://www.conancompletist.com). They were to "advise and persuade" not bully. Also, as old men, they would be less threatening and so be able to access more people. And, maybe as they were old, some may consider them to be wise.

PS, re yeah I know - but everyone else is repeating themselves over these 330 odd posts that I thought I would too ;)
I'm hoping to repeat myself every 30 posts or so, and contradict myself every 60...;)

Mansun

10-12-2006, 04:58 PM

Did news reach Mordor of the fall of the Balrog at the hands of Gandalf? It must be remembered that no orc actually saw the Balrog being killed. How on earth can the WK be so confident in defeating the bane of hell, fire & brimestone, that is the Balrog? Again, we cannot be sure of this, but it does not seem to fit the idea that the WK was superior to this Demon from the Ancient World, which had all of the Fellowship dumbfounded & quaking in their boots.

ingo

10-24-2006, 06:16 AM

Greetings to all, this is my first post

On this subject, I think it should be remembered that this is the world of Ea. Here once the beings enter, they are not as mighty as they were before. Morgoth gets seven wounds from Fingolfin, despite he is the mightiest being in the world. Ungoliant has dark magic which not even Manwe can see through.

And though she can bind Morgoth himself in her web, she is terrified of the Balrogs. I think its a case of the Dark Lords, Sauron and Melkor being very powerful, but giving that power to their servants (namely the WK, the Balrogs, the dragons).

The Dark lords themselves are not that strong in combat, most obvious in the Silmarillian where both Sauron and Melkor sue for peace when they are defeated. Whereas the Balrogs, dragons and other servants will fight to the death, with no fear, their masters are less brave.

To answer the debate, I think the WK would have ripped Gandalf a new one, because, the WK is super enhanced by sauron, because he carries one of the Nine. He is not a mere man, he is a Sorceror King who has given great power by the Dark Lord, and he is more than a match for a restricted Maiar.

ingo

10-24-2006, 08:26 AM

As an afterthought, it should be remembered that Sauron's power is growing throughout the 3 films, made evident by Gandalf saying "his full strength gathered". It would seem that Sauron is at that point as strong as he could be without the Ring. In turn, that would make the Nazgul as strong as they could be; at Weathertop, they could still be gathering their strength and be weaker, making it possible for Gandalf or Aragorn to chase them away.

As for Gandalf the grey killing the balrog, Gorfindal kills (and is killed by) Gothmog, the leader of the Balrogs, and possible the second most powerful Maiar after Sauron in Morgoth's army. Gorfindal is an elf (granted he is an elf lord and as Elrond says "those who have existed in the undying lands have great power against the seen and Unseen"), but he managed to take down a Maiar, and Turin Tarumbar is going to come back and take out Morgoth himself, and he's only a man, so I dont think its asking too much of the Witchking to take down GAndalf.

alatar

10-24-2006, 11:34 AM

ingo, welcome to the Downs! I think that those, like me, who disagree with you may simply be stating that Peter Jackson, in the RotK movie, did not demonstrate the possibility that the Witch-King could defeat Gandalf as well as you have in your posts.

CSteefel

10-24-2006, 03:47 PM

I think Ingo makes a good point that one cannot decide the outcome of a battle purely based on the hierarchy in Middle Earth. Both Glorfindel and Ecthelion took down Balrogs in the Sack of Gondolin, and yet both were Elves (although mighty ones). Moreover, the particular powers that a figure has in Middle Earth is not necessarily the same as what they had in the Undying Lands, for example. And of course, it is Eowyn and Merry who finally take down the WK, despite their being relatively ordinary mortals.

Still, I think the problem with the Witch King and Gandalf is that the new powers of Gandalf were played up, both in the book and the movie. In the book, the WK is said to have been given new powers by Sauron, but Gandalf has been given additional powers as well, and as Gandalf says in meeting Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli again in Fangorn, "no weapons can hurt me". So I think there is a real problem in consistency here--it simply doesn't make sense that Gandalf should be de-staffed and unhorsed so easily...

ingo

10-25-2006, 03:28 PM

Thanks alatar for the greeting. I would agree with you one that, The two mightiest beings we see in combat, (with the exception of Galadriel and Sauron) facing off and it ends with a few words and Gandalf being thrown to the ground.

I think the inconsistancy is in the characters becoming more powerful and then less powerful. As for Peter Jackson's portrayal of the scene, I think we would all agree that this is a powerful scene in the book, but its very short and he did the best he could without stretching it out and making it something else.

Mansun

02-28-2007, 12:42 PM

The WK couldn't have known for sure where the Ring was at the time of the Siege of Minas Tirith. It is perfectly possible that Gandalf had the Ring in his possession as the WK confronted him. So why the overconfidence shown by the WK in these circumstances? What would have happened if Gandalf DID have the Ring? Would the WK have still gone into battle, or realise that he is way overmatched & withdraw?

Still, I think the problem with the Witch King and Gandalf is that the new powers of Gandalf were played up, both in the book and the movie. In the book, the WK is said to have been given new powers by Sauron, but Gandalf has been given additional powers as well, and as Gandalf says in meeting Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli again in Fangorn, "no weapons can hurt me". So I think there is a real problem in consistency here--it simply doesn't make sense that Gandalf should be de-staffed and unhorsed so easily...

I would re-phrase that to '' none of YOU have weapons that could hurt me . . .'', meaning that there could be other weapons which could still harm him. Interesting to know that Anduril could pierce the Witch-King, but not Gandalf the White though, a hint that the Witch King is more vulnerable to fall than Gandalf.

Raynor

02-28-2007, 12:51 PM

So why the overconfidence shown by the WK in these circumstances?Practical reasons I would say. Even if he did have some fears about this, he wouldn't show them, it would be to his disadvantage. Plus, instilling fear was his main attribute, he should use it even when bluffing.

alatar

02-28-2007, 01:54 PM

The WK couldn't have known for sure where the Ring was at the time of the Siege of Minas Tirith. It is perfectly possible that Gandalf had the Ring in his possession as the WK confronted him. So why the overconfidence shown by the WK in these circumstances? What would have happened if Gandalf DID have the Ring? Would the WK have still gone into battle, or realise that he is way overmatched & withdraw?
We are speaking about the movies, right? Didn't one of the Winged Nazgul (whichever one) see Frodo in possession of the One Ring in Osgiliath?

I would re-phrase that to '' none of YOU have weapons that could hurt me . . .'', meaning that there could be other weapons which could still harm him. Interesting to know that Anduril could pierce the Witch-King, but not Gandalf the White though, a hint that the Witch King is more vulnerable to fall than Gandalf.
Your Gandalf quote, though fitting for how the character is portrayed by PJ, is starting to sound like 'legalese.' And how do we know how the Witch-King would be affected by Anduril?

The 1,000 Reader

02-28-2007, 03:32 PM

Since when did I speak for everyone???

You used we. It was a bad choice of words.

Oh dear ......... all you have done with the above rabble is just that & for that you are out of order.

I spoke for myself, not anyone else. All I did was provide information from the books and make a few comments. You don't have to agree with them.

A lot of this subject is down to sheer opinion, & no proof can be clearly put to one point precisely above another in some cases - that is why I said we must agree to disagree, & accept the fact that it is mainly down to one's OWN interpretation. Some will see the WK as being more formiddable, others less so.

Like I said, your was worded poorly. In the end, it does come down to people seeing the battle as one-sided or even.

Anyway, from what I summed up after reading the book, that confrontation seems to be between equals, and Gandalf showed that he was uneasy regarding the possible battle. Though the battle could have gone either way with (apparent) equal strength, it was in no way a one-sided conflict.

Mansun

02-28-2007, 03:48 PM

We are speaking about the movies, right? Didn't one of the Winged Nazgul (whichever one) see Frodo in possession of the One Ring in Osgiliath?

Your Gandalf quote, though fitting for how the character is portrayed by PJ, is starting to sound like 'legalese.' And how do we know how the Witch-King would be affected by Anduril?

Isn't Frodo at this stage close to Gondor? He could have made it back in time to hand the Ring over to Gandalf.

If Sting could pierce the Witch King, why not Orcrist or Anduril? The latter is the mightiest of all the blades, unless I am mistaken.

alatar

02-28-2007, 10:18 PM

Isn't Frodo at this stage close to Gondor? He could have made it back in time to hand the Ring over to Gandalf.
Sure, except that Gandalf was either at Helm's Deep or in route to Helm's Deep. Surely the Great Sauron would keep an 'eye' on one of his major foes.

If Sting could pierce the Witch King, why not Orcrist or Anduril? The latter is the mightiest of all the blades, unless I am mistaken.
Sting did not pierce the Witch-King or any undead, and so we don't really know what this spider's bane would have done. I'm not sure if Anduril is the mightiest of all blades. Also, note that in the movie two nonmagical blades take down the Witch-King (though in the books Merry's blade is specifically designed to bite the Angmar King.).

Cheers.

Mansun

03-02-2007, 12:23 PM

Sure, except that Gandalf was either at Helm's Deep or in route to Helm's Deep. Surely the Great Sauron would keep an 'eye' on one of his major foes.

Sting did not pierce the Witch-King or any undead, and so we don't really know what this spider's bane would have done. I'm not sure if Anduril is the mightiest of all blades. Also, note that in the movie two nonmagical blades take down the Witch-King (though in the books Merry's blade is specifically designed to bite the Angmar King.).

Cheers.

I believe somebody did raise an earlier post a few months ago saying that in a letter Tolkein describes how the WK is left shaken by the fact that he was very nearly pierced by Frodo's sword at Weather Top which would have been as deadly to the WK as the WK's knife on Frodo. Whether the Sword of Elendil is the mightiest blade of all is debatable, but it must be one of them due to its ability to pierce Sauron at the height of his power.

In the movie, Galadriel gives Merry & Pippin elven blades as gifts before they depart from Lorien, so they may still have been of use to the same effect against the WK as in the book.

Frodo could have reached Gondor with the aid of Faramir if he chose to do so, in the nick of time for Gandalf to at least gain possession of the Ring, if not wield it even.

Raynor

03-02-2007, 12:45 PM

I believe somebody did raise an earlier post a few months ago saying that in a letter Tolkein describes how the WK is left shaken by the fact that he was very nearly pierced by Frodo's sword at Weather Top which would have been as deadly to the WK as the WK's knife on Frodo.The quote doesn't appear in the letters, but in materials at the Marquette collection; it is reffered to by Hammond and Scull in the LotR Companion, comments of "A knife in the dark.
But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by own enemies for his destruction.
...
Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor knife to Frodo (as was proved at the end), he withdrew Whether the Sword of Elendil is the mightiest blade of all is debatable, but it must be one of them due to its ability to pierce Sauron at the height of his power.Narsil was specifcially used to cut the ring from Sauron's hand when he was already "overthrown". We don't know if doing that required any special weapon - nor that Narsil inflicted itself any significant damage during the fight. And frankly, a mighty sword that break's under a man??

alatar

03-02-2007, 12:53 PM

I believe somebody did raise an earlier post a few months ago saying that in a letter Tolkein describes how the WK is left shaken by the fact that he was very nearly pierced by Frodo's sword at Weather Top which would have been as deadly to the WK as the WK's knife on Frodo.
Note that, in the books and in the movie, Frodo does not acquire Sting from Bilbo until he reaches Rivendell, which follows the events on Weathertop. I could see how, in the books, the Witch-King is somewhat stung by Frodo's blade as that blade, like Merry's, comes from the Barrow, and so it at least could be a WK-bane.

Whether the Sword of Elendil is the mightiest blade of all is debatable, but it must be one of them due to its ability to pierce Sauron at the height of his power.
Do we really know how Narsil was used in the battle with Sauron? This sword was broken in the battle, and afterwards the broken shards are used to cut the Ring from Sauron's hand. Narsil surely is one of the top swords, but Sauron may have been brought down by Aiglos.

In the movie, Galadriel gives Merry & Pippin elven blades as gifts before they depart from Lorien, so they may still have been of use to the same effect against the WK as in the book.
I know that it's quibbling, but when does Merry get his elvish blade back after his stay in Orthanc? Note that the sword that he wants to use in the service of Theoden King requires sharpening, not something you'd expect for such a fair blade.

Mansun

03-03-2007, 08:01 AM

Isn't Gandalf the White a supernatural creature of a high order, & the Witch King just a corrupted sorcerer? In this situation, has there been any example of when a supernatural creature has lost in battle in Middle Earth? For the Witch King to stand a chance, he would need Sauron to have the Ring, which would enhance his own power enormously. Being given an added demonic force out of the blue by Sauron does not make sense, as Sauron is still much weaker than ever before, & so therefore are the Nazgul.

It is a fault by Tolkein, who realised that if Sauron couldn't be used, & the Witch King was not going to trouble Gandalf the White, then a quick fix of increasing the power of the Witch King was the answer. This wasn't going to be the answer, & Gandalf had already defeated the greatest foe after the Darklord in Moria in a weaker status of his Order.

Perhaps sending another foe out of Mordor, like the Mouth of Sauron, alongside the Witch King would have been a greater task for Gandalf to face.

Raynor

03-03-2007, 03:28 PM

In this situation, has there been any example of when a supernatural creature has lost in battle in Middle Earth?Fram killed Scatha the dragon, Glorfindel - a balrog, Echtelion- Gothmog lord of the balrogs, Bard - Smaug, Turin - Glaurung.

obloquy

03-03-2007, 03:30 PM

It is a fault by Tolkein, who realised that if Sauron couldn't be used, & the Witch King was not going to trouble Gandalf the White, then a quick fix of increasing the power of the Witch King was the answer. This wasn't going to be the answer, & Gandalf had already defeated the greatest foe after the Darklord in Moria in a weaker status of his Order.

It wasn't a fault of Tolkien's, it was a fault of the filmmakers'. This idea that the Witch-King is suddenly beefed up enough to match Gandalf was not Tolkien's. The Witch-King never approaches Gandalf's level in the books. There is a letter that indicates that the Witch-King was in some way enhanced for The Return of the King, but it's not clear whether Tolkien means narratively enhanced, or literally souped-up by Sauron. The latter, even if it were true, would still not put the Witch-King at any level near Gandalf's latent potential. Indeed, how could it? Sauron and Gandalf were equals in their beginnings, so how could a weakened Sauron enhance his fundamentally mortal servant to a level beyond (or even equal to) one of Sauron's own peers? To what degree Gandalf's Istar limitations were adjusted is unclear, but even while under those constraints he was capable of defeating a Balrog without violating the rules. The Balrog was unquestionably mightier than the Witch-King in written Tolkien, though the movies' conception of him may be different. If there's incongruence here, it's Jackson & co.'s, not Tolkien's.

obloquy

03-03-2007, 03:34 PM

Fram killed Scatha the dragon, Glorfindel - a balrog, Echtelion- Gothmog lord of the balrogs, Bard - Smaug, Turin - Glaurung.

Whether dragons possess any elevated form of fea (such as the ealar who are known as Balrogs) is debatable. Glorfindel and Ecthelion were virtually demigods. Glorfindel is said to be nearly as mighty even as some Maiar; Ecthelion must also have been.

The Peoples of Middle Earth, XIII, Last Writings, Glorfindel essay 2: After his purging of any guilt that he had incurred in the rebellion, he was released from Mandos, and Manwe restored him.... For long years he remained in Valinor...in the companionship of the Maiar. To these he had become almost an equal, for though he was an incarnate...his spiritual power had been greatly enhanced by his self-sacrifice.

Admittedly, this reflects the power of Glorfindel post-reincarnation, but he was evidently near to the power of an incarnated Maia, as those Balrogs who were slain must have been, even before his sacrifice. (Note: after his reincarnation he was nearly equal with Maiar in their natural incorporeal state.)

Raynor

03-03-2007, 04:04 PM

There is a letter that indicates that the Witch-King was in some way enhanced for The Return of the King, but it's not clear whether Tolkien means narratively enhanced, or literally souped-up by Sauron. To me, the later seems to be case
The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. Glorfindel and Ecthelion were virtually demigods.
As you have stated yourself, Glorfindel enhanced status appears after his death, as all reincarnated elves are, IIRC. That passage you quoted is irrelevant for Glorfindel at the time of his battle; the same goes for Echtelion. In a "mirror" argument, if he was greatly enhanced afterwards, his initial power, compared to his new one, is greatly reduced.

obloquy

03-03-2007, 04:27 PM

To me, the later seems to be case
As you have stated yourself, Glorfindel enhanced status appears after his death, as all reincarnated elves are, IIRC. That passage you quoted is irrelevant for Glorfindel at the time of his battle; the same goes for Echtelion. In a "mirror" argument, if he was greatly enhanced afterwards, his initial power, compared to his new one, is greatly reduced.

And yet both were capable of defeating (presumably incarnate) Balrogs before their enhancement. Neither of them were typical Elves, both being considered among the mightiest warriors in Gondolin. I'll grant that they can be considered examples of "transcendence" of the limitations of their spiritual station in M-E, but they were by no means normal even prior to their near-apotheosis.

Additionally, Maiar are weaker in an incarnate state than in their natural form. I hinted at this above, but it's worth being specific about. Balrogs that were defeated by Incarnates can be assumed to be incarnated (death being otherwise impossible) and thus weaker than those primeval Spirits of Fire who first joined Melkor.

Raynor

03-03-2007, 05:03 PM

I would also mention that the body of the elves, while in Arda is being weakened by the marring of Melkor and consumed by the fire of their spirit. I wonder if the diminishing of the balrog's power might have been balanced to an extent by Melkor.

I am also curious if by "they were by no means normal even prior to their near-apotheosis" you mean that they are enhanced by the light of Valinor.

obloquy

03-04-2007, 02:31 AM

I would also mention that the body of the elves, while in Arda is being weakened by the marring of Melkor and consumed by the fire of their spirit. I wonder if the diminishing of the balrog's power might have been balanced to an extent by Melkor.

Corruption isn't a good thing even for baddies. It could be argued that corruption is what eventually bound Melkor, Sauron, and Balrogs to their material bodies, and weakened their spirits to the point that they could be rendered impotent by physical destruction.

That said, Morgoth's power at the time that he was responsible for the shaping of Middle-earth wasn't wholly corrupting; he originally loved light, and was nevertheless one of Eru's firstborn. Melkor corrupted Arda in many ways after it came into existence, but his connection to it was far deeper than that. He made his indelible imprint on Arda before it even became physical: in fact, before he ever committed any great evil. His part in the Music of the Ainur was, for all its contentiousness, still considered part of Eru's greater theme, its utter origin being claimed by him. Could the Music have included those crimes he later perpetrated?

Moreover, I'd say that at some point Melkor was severed from his fundamental connection to Arda. Arda was, at least for a time, "Morgoth's Ring": he and it were bound together because of his dominant hand in shaping it, and the result of the destruction of either would be the destruction of the other. Yet, in a late essay (within Myths Transformed, I believe), Melkor is said finally to have been executed as a mortal. If his connection to Arda was ultimately cut with no cataclysmic consequences for Arda, his corruption and diminution must have been driving him farther from that original vitality he had as Arda's counterpart. His later evil was thus unnatural, while the primeval theme of discord he wove into the music can still be considered natural; an observable aspect of nature, free from and above the qualification of "right" or "wrong", as Melkor himself was in his beginning.

Anyway, my point is that I don't think "Arda Marred" was a pool from which bad things received Melkor's lingering evil.

I am also curious if by "they were by no means normal even prior to their near-apotheosis" you mean that they are enhanced by the light of Valinor.

Actually, I'm not really prepared to speculate on what made Ecthelion and Glorfindel the mightiest of the Elves of Gondolin. Still, were they not extraordinary?

Raynor

03-04-2007, 03:11 AM

It could be argued that corruption is what eventually bound Melkor, Sauron, and Balrogs to their material bodies, and weakened their spirits to the point that they could be rendered impotent by physical destruction.While I admit this possibility, I also consider it is mainly their evil deeds which consume/ diminish their power. Concerning their vulnerability to physical destruction I would return to your previous observation that they are weakened by incarnation with this quote from Myths Transformed:
...by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force. When released they would, of course, like Sauron, be 'damned': i.e. reduced to impotence, infinitely recessive: still hating but unable more and more to make it effective physically (or would not a very dwindled dead Orc-state be a poltergeist?). the result of the destruction of either would be the destruction of the other.I believe the passage in question is this:
The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west. Unless swiftly successful, War against him might well end in reducing all Middle-earth to chaos, possibly even all Arda. It is easy to say: 'It was the task and function of the Elder King to govern Arda and make it possible for the Children of Eru to live in it unmolested.' But the dilemma of the Valar was this: Arda could only be liberated by a physical battle; but a probable result of such a battle was the irretrievable ruin of Arda. In my interpretation, that the destruction Arda would be a result of war, not of the destruction of Melkor in itself.
Yet, in a late essay (within Myths Transformed, I believe), Melkor is said finally to have been executed as a mortal. I agree:
Morgoth was thus actually made captive in physical form, and in that form taken as a mere criminal to Aman and delivered to NAmo Mandos as judge – and executioner. He was judged, and eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed: that is killed like one of the Incarnates. It is previously mentioned that this was possible because he became weakened and chained to his body. His later evil was thus unnatural, while the primeval theme of discord he wove into the music can still be considered naturalI would speculate that his corruption was in direct connection with his part in the Ainulindale:
But even as Ulmo spoke, and while the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away and hidden from their sight; and it seemed to them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought. Anyway, my point is that I don't think "Arda Marred" was a pool from which bad things received Melkor's lingering evil. There is an interesting note in Myths Transformed concerning Sauron and Melkor's corruption :
Sauron, however, inherited the 'corruption' of Arda, and only spent his (much more limited) power on the Rings; for it was the creatures of earth, in their minds and wills, that he desired to dominate. although I agree it hinges on whether corruption is a power to be used or a state of facts.
Still, were they not extraordinary?Indeed!

obloquy

03-04-2007, 12:55 PM

While I admit this possibility, I also consider it is mainly their evil deeds which consume/ diminish their power.

You're partly right. It's actually not just evil deeds, but any activities reserved for Incarnates. While these activities are not evil for Ainur, they still may be argued to represent a corruption of their original forms.

I believe the passage in question is this:In my interpretation, that the destruction Arda would be a result of war, not of the destruction of Melkor in itself.

Yes. But the paragraph continues: 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.

I admit that Tolkien never fully explored this, but the important thing is that he's indicating a parallel between Sauron and his Ring, and Morgoth and Arda. In Sauron's case, Tolkien says that he could never be wholly defeated in direct combat since his Ring would forever anchor him and provide a way to regenerate. Similarly, Morgoth could never be totally destroyed while his "ring" existed. Tolkien entertained the possibility that someone might break Sauron's will and claim his power as his own, but it seems improbable that the same could be done with Morgoth's power, regardless of how much Morgoth himself had ultimately dwindled.

I would speculate that his corruption was in direct connection with his part in the Ainulindale:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The vision was here removed from them by Iluvatar. The Darkness may not represent Melkor at all, but something different, because we notice that the Ainur had known darkness before in thought. Darkness is also not always badness. If I remember correctly, there's a passage somewhere about Sauron (I believe) perverting the darkness of Mirkwood to a thing of fear. Forgive me for having no clue where it might be: I no longer have searchable texts on my computer. The Darkness seen by the Ainur could merely be a vision of the unknown, that which has not yet been unfolded and "illuminated."

Then again, it may also represent Melkor's later evil, but even then it was only a hint of it. In any case, it does not represent his hand in the formation of Arda itself.

There is an interesting note in Myths Transformed concerning Sauron and Melkor's corruption :
although I agree it hinges on whether corruption is a power to be used or a state of facts.

In fact, Tolkien gives us even more help on the issue going so far as to tell us that 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.

And still I would argue that this portion of Melkor in everything was not necessarily a thing of evil, though it resulted in a corruption of all things. Nature is not entirely harmonious, but neither is it evil. It can be cruel, but it is still not evil; it can even be unjust, but we do not expect it to be judged for it. This coincides with Melkor's original station in Arda, in which he was answerable only to Iluvatar, and though Iluvatar rebuked him, he did not condemn him as evil. Melkor's song was discordant, like nature, but it still found its "uttermost source" in Iluvatar. Though later, "once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation." (Quote is mine, from another thread in The Books.)

We do occasionally run into a problem when we try to take everything Tolkien wrote and make it work together. The essays in which he correlates Arda to The Ring seems to be at odds with the one that tells us that Morgoth was executed, and maybe it does represent a shift in Tolkien's thoughts. Still, I think they can be reconciled, which was my intent in my previous post.

I wonder if a mod would be so good as to move these last couple posts into a new thread in The Books forum?

Mansun

03-04-2007, 01:13 PM

I have always believed it should have been a contest between Gandalf the White & Sauron. This would be logical in that the Nazgul had already been held off by Aragorn (& Gandalf in the Books), the Balrog had been destroyed by a weaker Gandalf, so an enhanced Gandalf needs an opponent worthy of being able to defeat him.

As far as the films are concerned, perhaps the Witch King wasn't as large or as menacing as he should have been, in comparison to the Balrog which I think was awesome. I would have ;iked to have seen a crackle of that luminous energy burst through the Witch King to give him more appeal. I never believed Gandalf was anxious of the Witch King, he was afraid of Gondor not being strong enough to hold off his army until Rohan arrived. The threat of the Witch King was the last thing he needed to contend with in this overwhelming situation - there was too much for him to do by himself without the aid of Rohan.

alatar

03-04-2007, 07:03 PM

Always note that, however powerful or weak Gandalf may have been in regards to the Witch-King, he had the Achilles' heel of caring about others, even the slaves of Mordor. The WK, as he rides (not flies!) towards and into the Gate at Minas Tirith, heeded not the dead or dying, whether friend or foe. All that mattered to him was to do his Master's bidding, with hopefully the chance for a little fun on the way. Gandalf, though, could be swayed at the taking of a hostage, even if he were more powerful than the WK (note the words of the Mouth of Sauron at the Morannon. He didn't say anything about killing Frodo...). Plus there's always that command that Gandalf was given not to match force with force, and so he could not fight Sauron in the way that PJ may have liked.

By the by, though tangential to the movie WK-Gandalf question, I've enjoyed the recent discussion.

The 1,000 Reader

03-04-2007, 10:46 PM

It wasn't a fault of Tolkien's, it was a fault of the filmmakers'. This idea that the Witch-King is suddenly beefed up enough to match Gandalf was not Tolkien's. he Witch-King never approaches Gandalf's level in the books.

Actually, Gandalf was nervous about confronting the Witch-King, as evidenced in the discussion with Denethor. Gandalf was grim on the matter, and did not answer with a direct yes or no. The strength the two had was not one-sided in favor of another. If Gandalf knew the Witch-King was no problem, he would not be grim and indecisive on the matter.

There is a letter that indicates that the Witch-King was in some way enhanced for The Return of the King, but it's not clear whether Tolkien means narratively enhanced, or literally souped-up by Sauron.

It's literally. When placed in command of the armies, he was given "An added demonic force."

Sauron and Gandalf were equals in their beginnings,

And where do you get this from? If you recall, Gandalf was actually afraid of going to Middle-Earth and facing Sauron. Since Sauron was already weakened yet Gandalf still was fearful, Gandalf was certainly not on the same level as Sauron in the beginning.

so how could a weakened Sauron enhance his fundamentally mortal servant to a level beyond (or even equal to) one of Sauron's own peers?

He obviously did, otherwise the Balrog-slaying Gandalf would not have been grim on the possibility of a confrontation. Besides, if Gandalf could have taken out the Witch-King in three seconds, the entire purpose of having their confrontation would be null and void.

To what degree Gandalf's Istar limitations were adjusted is unclear, but even while under those constraints he was capable of defeating a Balrog without violating the rules. The Balrog was unquestionably mightier than the Witch-King in written Tolkien, though the movies' conception of him may be different. If there's incongruence here, it's Jackson & co.'s, not Tolkien's.

We don't know that. As Gandalf the Grey, Gandalf killed a Balrog. As Gandalf the White, who was more powerful, Gandalf was uncertain of the victor in a bout between him and the Morgul Lord. There is a good chance that the added demonic force could have indeed elevated the Witch-King to a level where he would be a threat to Gandalf the White.

As for lesser beings defeating greater beings, that's strewn nearly everywhere in Tolkien's works. Huan beat Sauron, Elendil and Gil-Galad beat Sauron when he had the Ring, Luthien bested Morgoth, the numerous dragon slayings, dwarves killing Thingol, Morgoth eventually dying by the hand of Turin, Ungoliant defeating Morgoth, the Witch-King's defeat at the hands of Eowyn and Merry, Sam beating Shelob, and ultimately Frodo, Sam and Gollum finishing Sauron. Just because Gandalf's a Maia doesn't mean he's fine against anyone of lower rank.

Raynor

03-05-2007, 06:10 AM

Obloquy, I will try to answer your last post when we get a separate thread, so as not to hinder this one.

Just to niggle on some arguments I don't agree with completely
Gandalf was certainly not on the same level as Sauron in the beginning.I don't think we can say certainly (emphasis added):
For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. Gandalf would not have been grim on the possibility of a confrontationThere are several factors to be considered. One is that no one can be certain that the witch king will fight alone, esspecially since he is described as driving others forward. In prior consideration, facing him could imply facing other members of his host too. Gandalf was "hard put" when he faced the nazgul on Wheatertop, and he (barely probably) escaped at sunrise.

Another thing is another part your own argument in mirror. You mentioned all those mighty persons who were defeated by lesser ones. It only makes sense that Gandalf would be cautious of even lesser foes, having history in mind.

Mansun

03-05-2007, 01:55 PM

These are my my favourite qoutes from the book in which Tolkein makes his point on this subject strongly:-

'Ai! Ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '

Gimli stared with wide eyes. `Durin's Bane! ' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.

'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. `Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. `What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'

'An evil of the ancient world it seemed, such as I have never seen before," said Aragorn. 'It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible.'

'It was a Balrog of Morgoth," said Legolas; 'of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.'

'Indeed I saw upon the bridge that which haunts our darkest dreams, I saw Durin's Bane,' said Gimli in a low voice, and dread was in his eyes.

Gandalf the White — In the words of Aragorn, "You are our captain and our banner. The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He has passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him. We will go where he leads."

The book certainly makes a strong case that the Balrog was the greater task in battle than the Witch-King, though note that these qoutes are taken fron the first two volumes only. Also, just as important, it was the Black Captain who escaped from the encounter at the gate as soon as Rohan arrived, showing that a fair one vs one with Gandalf was not on his mind! He would only attack with an unfair advantage with his army behind him - what a coward!

As far as Gandalf's anxiety with the Witch King, wasn't Gandalf already shaking when he learned that Frodo had gone to Cirith Ungol? The tension just got to him, knowing that Mordor was going to obliviate Gondor without urgent aid. He was not supported in the slightest by Denethor, nor was there a guarantee that Aragorn would complete his task in summoning the King of the Dead for aid. Rohan had not yet arrived to help hold off the storm. In this sort of situation even Morgoth would be anxious.

obloquy

03-05-2007, 02:20 PM

There is far more evidence to support Gandalf and Sauron's equal stature than there is to the contrary. I won't go into it again here, but I'll provide some links for further research:

Here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2412) and here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=726) can be found the most important elements to the argument. Near the end of the first thread is a wonderful piece of research by gorthaur_cruel, but its date (1956) and incongruence with the bulk of Tolkien's writing render it all but useless, much like the Fall of Gondolin is for Balrog discussions.

Additionally, Sauron during the War of the Ring can be considered far weaker than he was in his original form, since he was not in possession of a large portion of his power (though he is said to be in "rapport" with it at all times), and he was also incarnate, having "died" several times already. Gandalf was, of course, limited similarly, but the point is that both were.

It's literally.

You sound pretty positive. Maybe you could share your iron-clad evidence for this assertion?

When placed in command of the armies, he was given "An added demonic force."

So Sauron doles out some extra "demonic force" to his servants from time to time? Why now? Why not before the Nazgul went to The Shire, and why didn't they all receive some? This isn't even Middle-earth vocabulary: "demonic force" is a reference to the impression a reader gets from the Witch-King, not something Sauron is capable of dispensing.

The Witch-King, even with all his buddies, would not challenge the power of ring-bearing Galadriel. Gandalf had a Ring of Power, too, and was even greater in innate power than Galadriel. The Witch-King had fled from Glorfindel (see Appendix A), and yet Glorfindel, even after his enhancement through reincarnation, is said to be almost an equal to the Maiar. How, please, could a mere Man (originally mighty, perhaps, but certainly not even one of the greatest of the Atani) who was hopelessly enslaved to Sauron approach this kind of spiritual power? The answer is that he could not, and I have never seen any shred of evidence to support the idea.

Edit: Great post, mansun!

The 1,000 Reader

03-05-2007, 04:06 PM

Additionally, Sauron during the War of the Ring can be considered far weaker than he was in his original form, since he was not in possession of a large portion of his power (though he is said to be in "rapport" with it at all times), and he was also incarnate, having "died" several times already. Gandalf was, of course, limited similarly, but the point is that both were.

That doesn't really say who was stronger. It just says that both weren't at the 100% they were at in the beginning.

You sound pretty positive. Maybe you could share your iron-clad evidence for this assertion?

It's right in the book dude. The quote was provided on the last page.

So Sauron doles out some extra "demonic force" to his servants from time to time? Why now?

Apparently, Sauron cared more of the war than his ring at that time.

Why not before the Nazgul went to The Shire, and why didn't they all receive some?

Likely because their strength would have gotten the attention of the elves or an Istari, who would rally up the people or something of that sort.

This isn't even Middle-earth vocabulary: "demonic force" is a reference to the impression a reader gets from the Witch-King, not something Sauron is capable of dispensing.

It's a literal force. The book even says that when Sauron appoints him as the leader of the host assaulting Minas Tirith that he's given an added demonic force, and he does appear more powerful than he was in earlier confrontations. It is not an impression like fear: it's specifically stated to be an added demonic force.

The Witch-King, even with all his buddies, would not challenge the power of ring-bearing Galadriel.

That's because Galadriel was very mighty (in the magical arts at the very least) and she had an entire realm of warrior elves at her disposal. Also, Dol Guldur, which was commanded by Khamul the Easterling, assaulted Lothlorien three times: the Nazgul did attempt to defeat her.

Gandalf had a Ring of Power, too, and was even greater in innate power than Galadriel. The Witch-King had fled from Glorfindel (see Appendix A), and yet Glorfindel, even after his enhancement through reincarnation, is said to be almost an equal to the Maiar. How, please, could a mere Man (originally mighty, perhaps, but certainly not even one of the greatest of the Atani) who was hopelessly enslaved to Sauron approach this kind of spiritual power?

The Witch-King was skilled with the magical arts, likely was a great warrior, destroyed Arnor, and in the siege of Minas Tirith was given additional power. Gandalf clearly was not passing the situation off as a minor detail or something casual, and as I've said before, being a Maia, while somewhat of an advantage, is not a clear-cut victory. The higher-ranked beings of Middle-Earth have lost countless times. Even if Gandalf was wise to those events, that does not mean that he was assured victory due to his origin.

The answer is that he could not, and I have never seen any shred of evidence to support the idea.

That is only your opinion in the end, and the scene in the book where Gandalf met the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith was most definitely not a confrontation where one combatant was depicted with any sort of strength over the other. Indeed, if the Professor gave one of the two any sort of visible edge, the whole point of the scene would be void. The scene was not to tell us that Gandalf would be a safety-blanket or that the Witch-King was about to whup him to the moon: it was to build tension and have us be unsure of who'd win.

I grow tired of debating this subject, so unless you want to press the matter on, I'll stay away from this discussion.

Mansun

03-05-2007, 04:14 PM

The fact that the Witch King withdrew at the gate as Gandalf challenged him means that Gandalf did win. The Witch King effectively threw in the towel as though this battle was no longer for him. I don't remember the Balrog withdrawing when confronted by the entire Company - it knew it could defeat any of them with it's power. That's how it is as the books are concerned.

As I have said in many previous posts, PJ should have made the Witch King something like as hulking a foe as the Balrog in appearance to show that his power had been upgraded. Some of that crackling electrical energy would have done the trick. As far as the films go, the Witch King won, all because of some nitwit script writers. This was not all PJs fault - if you listen to the commentary for this part, the two ladies speaking appear to be responsible for this ridiculous scene. Gandalf was nearly blown to smithereens through one bolt of fire by the Witch King! Now who on earth would have honestly wanted that to happen in the film?!

obloquy

03-05-2007, 06:03 PM

It's right in the book dude. The quote was provided on the last page.

I'm aware of what's in the book; perhaps more aware than you'd like me to be. I do not contest the fact that Tolkien wrote this, I contest how it is being interpreted. The letter in question is a point-by-point critique of the unproduced M.G. Zimmerman film treatment of LotR. Tolkien explains not only the flaws in Zimmerman's revisions, but also the intended effect of his writing choices. The letter is not in answer to questions about the nature of the Witch-King's power at different points in the story; rather, it is an exploration of Tolkien's literary intentions. I'll reproduce the paragraph in full here, since its previous quotation in this thread deprived it of context:

9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-King, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others [though note that he is nevertheless not excluded from the above explication that the Nazgul rely on fear rather than any true power. -obloquy]; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.

It is possible that Tolkien intended to convey that Sauron had enhanced the Witch-King in some way. However, it seems more likely to me, given the context of the excerpt and the manner of the letter, that Tolkien is describing the literary effect of Sauron's decision to put him in command of the assault on the Pelennor. We, the reader or viewer, see in the Witch-King in III "an added demonic force" that is due to his portrayal at first as a scary wraith, and later as a military captain. In the last sentence Tolkien still qualifies the Witch-King's appearance at the Pelennor by reminding us that the darkness, under which the Nazgul seem more terrible, had only recently passed.

Also notice how Tolkien says "he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." By whom must he not yet be raised to that stature? It sounds like he's telling Mr. Zimmerman that he must not yet raise him to that stature in his film, implying that the "added demonic force" (or increase of stature) of Vol. III is given by the author, not by Sauron. The command of the army is given by Sauron, which results in an impression of increased stature on the reader.

Whether you agree with my analysis or not, it is impossible for you to claim that Tolkien's intention was, without a doubt, that Sauron had pumped some extra bad-guy juice into his pet.

That is only your opinion in the end

It is not only my opinion if there is no evidence to support the contrary.

and the scene in the book where Gandalf met the Witch-King at the gates of Minas Tirith was most definitely not a confrontation where one combatant was depicted with any sort of strength over the other.

Again, I'll reproduce the whole segment so we don't forget the details:

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

Gandalf did not move.

Chilling to the spine, gorgeous and one of the best portions of the whole book. Gandalf stands in the way of the Witch-King, untrembling, unhesitating, and tells him that he cannot enter the city. The Witch-King obeys. The Witch-King confronted Gandalf by accident, not because he was planning to fight him. Gandalf was waiting for him, and prevents his advance. The Witch-King mouths off, but his words are empty and his threat does not even get Gandalf to move. The Balrog at least prompted Gandalf to prepare for combat! Gandalf may still be required not to reveal his true power, but he defeated the Balrog while observing that limitation, and he is here, at the gates, in front of the Witch-King, obviously unafraid. Granted, the Witch-King does not appear afraid either, but there's no reason to think that he had any idea what Gandalf really was, and he is notoriously overconfident, having misinterpreted Glorfindel's prophecy.

The tension of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields is due to the uncertainty as to whether Minas Tirith can hold out against the siege. It has nothing to do with which leader is personally more powerful.

The 1,000 Reader

03-05-2007, 08:33 PM

The fact that the Witch King withdrew at the gate as Gandalf challenged him means that Gandalf did win. The Witch King effectively threw in the towel as though this battle was no longer for him

No it doesn't. The Witch-King had to leave because his army was going to get owned by Rohan, and Gandalf had to put off the fight to save Faramir. Gandalf didn't win squat, and neither did the Witch-King. The fight was put off. Nobody overpowered the other.

I don't remember the Balrog withdrawing when confronted by the entire Company - it knew it could defeat any of them with it's power. That's how it is as the books are concerned.

The Witch-King withdrew to save his army, not because Gandalf was stronger. It's present in the text.

And obloquy, The Witch-King most certainly does not obey. He was about to attack Gandalf with his sword or a spell. When Gandalf tells the Witch-King he cannot enter, the Witch-King just laughs in his face and tells him off. Also, it states that "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." The wording of this statement implies that the Witch-King was given an "added demonic force." Being chosen to lead the army would in no way give him an added demonic force: it would just mean that he was leading the army, and he had led other armies in his time. The professor specifically wrote that the Witch-King had been given extra power in this encounter.

Obloquy, step down from your perch for a second and realize that your "proof" is not really solid proof. It's just your interpretation of the writings. Heck, even your statement of Gandalf and Sauron having equal power came as a sudden jump in the link you posted. At Minas Tirith, Gandalf and the Witch-King were apparently equal. Gandalf having an advantage would just make Gandalf a safety-blanket who would handle Gondor's problems. The Witch-King having the advantage would make Rohan's arrival seem more like a writer's trick to save Gandalf. It was an equal stand-off, and it was by chance that the two did not have the fight they were prepared for.

obloquy

03-05-2007, 10:46 PM

You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text. The conclusion that Gandalf and Sauron were equal is not a sudden jump in logic. I quote, once again: To the overthrow of Morgoth he [Manwë] sent his herald Eönwë. To the defeat of Sauron would he not then send some lesser (but mighty) spirit of the angelic people, one coëval and equal, doubtless, with Sauron in their beginnings, but not more? Olórin was his name.

Even if you had provided a rock-solid defense of the letter's intended meaning, which you did not even attempt to do, it would still not have proved that the Witch-King had miraculously been pumped up to the level of a "peer" (to use Tolkien's word) of his master.

Raynor

03-06-2007, 08:13 AM

You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text. I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader). While, in theory, both views are consistent with Tolkien's resentment, it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

- inclusion of flags, Gandalf spluttering, contraction of time, Tom as owner of the woods and as 'old scamp', the landlord asking Frodo to register, Aragorn leaving the inn at night, Rivendell similar to Lorien, Aragorn singing the song of Gil-Galad, orcs with beaks and feathers, Galadriel as Elvenqueen, the presence of private 'chambers', hobbits eating 'ridiculously long sandwiches', the spiral staircase of Orthanc, etc.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation. However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

alatar

03-06-2007, 09:39 AM

Don't have my books in front of me, but in Fangorn, when Gandalf confronts the Three Hunters, does he state something about 'unless he were brought in front of the Dark Lord' or something? My take is that, as the White, Gandalf could have equalled Sauron, were he permitted to use force and the dark side as Sauron did, but was bound by the rules.

Why else did Sauon fear Orthanc, though it contained a much smaller army?

Anyway, if Gandalf could be somewhat equal to Sauron, I cannot see how a lesser being on the food chain could be 'brought up' by demonic force or otherwise to this same level. Note that this does not bear on the outcome of a battle, as one never knows what the WK had up its sleeves.

Mansun

03-06-2007, 12:49 PM

There is no proof the added demonic force would have made the Witch King the equal of Gandalf the White. I have read posts saying the upgraded Witch King was now much more powerful than before - was he? Where does it say in any text that the extra force made him so? Wasn't he still much weaker than when Sauron last had the Ring, & Gandalf at the height of his power? None of it seems to make sense - we have a weakened Sauron who upgrades a weakened Witch King to the same level as Gandalf? All that without the Ring? Not possible. So when the Witch King dies, Sauron becomes weaker again due to the wonderful demonic force of his vanishing into thin air?

I agree with the above post in that the Witch King may not have known the true nature of Gandalf. Calling a balrog slayer an old fool!

obloquy

03-06-2007, 03:07 PM

I would have two things to mention regarding your request.

Thanks for the response.

First, there is the problem of burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader).

The 1,000 Reader is claiming that Tolkien says Sauron gave the Witch-King extra power, period. I am saying that that is not exactly what Tolkien says. At most, he allows the reader to draw that conclusion. I am arguing that his letter was referring to the kind of force or power that the author should provide to the Witch-King in Vol. III, vs. how he is presented earlier on.

it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:

You're right, but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted. Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make: the Balrog laughing or sneering, for example, or Gandalf "spluttering." It does not affect the tale being told for these two characters to behave in these ways, but it does affect their air of dignity, i.e. the impression of their dignity on the reader.

Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation.

I allow the possibility that Tolkien meant the note to be interpreted how The 1,000 Reader chooses to interpret it, even though I think he could have worded it more clearly if that was his intention. The 1,000 Reader is the one claiming there is no question.

However, if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.

I disagree, and reiterate that many of the errors in accuracy are only important because they compromise Tolkien's intended effect, mood, air, etc. There will be modifications to a story that is to be made into a film: errors in accuracy, in other words. Many of these that Tolkien has chosen to pick on are particularly egregious because they make his characters (whether Gandalf or Hobbits or Rivendell) seem different than he intended.

Tolkien says "[The Witch-King] must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III." Raised by whom? Is Tolkien saying "he must not" because he is drawing conclusions based on evidence (e.g. "he must not be as powerful as he is later since he seems to be unable to defeat Gandalf."), or is he urging that Zimmerman must not yet raise the Witch-King to that level? Similarly, in the next sentence, Tolkien says "There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force." He is obviously put in command by Sauron, but who has given him "an added demonic force" is not as clear. Tolkien could have said "There, given added demonic force by Sauron, he is put in command." The impression would even be more clear if Tolkien had written "There, put in command by Sauron, he is then given added demonic force." Instead, Tolkien does not make it clear that Sauron is giving anything to W-K but command. He even includes the indefinite article "an" which changes the impression of that "demonic force" from something specific that Sauron might have to give, to something amorphous that is, more likely, simply an aspect of the Witch-King's appearance at that time. Which brings me again to the point that "demonic force" is not Middle-earth vocabulary, and gives the impression that Tolkien is speaking of literary intent rather than a Middle-earth fact.

The second aspect is that of false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).

Or he becomes more powerful in the reader's eyes simply by receiving supreme command of the siege on Minas Tirith. That's my impression. The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.

Edit: I think I've made my point as well as I can. In fact, I'm repeating myself in my efforts to clarify my argument. Still, one last P.S. before I rest my case: the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroborated. It exists only in an obscure note to a script writer and clearly (as I hope I have shown above) could have been meant as an expression of narrative choices rather than further (and very important!) info on the nature of the Witch-King. Whereas other individuals who received genuine enhancement of power (Gandalf and Glorfindel, for example) have narrative accounts or essays--with (and this is crucial) the history of Middle-earth as the topic rather than narrative decisions--that express the fact explicitly. And that's all that I think I can say about the letter.

As for the Witch-King being an equal match for Gandalf (which really is an issue independent of the debated note), I'll argue that until I'm blue in the face, or until I get banned again.

Essex

03-06-2007, 04:47 PM

I really hate stepping back into this argument again (oh no I don't) - I'm repeating myself as well, as much as anybody.

But here's my succinct and well thought out argument on whether Movie or Book Witch King (and remember we're meant to be discussing the movie here!)could 'take Gandalf out' or 'own Gandalf' etc.

David slew Goliath

PS and to add, in post script, about Gandalf saying 'no weapon could kill me' and explaining how great he was to anyone who would listen. That's HIS opinion. Who's to say he's right in everything he says? He's no doubt a clever fella, but he's not the Pope.

PPS to you non Christian's out there I mean he's not infallible

PPPS - I swear this is true - As I finished editing my post and went back to the main page, look what quote was at the top of the screen.... "Old Fool! Old Fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain! - Lord of the Nazgûl" This vindicates my opinion entirely!!!!!!! It MUST be true - Tolkien sent me a message from Beyond the Grave. The Witch King can whip Gandalf's butt!

alatar

03-06-2007, 05:20 PM

I knew that you could not long resists this, Essex. ;)

Regardless of the books, PJ watered down the Gandalf character in more ways than just his resistance to Witch-King spookings. This was to make Aragorn seem more heroic and more in control, and so you know what question that begs...

obloquy

03-06-2007, 05:43 PM

David slew Goliath

I don't see how this can have any relevance here. It is not some inspirational story of the insignificant overcoming the mighty, as you seem to think. 1 Samuel 17:45 (KJV): 45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

46 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Victory over Goliath belonged to God, not to David personally. David's success was miraculous, achieved only because David was the agent performing God's will. If the Witch-King came to Gandalf in the name of Eru then sure, I'd put my money on him. The idea is ludicrous, though.

There is no analogy here. The lesson we learn from the story of David and Goliath is exactly the opposite of the one you attribute to it: you assign credit to David, when the whole point is that David was God's agent and God defeated Goliath. Furthermore, even if we accept your argument as having any significant relation to Middle-earth, Eru God is expressly on Gandalf's side, so unless you think it was possible for Goliath to defeat David against God's will, your "succent" (??) argument is revealed to be in full support of my opinion and in direct contradiction to yours.

Edit: Wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.

Raynor

03-06-2007, 06:37 PM

This is a film treatment, so he knows things will have to be adjusted.I agree; he hinted at this at the beginning of the letter, when he said "the canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different".
but why are these issues of accuracy important to Tolkien? ... Many of the items are extremely minor, and don't compromise anything fundamental to the narrative. But they're important because of the impression they make: He did express irritation (and resentment) for errors varrying from carelessness to the pan of the story being "simply murdered". On many 'details' he also said that are important to him (such as the names of persons).

Concerning the factor of impression and its relation to the actual world the story depicts, I would note that he believes that a successful writer makes a believable story, in which what "he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world" (sorry for the long quote):
Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.My question would be: why would Tolkien risk producing an impression on his reader (an increase in stature of the witch-king) which is not actually reflected in the reality of that world - esspecially since it would cost him 'nothing' to close that gap and it would be 'necessary' (if I may say so, considering Sauron's desperation)? If this aspect is important (and from the letter it would seem so), why risk having some readers not get it (because it would be based on mere impression, not 'facts') while others would get it, but wouldn't believe it, for lack of actual support? Would anything justify this complication? I believe his interest in plausibility is underline even in this letter, when he underscores the importance of seasons (" The Lord of the Rings may be a 'fairy-story', but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.")
The real false dilemma is that even if the sentence were proven to be intended the way The 1,000 Reader claims, it does not prove that the Witch-King had been elevated to a level commensurate with his master.I agree that this quote does not adress their comparative powers at all; I intended to mention that in my post as well, but I forgot from "hand to mouth". In the text, there is, at most - to my knowledge, one other refference (besides Gandalf's 'softness' in regards to Denethor's remarks) which might indicate that Gandalf admits he is overpowered, although it is marred by its generality (emphasis added):
I have spoken words of hope. But only of hope. Hope is not victory. War is upon us and all our friends, a war in which only the use of the Ring could give us surety of victory. It fills me with great sorrow and great fear: for much shall be destroyed and all may be lost. I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still.the note's (putative) claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced is otherwise uncorroboratedI believe the following could be relevant to our discussion:
The Nazgul came again, and as their Dark Lord now grew and put forth his strength, so their voices, which uttered only his will and his malice, were filled with evil and horror.Not definitive, but still, in line with the witch-king uttering words of power that apparently help shatter the city gate, approaching the gate alone and having flames run down his sword.

obloquy

03-06-2007, 07:55 PM

My question would be: why would Tolkien risk producing an impression on his reader (an increase in stature of the witch-king) which is not actually reflected in the reality of that world - esspecially since it would cost him 'nothing' to close that gap and it would be 'necessary' (if I may say so, considering Sauron's desperation)? If this aspect is important (and from the letter it would seem so), why risk having some readers not get it (because it would be based on mere impression, not 'facts') while others would get it, but wouldn't believe it, for lack of actual support? Would anything justify this complication?

Don't forget the nature of the letter. You mention readers who might misinterpret it, but it was originally a letter to an individual; one which Tolkien surely never imagined might be published. He responded to many letters asking questions about his characters, including Sauron, Gandalf, and the Witch-King, in which we would expect him to present clear-cut facts about those characters for the recipients of the letters and whomever they might share them with, but this isn't one of those letters. This is a letter devoted specifically to narrative decisions. I don't necessarily think that any incidental insight it provides ought to be disregarded because of that, but I do think that it gives us additional reason to question Tolkien's choice of words.

You ask why Tolkien would create this impression if it was not representative of the reality. I believe that it was congruent with the reality, but that the reality was merely that the Witch-King now commanded an army in open daylight. That narrative revelation conveys "an added demonic power."

"...Black is mightier still." Indeed! Gandalf was never the dominant force in Middle-earth. That was always Sauron. Whether this quotation refers to Sauron personally (though Sauron was never called Sauron the Black) or Sauron's combined power in Middle-earth is debatable. The greatness of Gandalf's original spirit in relation to Sauron's is actually irrelevant to this quotation since his purpose in Middle-earth was not to go head-to-head with the Dark Lord. It's interesting in itself that extra-LotR texts appear to support that Gandalf and Sauron were peers, but that fact doesn't really shed any light on his analysis of the status of his mission. His mission did not include revealing himself in any mightiness.
Letter #156[Gandalf] is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an "angel"--no more violently than the release of St. Peter from prison. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed--and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: "I was the enemy of Sauron."

Sauron was his enemy and opposite, but his mission entailed not a duel, but the kindling and guidance of the peoples of Middle-earth in their own defense. When he expressed his uncertainty about his mission, "Black is mightier still," I believe we can safely assume he did not have direct conflict with Sauron in mind.

alatar

03-06-2007, 09:12 PM

Victory over Goliath belonged to God, not to David personally. David's success was miraculous, achieved only because David was the agent performing God's will. If the Witch-King came to Gandalf in the name of Eru then sure, I'd put my money on him. The idea is ludicrous, though.
Crazy, as you say, but the point being made is that sometimes, when Eru is on your side or you just get lucky and roll that '20,' the unlikely happens.

There is no analogy here. The lesson we learn from the story of David and Goliath is exactly the opposite of the one you attribute to it: you assign credit to David, when the whole point is that David was God's agent and God defeated Goliath. Furthermore, even if we accept your argument as having any significant relation to Middle-earth, Eru God is expressly on Gandalf's side, so unless you think it was possible for Goliath to defeat David against God's will, your "succent" (??) argument is revealed to be in full support of my opinion and in direct contradiction to yours.
Interesting point. But even David had his bad days and suffered losses, though surely God was 'on his side.' Eru obviously lets the dark side win now and again; why not this day? The ways of Him who shaped Arda are not our ways, and there's that mysterious way of working thing too.

Edit: Wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.
:eek: I think we are to read between the lines a bit, as we all seem capable of doing, when we read Essex's words. Again I assume that he was just using words to convey an idea in a way many (but not all) may understand. And note that, after having posted all of my serious and heated posts on this issue beforehand, most likely I will only be able to 'unsay' whatever I'd said before, not having the need to post as vehemently as I did when RotK:EE first came out. ;)

Raynor

03-07-2007, 02:31 AM

Don't forget the nature of the letter. You mention readers who might misinterpret it, but it was originally a letter to an individualI agree; however, I was reffering to the books having this possible believability problem, I apologise if I wasn't specific enough.
You ask why Tolkien would create this impression if it was not representative of the reality. I believe that it was congruent with the reality, but that the reality was merely that the Witch-King now commanded an army in open daylight. That narrative revelation conveys "an added demonic power."Well, it wasn't technically daylight, since they were fighting under Sauron's Shadow. As I see it, the witch-king is consistently described as leader of armies and a high-ranking (if not highest) in Sauron's army/subjects - starting from the Prologue, to Aragorn's, Tom's, Gandalf's mentionings, and finishing with the appendices and tale of years. If Tolkien intended to present him in increase stature only as a military comander at the Pelennor Fields, he spoiled that "surprise" by other (past and not only) refferences.

The Saucepan Man

03-07-2007, 06:05 AM

I am somewhat at a loss to see the relevance of all these textual references to a discussion of the characters and events of the film, which are (to varying degrees) frequently different from those presented in the book.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me if there is no textual basis for the outcome of the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King if it works on screen (which it does for me).

The characters of Gandalf and the Witch-King, and the portrayal of their confrontation, on film were largely determined by reference to the necessities of the medium and the other choices made by the film-makers. As alatar has pointed out, the character of Gandalf the White was significantly watered down in the film, a choice made by Jackson and co, rightly or wrongly, to enhance the impression of Aragorn as the principal “hero”. Similarly, the power of the Witch-King was enhanced to provide an “on-screen” counterpoint to Gandalf.

The main relevance of the “added demonic force” reference in the letter, as I see it, is that Jackson and co may have read it and interpreted it as justification for the change made (not that they appear to have felt that such justification was needed for the changes that they made on a more general level).

Essex

03-07-2007, 07:39 AM

I don't see how this can have any relevance here. It is not some inspirational story of the insignificant overcoming the mighty, as you seem to think. OK - let me give you another anlaogy.

Hereford beat Newcastle in the FA Cup in 1972

wait, did you seriously imply that the Pope is infallible? That makes me wonder if posting in response to someone so oblivious to facts and reason is really a good idea.maybe I should have put a few smiley faces on the post. I was trying to have a laugh but didn't realise I had to put bells and whistles around it to explain the humour!!! But to explain my points

1/ Giant killings take place.
2/ Tolkien's Middle-earth is not 'black and white'
3/ If a character says something, do we take that as 'Cannon' or just their opinion?

a few funny faces to complete my post..............

;) :smokin: :D

Mansun

03-07-2007, 12:48 PM

The characters of Gandalf and the Witch-King, and the portrayal of their confrontation, on film were largely determined by reference to the necessities of the medium and the other choices made by the film-makers. As alatar has pointed out, the character of Gandalf the White was significantly watered down in the film, a choice made by Jackson and co, rightly or wrongly, to enhance the impression of Aragorn as the principal “hero”. Similarly, the power of the Witch-King was enhanced to provide an “on-screen” counterpoint to Gandalf.

The main relevance of the “added demonic force” reference in the letter, as I see it, is that Jackson and co may have read it and interpreted it as justification for the change made (not that they appear to have felt that such justification was needed for the changes that they made on a more general level).

In that case, the power of the Balrog of Morgoth must have been significantly watered down in the film as well, even though on face value this demon seems to be on a level similar to Sauron.

With regards to the earlier comment about ''Black is mightier still'' - do you remember this quote:-

''Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.''

I assume then that Black meant Sauron, or perhaps Mordor in general.

Essex likes to refer to analogies, but they are not that effective when you are comparing a Supernatural god-like creature against a powerful sorcerer. This duel is an exceptional case, and although no battle actually takes place between the two, the fact that Gandalf has already defeated another supernatural terror in combat makes a strong case that he is favourite against anyone else, save the Dark Lord himself, which is what the above quote justifies.

One other point, Gandalf knows he should not reveal his true nature or power unless he is absolutely called to do so, hence his denial to Denethor, who has no knowledge of what Gandalf is. Gandalf also says to the Balrog '' I am a servant of the secret fire ... the dark fire will not avail you'', which may suggest even the Balrog did not know what kind of opponent he was originally up against.

It is likely that the enhanced Witch King would have forced Gandalf into revealing his true power in battle, since the Balrog was able to do so immediately. In this case, I cannot give the Witch King a hope in hell of victory against a maiair, though I could not gaurantee a victory for Gandalf either, since the Witch King may well decide he is overmatched & ride off, as he has done in the past when confronted by Glorfindel. Gandalf wouldn't chase the Witch King to destroy him.

Raynor

03-07-2007, 01:56 PM

In this case, I cannot give the Witch King a hope in hell of victory against a maiairWhy? Sauron himself was previously defeated when he fought against two non-maiar (and Fingolfin wounded even Melkor). There is no single circumstance that I know of when a body is made invulnerable.

Mansun

03-07-2007, 02:48 PM

Why? Sauron himself was previously defeated when he fought against two non-maiar (and Fingolfin wounded even Melkor). There is no single circumstance that I know of when a body is made invulnerable.

How exactly did they manage it? Was it down to a mixture of fate & luck, or through the power in them? There would be no luck or even fate involved if Gandalf fought the Witch King - it would like drawing fire against fire.

Raynor

03-07-2007, 03:04 PM

Was it down to a mixture of fate & luck, or through the power in them?All of them, I suppose. However, given the exact same conditions, I doubt that a certain fight between the same opponents, if repeated, will always have the same outcome (unless the disparities in advantages are enormous).
There would be no luck or even fate involved if Gandalf fought the Witch KingWell, this promises to be a ping-pong :); why would you exclude luck or fate?

Mansun

03-07-2007, 04:21 PM

All of them, I suppose. However, given the exact same conditions, I doubt that a certain fight between the same opponents, if repeated, will always have the same outcome (unless the disparities in advantages are enormous).
Well, this promises to be a ping-pong :); why would you exclude luck or fate?

How would the Witch King use luck to defeat Gandalf? If Gandalf had a back spasm & the Witch King dealt a vital blow? :D

Raynor

03-07-2007, 04:46 PM

How would the Witch King use luck to defeat Gandalf? There is no single clue as to what abilities either of them would use in an actual one-on-one confrontation. That is why I consider your claim that luck has no place there as unwarranted, at least for the time being - we have no evidence of whatsoever; it is an "argument from ignorance", a fallacy.

Mansun

03-07-2007, 05:26 PM

There is no single clue as to what abilities either of them would use in an actual one-on-one confrontation. That is why I consider your claim that luck has no place there as unwarranted, at least for the time being - we have no evidence of whatsoever; it is an "argument from ignorance", a fallacy.

Gandalf would use his ring plus supernatural powers of a maiar; the Witch King only has his lesser ring, modest sorcery & the added demonic force to help counter the maiar. Gandalf has a formiddable elvish blade, a mightier steed, & likely as not a higher power potential to draw upon. Unless there is a weakness in either where luck could lead to their downfall, it should be ruled out. The only character acting rash & overconfident in this scene is the Witch King.

Above all Gandalf prevented the Lord of the Nazgul entering Minas Tirith, & is therefore victorious overall.

Raynor

03-07-2007, 05:39 PM

Gandalf would use his ring plus supernatural powers of a maiar; the Witch King only has his lesser ring & added demonic force to help counter the maiar. Gandalf has a formiddable elvish blade, a mightier steed, & likely as not a higher power potential to draw upon.I will repeat, we have no clue how these abilities will be used, how they are countered, what is their effects on the opponent, if Gandalf and the witch-king would necessarily make the same decisions each and every time, etc.

Nothing warrants an automatic result; such a result is possible only if we would be dealing with a very, very simple situation. This is not the case; quite the contrary.
Edit:
Above all Gandalf prevented the Lord of the Nazgul entering Minas Tirith, & is therefore victorious overall.He is victorious overall because of the whole "whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized" (letter #156); there isn't just one cause to the departure of the witch-king, and if victory occured, it was due to mass organisation, not to personal martial abilties proved in combat.

Essex

03-08-2007, 06:10 AM

'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. 'And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.'Mansun - re your quote from the book above - as I said earlier, does it really PROVE how strong a character is if the character himself says how 'strong' they are? I put it to you that the above is Gandalf's OPINION.

Whereas, for example, the Numenorian blade that Merry used WAS proved to help destroy the Witch King as it was mentioned in the text by the 'narrator'

but to add a further twist to this, can we even trust the 'narrator' of the story, as the LOTR was supposedly handed down from the notes taken by Bilbo / Frodo / Sam after the War of the Ring was completed? What do THEY know of this supernatural blade that was used on the Witch King? - maybe I should delete this last paragraph as it may send as down another cul-de-sac of opinion, denial and arguments...........

Raynor

03-08-2007, 06:23 AM

Aragorn knew:
- No orc-tools these! he said. They were borne by the hobbits. Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of MordorIn the prologue of FotR, it is stated that an intermediary copy of the Red Book was made at the request of Ellesar; "in Minas Tirith it received much annotation, and many corrections".

Essex

03-08-2007, 06:39 AM

well said. that is very interesting. so we CAN forget my last paragraph at least.

but what of the rest? Can we take a character's opinion to be Cannon? I don't think so......

Mansun

03-08-2007, 01:10 PM

but what of the rest? Can we take a character's opinion to be Cannon? I don't think so......

Yes, we can, if it is agreeable that the character is an honest, reliable & symbolic creature representing good. If you can't trust Gandalf, then who else can you trust? My own opinion is that Gandalf was the voice of Tolkein himself, a character there to clarify anything the audience did not understand. Indeed Gandalf was the chief of Good, Sauron the opposite.

Gandalf made the claim of being the most dangerous opponent after Sauron on the basis of defeating a Balrog, & through his enhanced powers after his resurrection, so he is a proven force. The Witch King, however, is not proven in combat at the highest level. In previous encounters with Gandalf & Aragorn he has failed, & he did not fancy a duel with Glorfindel either. So there is nothing to measure the power of the Witch King against.

Does anyone know if Mordor had news of Gandalf defeating the Balrog? The Witch King obviously seemed not to have known.

obloquy

03-08-2007, 04:26 PM

The Witch King obviously seemed not to have known.

I suspect the Nine didn't "know" much at all of anything. They worshipped Sauron as God and were deluded not only about Sauron's place in the grand scheme of things but also, no doubt, about their own. Probably intentionally.

The bottom line of the Gandalf v. W-K debate, which is easily demonstrated and I have done so elsewhere, is that Gandalf's enemy, to whom he was an equal match and thus appropriately chosen, was Sauron, not the Witch-King. The Witch-King was a lesser being (by far, in fact) than Sauron his master.

This type of discussion promotes oversimplification, though. Tolkien's definitions of power are complex, and reducing the question to who would win in one-on-one duels is misleading. One of the things that complicates things is that duels do happen, so we know that questions of "power" are not purely metaphysical, but even so the victory is generally determined on a metaphysical level, i.e. the more powerful "spirit" ought to be victorious.

I explain here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=512784).

Yes, we can [trust Gandalf], if it is agreeable that the character is an honest, reliable & symbolic creature representing good.

Well, Gandalf does not always know. He admittedly makes mistakes in judgment. Yet, he also does not brag, and is chosen by Manwe specifically because of his humility. I think in this case, since Gandalf knows the spiritual nature of Elves, Men, Saruman, the Witch-King, and Sauron, we can trust him.

As feebly as Essex makes his sappy point about the small overcoming the great, I do understand it. The idea does not apply to David and Goliath, nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of. However, the potential of an example ever occurring probably can't be unequivocally denied. Still, there are evidently some barriers which simply can't be transcended:
[Messenger of Manwe to Feanor:]"Vala he is, thou saist. Then thou hast sworn in vain, for none of the Valar canst thou overcome now or ever within the halls of Ea, not though Eru whom thou namest had made thee thrice greater than thou art."

Essex

03-09-2007, 03:23 AM

As feebly as Essex makes his sappy point about the small overcoming the great, I do understand it. The idea does not apply to David and Goliath, nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of.

Can't find an example? Maybe you need to read the book again.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WHOLE BOOK IS ABOUT. The weak overcoming the strong.

Frodo overcame the WK's attempt to subdue him at Weathertop. He again overcame their attempts to persaude him to com over to their side at the Ford. With his compassion towards Gollum, he helped to destroy Sauron.

Raynor

03-09-2007, 04:17 AM

The weak overcoming the strong.I agree:
[In the Story of Beren and Luthien the Elfmaiden] we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak – owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will. This is the hour of the Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and counsels of the Great.

Thenamir

03-09-2007, 11:24 AM

For a humourous look at the relative power of Sauron and Gandalf (or just for demented mathematics majors), see this page for a weird look at Tolkien as Calculus. (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/calculus.htm)

Mansun

03-09-2007, 12:14 PM

What were the Powers of a Balrog?

From: Erik Tracy

The Balrogs were originally Maiar, angelic beings of lessure stature than the Valar (like Morgoth), but immortal beings which nonetheless possessed considerable power. They were chiefly spirits of fire which meant they could control and create fire about them, but they also could control and use "magic" (See Magic in Middle-earth). Notice the confrontation between the Balrog of Moria and Gandalf. He tries to hold the door to Balin's Tomb, but the Balrog uses a "counter spell" to open the door which results in the door breaking:
"...I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door...Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell. What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs." (Fellowship of the Ring)
Clearly, the Balrog knew that there was a spell on the door and also knew that another coeval spirit put it there. It also used a counter spell to gain control of the door. Although Balrogs are not depicted as conversant this does not mean they are merely strong and brutish. They are Maiar and would therefore have knowledge (i.e. magic) that in most likelihood surpassed the Elves and certainly all Mortals.

Balrogs were immensely strong and powerful. Their mere presence was enough to cause fear and inaction in their enemies. Notice the response of Legolas and Gimli when they first see the Balrog in Moria:
"He drew, but his hand fell, and the arrow slipped to the ground. He gave a cry of dismay and fear...But it was not the trolls that had filled the Elf with terror...Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face." (Fellowship of the Ring)
[URL]

As can be seen, Balrogs were fiercesome opponents and NEVER to be taken lightly. They were Morgoth's most deadly servants after Sauron, & as it appears they were never under any direct command from Sauron, so they were more or less their own bosses. If only the Witch King could deliver such power!

...''So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course, he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Theoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' - no more violently than the release of St. Peter from prison.''...

[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, (#156)] [URL]

So, as it appears, if the Witch King had battled with Gandalf, you would see the real Gandalf the White uncloaked. On the basis of power, victory must surely be awarded to Gandalf as a result.

Certainly Sauron knew of the existence of the Balrog (especially at the point when his orcs entered Moria), and the Balrog seems to have tolerated the presence of Sauron's orcs. Yet I do not believe that Sauron could have controlled or commanded the Balrog - at this time he lacked the One Ring which held a large part of his native power. Without the One Ring, Sauron would not have had the ability to dominate a will as strong as a Balrog.

Is this a dead giveaway that if even Sauron could not control a Balrog without the Ring, the Balrog was the most powerful enemy after the Dark Lord, even perhaps in these circumstances on the same level?

alatar

03-12-2007, 11:14 AM

The idea does not apply to David and Goliath,
I think that Essex was using a colloquialism; Regardless, your argument (I assume) was that David had God on his side, and so even if he were smaller and weaker than Goliath, it was God that actually did battle with Goliath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath). My question is, did not Goliath have God (or gods) on his side as well? If we take the celestial out of it, you end up with an unarmored boy killing an armored soldier. To me, when someone points to this event, it is to mean that the seemingly weak overcome the strong, nothing more.

nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of.
I'm sorry; I'm at a loss here. Do you mean that it was Merry's blade, not Merry? Or is 'everything done' by the agents of Eru? One possible example, I think noted by Gandalf in Rivendell (though correct me if I error), is that 'the Shire' thwarts the Nazgul. Think that Gandalf says something like, "Whodathunkit that the Witch-King of Angmar would fail to find and kill one lonely unguarded (except by a gardener) hobbit?"

However, the potential of an example ever occurring probably can't be unequivocally denied. Still, there are evidently some barriers which simply can't be transcended:
Think that I'm with you here. However, why do entities like the Christian Satan and Tolkien's Melkor bother? Surely these supernaturally-intelligent beings realize the end of the game won't be a win for their team. Is the play, the process, the road, or like here at the Down's, the discussion, the thing and not the end that matters? Or why else bother? ;)

Raynor

03-12-2007, 11:32 AM

Is this a dead giveaway that if even Sauron could not control a Balrog without the Ring, the Balrog was the most powerful enemy after the Dark Lord, even perhaps in these circumstances on the same level?A dead give-away? Surely you don't consider Erik's speculation as hard proof.

obloquy

03-12-2007, 12:37 PM

I think that Essex was using a colloquialism; Regardless, your argument (I assume) was that David had God on his side, and so even if he were smaller and weaker than Goliath, it was God that actually did battle with Goliath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath). My question is, did not Goliath have God (or gods) on his side as well? If we take the celestial out of it, you end up with an unarmored boy killing an armored soldier.

If you "take the celestial out of it" you end up with a meaningless myth. In the Old Testament, gods other than the Hebrew God Yahweh are false gods; powerless, and therefore only pagan symbols, not real beings. If you imagine that Goliath had any real gods backing him, you deprive the story of its relevance, since it is relevant only as an expression of the sole divinity of Yahweh. It was never a story of the weak overcoming the strong; it was always a story of Yahweh protecting his chosen people from the surrounding pagans. If you don't share that Hebrew monotheism, there's no reason to believe it ever happened, and there's no lesson to be learned from it. Whether you believe the story or not it is completely misapplied in this discussion.

To me, when someone points to this event, it is to mean that the seemingly weak overcome the strong, nothing more.

I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I'm sorry; I'm at a loss here. Do you mean that it was Merry's blade, not Merry?

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.

Essex

03-12-2007, 01:52 PM

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.You're missing the point entirely. The reason why the Witch King fell (and therefore Middle-earth was saved) was that his arrogance (or shortsightedness perhaps) caused his downfall in the end, exactly the same way as his Master.

As Merry says later on, the WK chose to ignore (or at least OVERLOOK) the little hobbit lying on the floor, thinking him of no import whatsoever. If it was, say, Eomer standing there with the Blade, then he would not have been able to defeat the Witch King as he would have been an advesary the WK would have swatted aside. Therefore it is EXACTLY BECAUSE Merry was an insignificant, weak hobbit, that he was able to assist in helping Frodo and Sam complete their Quest.

Not JUST the Blade. It needed a 'weak' being to help defeat the Strong.

PS - I agree exactly what Alatar said above - My point was to show that the Underdog CAN win in a fight. Whether it was David vs Goliath which you have countered, or Hereford beating Newcastle in the FA Cup (I'd love to see you explain that one away to God) - it is NOT a matter of the Mightiest always winning every battle. If that was the case then I could think of a war or two that both our countries are in we should have been home from quite a while ago!

alatar

03-12-2007, 02:12 PM

If you "take the celestial out of it" you end up with a meaningless myth. In the Old Testament, gods other than the Hebrew God Yahweh are false gods; powerless, and therefore only pagan symbols, not real beings. If you imagine that Goliath had any real gods backing him, you deprive the story of its relevance, since it is relevant only as an expression of the sole divinity of Yahweh. It was never a story of the weak overcoming the strong; it was always a story of Yahweh protecting his chosen people from the surrounding pagans. If you don't share that Hebrew monotheism, there's no reason to believe it ever happened, and there's no lesson to be learned from it. Whether you believe the story or not it is completely misapplied in this discussion.
So what you're saying is that, for all, the words "David and Goliath" mean 'God protecting his chosen.' Interesting. Googling "David and Goliath" results in not only the Biblical references, but also the cartoon, the clothing company and many 'headlines' (such as here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm)) where the words are used to mean something other than your definition.

Anyway, my point, now too long in the making, is that the reference to DvG to me (and I assume at least one other far across the pond) is shorthand for the weak beating the strong.

I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.
I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means. :(

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.
Agreed. But if we extend your DvG argument, is not Merry's hand, the hand of the blade's maker, the leg of the Witch-King and the worms underneath all the work of the hand of Eru? As you say, this may be another thread's material, but what part does an individual play? Could Merry have resisted planting the blade in the Witch-King's sinew?

But to get back on track, did PJ consider this topic so deeply? Or is there the cinematic formula to be followed that audiences require a 'boss' in a story on which to focus?

Essex

03-12-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:
I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means. LOL Alatar. What obloquy is saying is that some people can 'mis read' the Bible and therefore come up with 'incorrect' arguments. i.e. what we've been saying about David and Goiliath being Weak vs the Strong.

In other words people don't read the Bible, or understand it's meanings, 'correctly'.

But then how can the Bible be read correctly one way or the other? It's been studied for a few millenia, and there is no stone cold way or reading the Bible and knowing EXACTLY what it's meaning is. Pretty much the same way that we cannot certainly state who would win G v WK, as we can read the 'evidence' in various bits of Tolkien's works and letters (which conflicts with itself in some cases as the Bible also does) in different ways depending on our view.

Being a Catholic, like Tolkien, I have heard many an argument over what certain parts ot he Bible are telling us, but I have never had the temerity to tell someone that they MISUNDERSTAND the Bible, as we can all take different things from it.

PS, you may have missed my last post as we may have cross posted, Alatar

Mansun

03-12-2007, 03:07 PM

As I mentioned in another thread, I think Erik Tracy has explained Tolkein's work in a balanced way, & in a good context. It may well be speculation to some extent, but very promising nonetheless. Balrogs afterall were the servants of Morgoth, not Sauron; they did not have a great part of their original strength taken away from them like Sauron did either. In the LOTR Sauron did not even try to acquire the Balrog for aid. In terms of commanding will, why would a Balrog submit to Sauron given the circumstances of power each has? A strong case could be made that the Balrog could even rival Sauron in combat, irrespective of whether it lost.

alatar

03-12-2007, 03:11 PM

LOL Alatar. What obloquy is saying is that some people can 'mis read' the Bible and therefore come up with 'incorrect' arguments. i.e. what we've been saying about David and Goiliath being Weak vs the Strong.
Much agreed, now that that's more clear (the fact that I routinely disagree with Peter Jackson shows how dense I must be ;)).

In other words people don't read the Bible, or understand it's meanings, 'correctly'.
Agreed. But when you use a colloquialism and some assume a dissertation...

But then how can the Bible be read correctly one way or the other? It's been studied for a few millenia, and there is no stone cold way or reading the Bible and knowing EXACTLY what it's meaning is. Pretty much the same way that we cannot certainly state who would win G v WK, as we can read the 'evidence' in various bits of Tolkien's works and letters (which conflicts with itself in some cases as the Bible also does) in different ways depending on our view.
I think that regardless of the material that we need to be consistent and leave the pretzel-making to the bakers.

PS, you may have missed my last post as we may have cross posted, Alatar
Yep. Not only am I dense, but obtuse as well.

obloquy

03-12-2007, 06:48 PM

I am not bothered by things being called "a modern-day David and Goliath" or "a scenario reminiscent of David and Goliath" or whatever. As a cliche it's harmless--still misapplied, yet harmless all the same. But when one uses the story (not the cliche) as a historical example of the underdog prevailing, I have to balk.

--

The power hierarchy was evidently important to Tolkien. He talked about power and spiritual "greatness" often. Melkor was the greatest of the Valar; the Valar were the Powers, greater than all other sentient creation; Sauron was the greatest of Melkor's servants; the Maiar were greater than the Eldar; Melian, a Maia, mothered the greatest of all the Eldar; The Eldar are greater than Men; the Numenoreans are greater than other varieties of Men; and so on and on. Barriers are occasionally breached, such as when elves slay Balrogs or when they are reincarnated nearly as powerful as Maiar. But when individuals create exceptions to these general rankings of power, it is usually a revelation of that individual's true latent power rather than a negation of the hierarchy.

I think this whole disagreement stems from a fundamentally different view of Tolkien's work. Some seem to see LotR as a self-contained story, starting at its first chapter and ending at its last. This might be too strict a definition for anyone here on this forum, but the viewpoint must exist in various degrees. Others can only see LotR as a microscope over the latter part of the Third Age of Tolkien's Middle-earth, a product only of what came before it and not of any conscious desire of the author to create moral lessons. I think that these two perspectives differ greatly, and I am buried deep in the latter camp. In my eyes, Tolkien wrote histories of a fictional world. History provides lessons and surprises, but not contrived ones that are intended to uplift; rather, only incidental ones that may sometimes encourage but often enough disgust our sense of justice and burn our hearts like acid. To me, Tolkien told us nothing more than what happened on the Pelennor, and what happened was necessarily predicated upon rules and circumstances established previously. So it was not Merry's inherent value and courage that overcame the Witch-King, but an ancient power and a miraculous circumstance. That Merry had the bravery to strike is a credit to him, but I do not see the same lesson to be learned as some sincerely do.

Like our world, Tolkien's has rules, and just as the danger of me standing in opposition to a speeding train is obvious, so is the danger, for example, of an Elda standing in opposition to Morgoth. Eowyn defied the Witch-King, and I think that it might be argued that her power truly overcame his, but there was no transcendence of hierarchy here; both were mortal Men, fear whose power would be measured on the same scale. When the Witch-King stood before Gandalf, he faced a power that he likely did not comprehend, and, I believe, could not have overcome.

Tolkien's world is real enough to me that I have difficulty entertaining ideas that I feel run counter to what I have come to understand about it and its established rules. I do not claim that this is a superior perspective of Tolkien's work, but it is preferable to me and is the only way that I can discuss Tolkien. Having defined these differing perspectives, however, I do think that I have a better understanding of the nature my disagreement with certain posters.

Raynor

03-13-2007, 03:29 AM

Melian, a Maia, mothered the greatest of all the EldarBut the only thing in which she apparently surpassed Fearnor was beauty; in all the other gifts of the elven race, Feanor excels ("mightiest in skill of word and of hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame"; "he became of all the Noldor, then or after, the most subtle in mind and the most skilled in hand").
Others can only see LotR as a microscope over the latter part of the Third Age of Tolkien's Middle-earth, a product only of what came before it and not of any conscious desire of the author to create moral lessons.So, Tolkien's opinions on religious and moral truths that appear in his work have no weight for you?

The Saucepan Man

03-13-2007, 03:45 AM

Obloquy, it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty. I don't have the Letters to hand, but there are a number of quotes to that effect. Whether he intended this from the outset is less clear, I believe, but it was certainly part of his perception of his own work. And, regardless of whether you share that opinion, it is clearly open on the material for readers to perceive it in that way.

Quite what this has to do with the portrayal of the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King in the film, though, I have no idea.

Essex

03-13-2007, 04:28 AM

Having defined these differing perspectives, however, I do think that I have a better understanding of the nature my disagreement with certain posters.And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well.

obloquy

03-13-2007, 01:00 PM

But the only thing in which she apparently surpassed Fearnor was beauty; in all the other gifts of the elven race, Feanor excels ("mightiest in skill of word and of hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame"; "he became of all the Noldor, then or after, the most subtle in mind and the most skilled in hand").

What someone excels at is irrelevant when Tolkien talks about greatness. He uses the term without qualification when speaking of Melkor, Sauron, Feanor, Galadriel, Luthien, and others. He's talking about the potency of the spirit, the inner potential; how brightly the fire burns.

So, Tolkien's opinions on religious and moral truths that appear in his work have no weight for you?

That's not what I meant. I don't see LotR as a vehicle for lessons of the author. The fact that an event took place the way Tolkien relates it does not indicate to me that he wants me to learn something about the real world from it. Events occur in history not to teach lessons but because of the complex interaction of many free wills and chance. A lesson may be learned by examining the causes or effects of an event, but they are not discovered as a preconceived purpose for what occurred. Therefore, to me the Witch-King was destroyed because over many years things fell into place for it to happen, not because Tolkien engineered the encounter to teach us all something.

Obloquy, it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty.

Perceived, yes. Intended? Maybe, I don't really know. It seems that things unfolded for him as he wrote much as they do in the real stream of time. In any case, that's the effect they have on me.

And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well.

I assume you mistake me. I'll put it another way: I now have a better understanding than I once did of why I conflict so frequently and bitterly with certain posters.

Raynor

03-13-2007, 02:25 PM

He uses the term without qualification when speaking of Melkor, Sauron, Feanor, Galadriel, Luthien, and others.Well, I, for one, am not aware of Tolkien reffering to Luthien as the greatest elf. Do you know of such an instance?
He's talking about the potency of the spirit, the inner potential; how brightly the fire burns.But in that respect it appears that Feanor is at the top.
The fact that an event took place the way Tolkien relates it does not indicate to me that he wants me to learn something about the real world from it.It seems to me that he does
But, of course, if one sets out to address 'adults' (mentally adult people anyway), they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the 'human situation' (of all periods). Perceived, yes. Intended?I would say so:
That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

03-13-2007, 02:46 PM

[EDIT: cross-posted with Raynor]

...it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty.
But is that really what Tolkien meant by this? The most obvious parallel to your interpretation appears in letter #131 (Letters p.160):
But as the earliest tales are seen through Elvish eyes, as it were, this last great Tale , coming down from myth and legend to the earth, is seen mainly through the eyes of Hobbits: it thus becomes in fact anthropocentric. But through Hobbits, not men so called, because the last Tale is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforseen and unforseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, forgotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole... is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.

In his last recorded interview (http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/jrrt_int.htm), Tolkien said:
I've always been impressed that we're here surviving because of the indomitable courage of quite small people against impossible odds: jungles, volcanoes, wild beasts... they struggle on, almost blindly in a way.

Another relevant passage appears in Letter #181 (Letters p.237):
[[i]The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen] could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

(emphasis mine)

I note that there is no mention here of victory. Tolkien is pointing out that behind the great events, and often ignored by the more important participants in them, there are hundreds of unregarded individuals who do their bit, and that sometimes a small person in the right place can do more than a more powerful person in the wrong one. That has nothing to do with intrinsic powers, nor with ennoblement. Ennoblement doesn't derive from victory or triumph: it's an internal spiritual process, which can be traced in LR through Frodo's increasing pity for his enemies, or Sam's quest for Elves; even Aragorn's relationship with Arwen. In each case there is some nobler personality or ideal that raises a character up to higher spiritual standing. On this scale, Gandalf, as an emissary of the Valar and the sole Istar to make a decent stab at his mission, is higher than any other character in LR, but it must be remembered that this is not a scale of power, but of sanctity and nobility. Tolkien qualified ennoblement by offering sanctification as an alternative; surely a term that implies a spiritual process, not the defeat of insurmountable odds. Someone may be ennobled in death (as Boromir may be seen to be) and sanctity is unaffected by triumph or disaster. Similarly courage against impossible odds is not the same as overcoming those odds. With the grounding he had in Germanic literature, Tolkien would have appreciated that more than most.

It has been said in the past that Éowyn and Merry's defeat of the Witch-king shows that the weak can defeat the strong, but to me it reinforces Tolkien's statement quoted above. Neither character ought to be where they are at the time they perform the action; they would probably have failed had Merry not in the course of his adventures, come by an extremely powerful weapon, but even so it is only Éowyn's final blow that finishes the job. By chance or providence, two people are in the right place at the right time and with the right weapon to make a difference, but this has nothing to do with their inherent power. It was simply that the application of that power at precisely the time and place they did had a disproportionate effect on larger events. Of course, as obloquy pointed out, neither of them is facing a being of a higher order, however diabolically enhanced he may have been.

As for the Witch-king's ability to defeat Gandalf: whereas Tolkien leaves some uncertainty, it seems unlikely that a Maia could be defeated by a human sorcerer, even one imbued with additional power by another Maiarin spirit. I don't think that the dispersement of power and will required to hold Sauron's armies together allowed him to put enough of his native force into one of his servants as to enable that minion to defeat a fellow Maia. It seems to me that Tolkien realised this, and so chose to have the chief Ringwraith instead confront two weaker characters for greater dramatic tension, rather than simply show him being swatted by Gandalf. The tension arises from the fact that nobody on the battlefield apart from Gandalf can be guaranteed to face the Nazgûl lord successfully.

obloquy

03-13-2007, 04:21 PM

Well, I, for one, am not aware of Tolkien reffering to Luthien as the greatest elf. Do you know of such an instance?
Aye...

The Shibboleth of FeanorThese two kinsfolk [Galadriel and Feanor], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.

[Author's Note]Who together with the greatest of all the Eldar, Lúthien Tinúviel, daughter of Elu Thingol, are the chief matter of the legends and histories of the Elves.

Great post, Squatter.

The Saucepan Man

03-13-2007, 04:58 PM

Neither character ought to be where they are at the time they perform the action; they would probably have failed had Merry not in the course of his adventures, come by an extremely powerful weapon, but even so it is only Éowyn's final blow that finishes the job. By chance or providence, two people are in the right place at the right time and with the right weapon to make a difference, but this has nothing to do with their inherent power. It was simply that the application of that power at precisely the time and place they did had a disproportionate effect on larger events. But isn't that rather the point being made in this discussion? That, regardless of the relative "power" of the combatants, there is always remains the possibility that "circumstances" will allow the weaker to prevail. In any confrontation, it is not a foregone conclusion that the higher in relative (natural) power will gain the victory.

That said, I still fail to see the relevance of this dicussion to the scene in the film, since the Gandalf of the film is not necessarily of a higher order than the Witch-King of the film, and there is no suggestion that a more powerful Gandalf might be defeated by a less powerful Witch King in consequence of "circumstances". Jackson made the choices he did, including "adjusting" the relative power levels of these two characters, for film-based reasons, primarily (to my mind) those that I touched on earlier in this thread.

Raynor

03-13-2007, 05:00 PM

Ennoblement doesn't derive from victory or triumphBut in the context of the work, lack of victory would have made all ennoblement equal to zero. If they failed, there won't be any noble or sanctified beings - you cannot divide these two.
Tolkien qualified ennoblement by offering sanctification as an alternative; surely a term that implies a spiritual process, not the defeat of insurmountable odds.However, it is this sanctification, that brings about the happy end:
it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately allows the Quest to be achieved He (and the Cause) were saved – by Mercy : by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.this is their part in the great tale, their participation. Their inner process, if you like the phrasing, brings about the victory.
it seems unlikely that a Maia could be defeated by a human sorcererHowever, he was "hard put" to fight them at Wheatertop, and (barely) escaped in the morning.
Aye...

The Shibboleth of FeanorI would note however that the Shibboleth is somewhat experimental in nature, beginning with the new names of Feanor's sons, and ending with a death of one of them - none of these, including the refference to Luthien, are found in the Silmarillion, or anywhere else, as far as I know.

Essex

03-13-2007, 06:53 PM

Obloquy re my post "And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well."I assume you mistake me. I'll put it another way: I now have a better understanding than I once did of why I conflict so frequently and bitterly with certain posters.Ah, I see! Then I apolgise for my reply! :)

Essex

03-13-2007, 07:13 PM

By chance or providence, two people are in the right place at the right time and with the right weapon to make a difference, but this has nothing to do with their inherent power. It was simply that the application of that power at precisely the time and place they did had a disproportionate effect on larger events. Then if you believe this, then you must believe it for every event that happened in Tolkien's Works? Nothing was earned, nothing was really 'won' - Frodo was not redeemed because of his compassion? an so on.

Then what do the stories hold for you then? What do the stories mean? If you believe everything was either pre determined or just down to Chance, the books must be a very dull read for you? The books for me are mainly about the emotion they bring out in me for the 'lesser' beings - the hobbits. I cry with pity every time Merry asks Pippin if they are going to Bury him, I cry with sadness when Sam sings 'In Western Lands beneath the Sun' - I cry with Pride when Aragorn goes down on one knee to Frodo and Sam, also when Gandalf says the hobbits are amongst the Great, and then when Frodo tells Rosie how improtant Sam was to the Quest. And I cry with grief when Frodo leaves behind his friends to go to the West.

Do you have these kind of feelings at all when reading LOTR? I really hope you do.

This is not a pop at you Squatter, or Obloquy - After reading your posts above, I just wonder whether you have any of these kind of 'emotions' when travelling in Middle-earth. If you do not, so be it - maybe you have other reasons for loving the books so much?

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

03-14-2007, 06:52 AM

Since Saucepan has condignly reminded me that Jackson's trilogy has little if anything to do with Tolkien's book of the same name, I'll respond to the far more interesting off-topic argument on the related Books thread this evening.

What I will say here is that this difference between the book and the films is a fundamental one, and symptomatic of a general failure on the part of the film-makers to portray a profound and significant theme in LR: that virtue and courage alone are not enough. What wins the battle more often than not is faith: the faith, and indeed the hope, to persevere against seemingly impossible odds simply because the only alternative is to give in. We have to understand that Tolkien's universe contains an omnipotent deity, who can and does sometimes reward such faith with divine assistance. Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other; balancing the nobility of holding firmly to the right cause just because it is right, even if it is guaranteed to fail, against the idea that we are servants of a higher power, who rewards good service with aid. The reason why good characters seem able to defeat far more powerful evil ones is that they have divine assistance, through wyrd or Providence. "God's forethought", as Alfred the Great called it. Tom Shippey goes through this argument in much more detail in The Road to Middle-earth.

To reduce Tolkien's book to conflict on a physical plain is to misapprehend its nature entirely, and worse: to reduce it to a tired Hollywood cliché that little people with pure hearts can overturn mighty empires. Tolkien wasn't saying that the weak can defeat the strong: he was saying that with God's help the righteous can (not will) defeat the wicked, if they strive to the utmost limits of their endurance and skill without despair or pride. In other words: God helps those as help themselves. This is why Tolkien made the forces of darkness so overwhelmingly strong; this is why he introduced the word 'heathen' into Denethor's ranting as he reached the limits of despair (another botched scene). The odds have to be overwhelming if his composite theory of courage is to have full play. He wasn't using a story to proselytise as Lewis did, but simply taking for granted a theistic world view and incorporating into it the starkest and most unflinching form of valour. It's not a view that many people would have understood even in Tolkien's day, but nowadays it seems to be missed entirely, and from such a misapprehension stems the belief that because Merry can incapacitate the Chief Ringwraith, by the same token the Witch-King can defeat Gandalf. Sauron may be awesome, but he is to Eru as Fredegar Bolger is to him. He just can't offer the same kind of support to his followers.

Either it went over Peter Jackson's head or he was in some way persuaded to abandon it in favour of more conventional film motifs. Perhaps this was inevitable given the way in which films are funded and the expectations of profitability that are placed on them; but it's also why the films are on a lower plain of art than Tolkien's books; why the books are more original, more satisfying and ultimately more enjoyable. Tolkien wasn't trying to appeal to a mass audience (although significantly he does) or please financial backers, but to please himself; and so his work has an integrity in its bold risk-taking that is lacked by interpretations produced by committee with an eye always on cost, turnover and public reception. Obvious theistic themes don't play well in the world of business, and in any case subtlety isn't what blockbusters are about: so when I think about a duel between Gandalf and the Witch-king, I'd rather consider Tolkien's complexities and subtleties than Jackson's more predictable and orthodox Hollywood approach. No doubt in a duel between his characters you'd have Witch-king and Gandalf fight each other for half an hour, with each alternately getting the upper hand; then just as W-K was about to deliver the coup de grâce, Gandalf would suddenly find a hidden reserve of strength, his questing hand would find the handle of a discarded sword and he'd gut his enemy with a perfectly timed upstroke and a wry quip. That's the Hollywood way, but my point about the films has always been that it wasn't Tolkien's.

Raynor

03-14-2007, 10:28 AM

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the otherLotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.
To reduce Tolkien's book to conflict on a physical plain is to misapprehend its nature entirely, and worse: to reduce it to a tired Hollywood cliché that little people with pure hearts can overturn mighty empires.The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms. I don't know how else to refute it. I don't know if it was already a cliche during his time, but he certainly didn't give a damn.
Tolkien wasn't saying that the weak can defeat the strong: he was saying that with God's help the righteous can (not will) defeat the wickedUnless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

03-14-2007, 03:43 PM

As it happens, I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow, so I'll address some questions that have been raised here and let the rest slide. I don't propose to get bogged down in a long-running debate here. I suggest that any responses to this should go to PM or a thread in Books.

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other
LotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT. It should always be borne in mind that this is just one word applied (either disparagingly, neutrally or positively, whichever expert seems most convincing) to one character (Byrhtnoth of Essex) in a single poem (The Battle of Maldon). The Northern heroic spirit is something far greater.
...that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere , incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.

Letters #45. p.56.

The words of Beorhtwald Maldon] have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will... Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put into the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards only loyalty upwards. Personal pride was therefore in him at its lowest, and love and loyalty at their highest.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth. Section III: ofermod.

The Northern heroic spirit is about facing impossible odds simply for the cold comfort of having done the right thing. In order to achieve its full power this spirit must be faced with a situation entirely without hope, either in this world or the next; such as that of the Norse mythology, in which good and order are destined to be destroyed by evil and chaos. The philosophy against which Tolkien was attempting to balance this spirit was one which has at its centre the idea of an omnipotent deity, whose ultimate triumph over evil is assured, and who is capable of moving events invisibly, with millennia of foresight, to grant victory to the faithful. Tolkien solves the paradox by keeping the deity, but making Providence play a part only when hopeless situations are about to reach their inevitable conclusions.

The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms
No it doesn't. Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great. They say that sometimes the actions of the small and unconsidered can have dramatic results in world events. They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies, even tear down mighty empires. When the fate of the world rests on whether one good character shows mercy to one debased character, or who happens to find a ring in a tunnel, the small can make a difference. Bilbo's discovery of the ring has a devastating effect on the councils of the Wise, but that doesn't mean that he can waltz into Mordor and fight Sauron. Frodo's mercy to Gollum makes the difference between victory and defeat for the whole of Middle-earth, but that doesn't mean that he could have faced down the Nazgûl on his own. There are many apparent coincidences in the chain of events that lead to Sauron's downfall, but very early on Gandalf comes close to mentioning divine will.

Behind [Bilbo's discovery of the Ring] was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were meant to have it.

The Shadow of the Past

Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat. Dover Castle can be demolished - reduced completely to rubble. It is therefore not invincible, but I can't destroy it with my bare hands or on my own. If this were true then Fingolfin would have been choosing a good spot for Morgoth's iron crown in his trophy cabinet before Eärendil had even been born.

Essex: I can't say that I share all of your responses, but I'm attached enough to the book to spend hours discussing it. Suffice it to say that in my understanding of LR grace must be earned, and requires as great an act of heroism as any victory it might grant.

I'm sorry to have kept this thread so far off topic. In order to avoid continuing to do so, I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM. I shan't be responding in this thread again.

Raynor

03-14-2007, 04:42 PM

I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow
...
I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM.I am a bit confused by these two statements.
Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT Since Rico Abrahamsen states that some critics did see ofermod as "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", I will take your bolded statement with a grain of salt.
Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great.
...
They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policiesAren't you contradicting yourself concerning this 'policies' issue? Anyway, Tolkien also said that the 'wheels of the world are often turned by the seemingly unknown and the weak; Elrond says that the hobbits will shake the towers and councils of the wise. I believe that the only true disagreement between us is that it seems you consider all (great) victories of the weak to be, ultimately, atributed solely to Providence. If this is indeed what Tolkien envisioned, I don't like this puppet show. A help here, or a help there, a nudge to Gollum, a whisper in the ears of Sam, that is ok. But the weak do have their crown and Frodo rightfully receives all honors.
I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat.But this is a strawman of my argument.

Mansun

03-23-2007, 01:25 PM

The entire debate can be beautifully summed up by Wikipedia as follows:-

During the siege of Minas Tirith, as Gandalf races to the upper levels of the city on Shadowfax, he unexpectedly runs into the Witch-king on his fell beast. In a duel of "wills", the Nazgûl prevails and shatters Gandalf's staff, knocking the wizard off his horse. As the Witch-king raises his burning sword, he hears the army of Rohan approach the besieged city. The scene is only in the extended version of the film.

Some fans of Tolkien's books have criticized Jackson's take on the confrontation scene which they felt showed the Witch-King as the likely prevailing victor. They assert that it unlikely that the Witch-king — in reality a corrupted, undead human — could be more powerful than Gandalf, who has ancient, divine origins, and is an incarnate angelic being called a Maia, as are Sauron and Saruman. This is only hinted at in The Lord of the Rings. However, Gandalf and the other Istari, when sent to Middle-Earth from the Uttermost West to oppose Sauron, were stripped of much of their original powers, as they were intended to use persuasion and wisdom instead of fear and force. Nonetheless, Gandalf did manage to defeat Durin's Bane, considering that Balrogs are also Maia, and supplanted Saruman as the head of the Istari.

The Lord of the Rings is quite clear that the Witch-king "wields great powers". Notably, the Witch-king is responsible for the breaking of the mighty gate of Minas Tirith (as Grond the battering ram was unsuccessful until his intervention). However, Gandalf has recovered much of his past strength in his latest incarnation, as Gandalf the White. The book also hints that the other eight Nazgûl are aware that "their Captain" would come forth to "challenge the white light of their foe", and indeed, he does aggressively confront Gandalf at the broken gates of Minas Tirith; though they do not get the chance to clash as the Rohirrim arrive. Before that happens, Denethor taunts Gandalf by asking him if he is overmatched by the Witch-king, and the Wizard says, "It might be so. But our trial of strength is not yet come."

However, other references in the book tend to hint that Gandalf would have been the victor of the aborted battle. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf battled all nine Ringwraiths simultaneously at the Tower of Amon Sûl at Weathertop hill, before Frodo arrived there and the battle ended in a stalemate, even with Gandalf being heavily outnumbered. In The Two Towers Gandalf the White claims that he is "...very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord." Aragorn also says, "The Dark Lord has Nine: But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him." Finally, in The Return of the King Gandalf later says that he could have defeated the Witch-king if he had not had to save Faramir from Denethor's madness.

Other fans say that Jackson's take on the confrontation was done to heighten the drama of Éowyn and Merry's victory over the Witch-king, and not to show whether Gandalf or the Witch-king was more powerful over the other. Of course, since the films do not go into his backstory and some lines from the book have been omitted, Jackson's Gandalf may not be latently powerful as the divine being of Tolkien's books.

Had people read this from Wikipedia then a lot of hassle would have been saved. Nonetheless an interesting topic! All the same, it amazes me that some posters have never been convinced that Gandalf the White was on paper much more powerful than the Witch King with added demonic force.

obloquy

03-23-2007, 01:43 PM

alatar

03-23-2007, 01:48 PM

WThe question deserved little to no serious response, and I indulged in debate only because of Jackson's misrepresentation of Gandalf/W-K and the fact that so many seem to have swallowed it whole.
I indulge just to keep me from doing actual work. ;)

The 1,000 Reader

03-23-2007, 05:52 PM

Wikipedia can be great, but it's not the undisputed authority on all things. In fact, I'd sooner trust the Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda) than Wikipedia on Tolkien. The writer(s) of the bit you quoted probably arrive at the correct conclusion, but the fact is that, in the book, that conclusion is obvious. "A lot of hassle would have been saved," however, if certain people did not stubbornly worship certain anti-heroes in willful denial of the facts. The question deserved little to no serious response, and I indulged in debate only because of Jackson's misrepresentation of Gandalf/W-K and the fact that so many seem to have swallowed it whole.

While Wikipedia isn't a good source, it is also incorrect to say that Gandalf would have just plowed through the Witch-King, as the text in the books (even a quote from Gandalf) does not give a clear victory for Gandalf or the Witch-King. Also, the people who disagree with the idea of Gandalf easily winning aren't contesting it because they "stubbornly worship anti-heroes." People such as Essex and I simply do not interpret the confrontation at the gates as a one-sided show of little meaning to the story. Please try to be less insulting to those who have a different view.

Essex

03-23-2007, 06:42 PM

Exactly, 1,000 Reader.

some people you cannot get through to. They are so sure of themselves and that their viewpoint is 100% correct inasmuch the same way as they think Gandalf is 100% certain that he would have beaten the Witch King.

I reckon it's only 99% certain he would have ;)

But there's the rub. The final 1%.........

I hark back to a point I've raised a number of times that Tolkien himself has said. The Istari are "subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain" - Gandalf is not invincible, thus can be beaten. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Like David vs Goliath - oops, I mean Hereford vs Newcastle

obloquy

03-23-2007, 06:58 PM

Actually, the encounter at the gates is virtually irrelevant to the debate. It provides us very little information other than that the Witch-King himself might have believed he could take on Gandalf. His opinion of himself is useless. The confrontation does not provide any indication that Gandalf was unsure of his own superiority; all arguments to that effect come from debatable interpretations of earlier statements by characters (as opposed to Tolkien himself). And most importantly, relying solely on your visceral reaction to the confrontation for an answer strips away everything that does actually matter, such as the histories and natures of the characters involved.

As for your stubborn worship of an anti-hero, I think I can back up that claim by simply pointing (again) to your completely irrational signature.

obloquy

03-23-2007, 10:08 PM

Exactly, 1,000 Reader.
You know, this is funny: you, Essex, want to convey the not-so-profound concept that nothing is impossible. Great...so what? It's debatable, but it's not a debate worth having. To illustrate: it's also not possible to say with 100% certainty that the Witch-King could not have built a ladder out of Hobbit bones and climbed it all the way to Iluvatar's comfy spot outside of time and creation and punched him in his immaterial nose.

On the other hand, 1,000 Reader believes that the Witch-King was, at least, evenly matched with Gandalf. He disagrees with this: I reckon it's only 99% certain he would have

So you're trying to hammer home a valueless point while 1,000 Reader is trying to defend an insupportable position. You both seem to identify with the other's cause, but you're not arguing the same point at all. hehe!

The 1,000 Reader

03-24-2007, 12:58 AM

Actually, the encounter at the gates is virtually irrelevant to the debate.

The encounter at the gates is pretty much the start of this debate.

It provides us very little information other than that the Witch-King himself might have believed he could take on Gandalf. His opinion of himself is useless. The confrontation does not provide any indication that Gandalf was unsure of his own superiority; all arguments to that effect come from debatable interpretations of earlier statements by characters (as opposed to Tolkien himself).

The confrontation told us that there was no obvious victor if the battle happened. Nobody backed down or showed fear.

And most importantly, relying solely on your visceral reaction to the confrontation for an answer strips away everything that does actually matter, such as the histories and natures of the characters involved.

Like you do? :p

As for your stubborn worship of an anti-hero, I think I can back up that claim by simply pointing (again) to your completely irrational signature.

You seem to have forgotten me telling you that it was a joke. The joke is that the majority of fanboys (and fangirls) of the forces of darkness love Morgoth and Sauron to death, yet nobody remembers what the Witch-King did, or even remotely remember the defeats of the Dark Lords. The sig was pushing the character limit, so I couldn't go into detail.

As for identifying with Essex, he thinks (or at least thought in the days when I first came here) that the confrontation at the gates was never hinted to be one-sided by the way Tolkien wrote it or any other sources, like I do. He can have his personal opinions on who would win, but he does acknowledge that it was not portrayed to be one-sided.

Essex

03-24-2007, 06:27 AM

As for identifying with Essex, he thinks (or at least thought in the days when I first came here) that the confrontation at the gates was never hinted to be one-sided by the way Tolkien wrote it or any other sources, like I do. He can have his personal opinions on who would win, but he does acknowledge that it was not portrayed to be one-sided.Yes, that is correct. Even when reading the book for the first time, and in the many re-readings of the book I've had, I still get the feeling that Gandalf is not so sure of himself than Obluquy and others are. It really doesn't seem that cut and dried as some here stubbornly believe it to be.

Like a bad scientist, people take on board texts that Tolkien has written that helps their side of the argument, but forget the odd bit of evidence that refutes this and brush it under the carpet. As I said on my last post, the Istari had bodies that could be SLAIN. They were not supernatural in that sense (as perhaps the WK was) - so the WK could get a lucky strike in (as Merry did of course) and injure or kill Gandalf.

My "99% certain" quote was a bit over the top - it was just to make my point that what we are trying to say is that it is not certain that Gandalf would have been victorious against the WK, and to me, the evidence points this way as well.

alatar

03-24-2007, 07:33 AM

obloquy, you know what the sad thing is? Many people will have watched Peter Jackson's version of the events where Gandalf gets creamed by the Witch-King. These people, never cracking the books, let alone reading as much as you have, will always remember how much weaker the White Wizard was, laying prone, unhorsed and destaffed. :( Persons in my experience have watched completely fictional films of historical events and those films have supplanted the truth in their heads. If you are going to undo PJ's work, yours then is the labor of Sisyphus.

At least Essex and The 1,000 Reader are debating the issue, and even admitting that the Witch-King winning is of low probability (same probability as me liking Pip in the films). :)

Essex

03-26-2007, 05:30 AM

that's a fair point Alatar. Then we must get everyone we know who has seen the movies to read the book, which is of course superior to the films.

I got my mother to read them for the first time and she's 66!

I've mellowed out now and I'm old enough to understand that everyone has different viewpoints, and this thread has explored most if not all avenues of the scene, so there's nothing much more to be said........ so I think I'll retire from this thread (until someone else pipes up with something in a year or so's time and I'll no doubt drag myself back into the debate again!)

narfforc

04-08-2007, 07:59 AM

Having just watched the third release of these movies and their Behind the Scenes footage I can now explain why the Gandalf vs The Witch-King scene is the way it is. Sir Ian asks Peter why he doesn't just zap the Nazgul (this is the ones flying about), Peter explains that it is because his batteries are flat and the city hasn't got any AA bateries, so you can see Gandalf doesn't use Duracell and Witchy-poo does.

Bêthberry

04-12-2007, 07:53 AM

you know what the sad thing is? Many people will have watched Peter Jackson's version of the events where Gandalf gets creamed by the Witch-King. These people, never cracking the books, let alone reading as much as you have, will always remember how much weaker the White Wizard was, laying prone, unhorsed and destaffed.

What is even sadder is the fact that obviously PJ figured he had to use this symbolism to prepare his action/adventure- flick-loving audience for Eowyn's victory over WK. It's as if people just couldn't accept otherwise that a mere slip of a girl (with a bit of a hand from a midget) could bring down such oppressive omnipotence. No wonder Eowyn's victory makes some guys cringe.

alatar

04-12-2007, 09:15 AM

No wonder Eowyn's victory makes some guys cringe.
Think that we've discussed this to tears elsewhere, but my cringing is not due to Eowyn vanquishing the Witch-King. Sure, the W-K sent Gandalf the White to the floor, and then a hobbit with a newly sharpened blade (and therefore non-magical) and a shieldmaiden make the W-K look like a crumbled soda can, but that's not enough to earn Eowyn a respite and a little glory. She kills the Witch-King! And moments later she's being chased by Gimpy Gothmog, and without the intervention of Aragorn, would have lost to the orc.

Couldn't we have had her swoon, as if to die, so that we thought her dead and so shed a few tears? Oh, that right, in PJ's world only those that fall from cliffs can come back from the dead...;)

alatar

05-29-2007, 09:08 PM

I finally found my copy of The History of Middle Earth: Volume VIII: The War of the Ring (http://www.amazon.com/War-Ring-History-Rings-Middle-Earth/dp/0261102230/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5977767-4424164?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180492406&sr=8-1). Thought that I had donated it to charity, or that it was lost in the move. Regardless, here is what it has to say about Gandalf and the Witch-King (text exactly as it appears except where I have bolded it):

There Gandalf stood. And then over the hill in the flare of the fire a great Black Horseman came. For a moment he...halted menacing, and lifted up a great ...sword red to the hilt. Fear fell on all .......Then great rams went on before, but the steel only shook and boomed. The Black Captain.....lifted again his hand crying in a dreadful voice. In some forgotten tongue he spoke crying aloud words of power and terror. Thrice the rams boomed. Thrice he cried, and then suddenly the gate as if stricken by some blast burst [?asunder], and a great flash as of lightning, burst and fell, and in rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. But there waiting still before the gate sat Gandalf, and Shadowfax alone among the free horses of the earth did not [?quail] but stood rooted as an image of grey marble.

'You cannot pass,' said Gandalf. 'Go back to the black abyss prepared for you, and fall into nothingness that shall come upon your Master.'

The Black Rider [?lay for laid] back his hood and .....crown that sat upon no visible head save only for the light of his pale eyes. A deadly laughter [?rang] out.

'Old fool,' he said. 'Old fool. Do you not know death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain. This is my hour of victory.' And with that he lifted his great sword [Added:And then suddenly his hand wavered and fell and it seemed that he shrank.] And [>For] in that very moment away behind in some courtyard of the city a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that far above the shadows of death was now coming once again.

And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, great horns of the north wildly blowing. The riders of Rohan had come at last.

It seems to me that in this earlier draft the Witch-King's power waned suddenly when day broke and he faced Gandalf. Surely you will argue that it was the changing of the weather, and not Gandalf, that weakened the Witch-King. My counter will be that the rising of the sun and blowing of the wind - and horns - does not make the Witch-King quit the battle, but to seek prey with which he may stand a chance.

Not in any draft, but it is rumored that Gandalf, hearing the cock crowing in the distance, absentmindedly said, "Chicken." Pippin, and others witnessing the exchange, tied the word to the shrinking and retreat of the Witch-King, and so made 'chicken' the epithet that we have today.

The 1,000 Reader

06-08-2007, 10:05 PM

At least Essex and The 1,000 Reader are debating the issue, and even admitting that the Witch-King winning is of low probability (same probability as me liking Pip in the films). :)

I'm arguing that the fight was 50/50. As for drafts, the final work is what the author deems the most fitting, so they (drafts) aren't really reliable. The link Alatar posted to History of Middle-Earth Volume VIII even has a quote from Tolkien, saying:

It will probably work out very differently from this plan when it really gets written, as the thing seems to write itself once it gets going.

Just pointing that out.

alatar

06-11-2007, 11:25 AM

Amidst all of the hype of the 30th anniversary of the release of the first (or is it fourth?) Star Wars movie, there was a documentary on-line at the History channel (http://www.history.com/media.do?id=starwars_legacy_deathstar_broadband&action=clip) and on TV. My son wanted to watch, and so we indulged. Guess who made an appearance? None other than our esteemed Peter Jackson.

He was interviewed and added his two cents about the Star Wars movies. What caught my eye was, in the same documentary, the 'story' of Star Wars was examined. It was noted that SW followed the classical hero story formula (not the exact words) where the hero is trained by a wise old mentor who then must fade into the background so that the hero can come into his/her own. This fading can be accomplished via the mentor's death, so that the hero must take his/her place without the crutch/aid of the old bearded one.

Peter Jackson surely knows of this story formula, and so may have seen the diminishment of Gandalf as essential to the story arc of Aragorn. Unlike in Tolkien's view (or at least my view of the same), Gandalf does not fade until Sauron falls. PJ's Gandalf peaks somewhere in Fangorn, and begins his slide there, which is about the time Lord Aragorn starts bossing Theoden around.

It all makes sense now, and so having Gandalf destaffed by the Witch-King shows demonstrably that that mentor's days have ended.

And speaking of formulas, mathematically speaking, if WK>Gandalf, and Eowyn>WK, and Aragorn>Eowyn, as noted here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=522297&postcount=5), then Aragorn>WK and subsequently, Aragorn>Gandalf.

Morthoron

06-11-2007, 10:09 PM

Peter Jackson surely knows of this story formula, and so may have seen the diminishment of Gandalf as essential to the story arc of Aragorn. Unlike in Tolkien's view (or at least my view of the same), Gandalf does not fade until Sauron falls. PJ's Gandalf peaks somewhere in Fangorn, and begins his slide there, which is about the time Lord Aragorn starts bossing Theoden around.

It all makes sense now, and so having Gandalf destaffed by the Witch-King shows demonstrably that that mentor's days have ended.

This is just another case of Jackson's incessant meddling with a perfectly good plot. The more he heads off into his self-indulgent ego-stroking, the more the films become irritating. It is exactly why I still cannot watch the Two Towers movie all the way through (even with the extended DVD). Jackson's need to reinterpret Tolkien is most notably annoying and prolonged in TTT, but inane scenes such as the WitchKing breaking Gandalf's staff are unpleasant reminders of PJ's propensity for banal scripting throughout the trilogy. The further he strays from the lore, the more turgid the story becomes, and sadly, most of his forays into self-indulgence do not improve upon the original plot in the least.

TheGreatElvenWarrior

08-05-2007, 01:58 PM

I agree that Gandalf was done a horrible injustice in that scene. This is one of the wisest and most powerful beings in all of ME, but he is made short work of by the Witchking.

I agree In the books it said that Gandalf could even Take on the dark lord himself and Sauron is even MORE powerful than the witch king.

Raynor

08-05-2007, 03:41 PM

I agree In the books it said that Gandalf could even Take on the dark lord himself and Sauron is even MORE powerful than the witch king.
Hm, I am not sure as to what quote you are referring. Gandalf did say:
I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still.
...
And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.
Even the second quote doesn't give precedence to Gandalf. Not that it matters much in a movie discussion.

Mansun

08-08-2007, 11:01 AM

I'm arguing that the fight was 50/50. As for drafts, the final work is what the author deems the most fitting, so they (drafts) aren't really reliable. The link Alatar posted to History of Middle-Earth Volume VIII even has a quote from Tolkien, saying:

Just pointing that out.

Tolkein's word is final - Sauron, then Gandalf the White is most dangerous in ME. This means Gandalf must have more sorcerous tools of destruction under his sleave if he chooses to use them than anything else save Sauron. This does not prove Gandalf cannot be defeated by a lesser creature, but it makes it damn more likely. End of story . . .LOL

alatar

08-09-2007, 11:52 AM

Tolkein's word is final - Sauron, then Gandalf the White is most dangerous in ME. This means Gandalf must have more sorcerous tools of destruction under his sleave if he chooses to use them than anything else save Sauron. This does not prove Gandalf cannot be defeated by a lesser creature, but it makes it damn more likely. End of story . . .LOL
How many did Gandalf face on Weathertop (assuming that it even happened in the movie)? If it even were all Nine, like I think in the books, Gandalf retreated and was chased off by four, and the wizard spins his hasty retreat into something positive by stating that by his chickenhood, Frodo and the others had to only contend with the five.

There were only five in PJ's adaptation, so maybe in the movie Gandalf does face all Nine.

He wasn't at Weathertop when Strider leads the Hobbits there. Gandalf obviously left in much haste, not even having time to scratch a G on a rock. One would then conclude that Nine were at least a match for the Grey Pilgrim. If, in RotK, the Witch-King were made 9X more powerful, he'd then be able alone to have the same effect on Gandalf the Grey.

As we're dealing with PJ's Gandalf the White, I'd then conclude that the WK's power was increased only three-fold. ;)

Mansun

08-09-2007, 12:30 PM

How many did Gandalf face on Weathertop (assuming that it even happened in the movie)? If it even were all Nine, like I think in the books, Gandalf retreated and was chased off by four, and the wizard spins his hasty retreat into something positive by stating that by his chickenhood, Frodo and the others had to only contend with the five.

There were only five in PJ's adaptation, so maybe in the movie Gandalf does face all Nine.

He wasn't at Weathertop when Strider leads the Hobbits there. Gandalf obviously left in much haste, not even having time to scratch a G on a rock. One would then conclude that Nine were at least a match for the Grey Pilgrim. If, in RotK, the Witch-King were made 9X more powerful, he'd then be able alone to have the same effect on Gandalf the Grey.

As we're dealing with PJ's Gandalf the White, I'd then conclude that the WK's power was increased only three-fold. ;)

Gandalf the Grey was not chased off by four Nazgul - he wanted to lure them away from the Ring. Also, when as Grey he could have chosen not to kill the Nazgul, by the simple logic that they were a threat, but not a threat of Sauron's proportions or that of a Balrog. His role was first & foremost Steward of Middle Earth, meaning that if he could hold off the Nazgul away from the Ring for as long as possible, that should be all that he must do.

If there was a serious chance of the Nine killing Gandalf at Weathertop like with the Balrog in Moria, I have no doubt that then, & only then, would you have seen the REAL Gandalf the Grey uncloaked.
He said he was hard put to, as though he meant:"Ok they were were tough but I was never in any serious trouble".

But he was hardly in the state of shock & fear when he retold the encounter with the Balrog to the 3 Hunters in the Two Towers, & that was even when he was Gandalf the White!

The 1,000 Reader

08-10-2007, 06:06 PM

Tolkein's word is final - Sauron, then Gandalf the White is most dangerous in ME. This means Gandalf must have more sorcerous tools of destruction under his sleave if he chooses to use them than anything else save Sauron. This does not prove Gandalf cannot be defeated by a lesser creature, but it makes it damn more likely. End of story . . .LOL

Considering the record of the more dangerous Sauron against lesser beings (0-2), combined with Gandalf's words and reactions when speaking with Denethor in "The Siege of Gondor", if Gandalf was more powerful, it certainly was by a very small amount, and thus that is why I say the fight could have gone either way. Nowhere in the confrontation is a phrase or sentence stating that one was greater than the other, and seeing as how Gandalf is perhaps the wisest character in LOTR, if he thinks the Witch-King is a serious threat that could defeat him, I don't have reason to doubt his word.

Also, wasn't the comment of Gandalf being greater than the Nine said by Aragorn before the Witch-King's "power boost" as well? I vaguely recall Gandalf saying something like that to Frodo in Bag End in FOTR as well, though I am not sure.

narfforc

08-12-2007, 02:32 AM

I have always felt that Gandalf does defeat Sauron, and The Witch-king for that matter. It is not by outward blasts of power that he achieves this, it is by wisdom, foresight and being one step ahead of the game. Gandalf releases Theoden from the grip of Saruman therefore allowing the Rohirrim to turn up at The Battle of The Pelennor Fields just in time, and it is Gandalf who convinces Elrond to allow the two youngers hobbits to be part of The Fellowship therefore allowing Merry to be present during Eowyns battle with The Witch-king, if not for Gandalf being the prime mover of the forces of good, then the scene at the Gates of Minas Tirith may have been different. Gandalf achieves the prime directive by wisdom and not by the power of force, this was his mission, not to oppose Sauron by way of Power.

obloquy

08-12-2007, 08:54 PM

Also, wasn't the comment of Gandalf being greater than the Nine said by Aragorn before the Witch-King's "power boost" as well?

You take for granted your own idea of what Tolkien meant by his letter describing the Witch-King's "added demonic force," which has not been established conclusively. My reading of the letter bears as much legitimacy as yours does, and does not ask us to gloss over holes in logic: for example, If Sauron could literally channel more power into his Nazgul, why not do it when he knew exactly where the Ring was and didn't think anyone knew he was coming for it? Why only soup up the Witch-King? After all, wasn't the War of the Ring an "all or nothing" situation? Sauron wasn't personally at risk in Barad-dur, so why not pump even more vital juice into the Nerd-King?

Nope, I don't buy it, and I've provided sound arguments against it. You can believe what you want (and I know you do, facts be damned), but don't play the card like it's a conceded point.

Mansun

08-15-2007, 11:15 AM

Also, wasn't the comment of Gandalf being greater than the Nine said by Aragorn before the Witch-King's "power boost" as well? I vaguely recall Gandalf saying something like that to Frodo in Bag End in FOTR as well, though I am not sure.

Don't you think this is in effect Tolkein speaking his own mind out loud? Or is Aragorn really talking rubbish? I am still not convinced the enhanced Witch King is more powerful than the old one with his 8 servants put together. Sauron barely has any of his former power, so where has this sudden enormous hike in power into the Witch King come from? The Witch King is also more or less unproven in battle.

Gandalf vs the Witch King should favour Gandalf in the same way as a battle between Gandalf & Sauron would favour Sauron.

alatar

08-23-2007, 11:56 AM

From 'The Siege of Gondor' as found in HoME, The War of the Ring (text exactly as it appears):

Denethor and Faramir marvel at Gandalf's power over Nazgûl. Gandalf says things are still not so bad - because the W King has not yet appeared. He reveals that he is a renegade of his own order...[?from] Númenor. 'So far I have saved myself from him only by flight - for many an age he has lain in hiding or sleep while his master's power waned. But now he is grown more fell than ever.'

[i]<Gandalf speaking to the Pipster> 'He wields others as his weapons. I speak of one whom you have met. The Wizard King, captain of those you called the Black Riders. Most fell of all the servants of the Dark Tower. But he has not [struck out (?): yet] taken to winged steeds. [In him I am not overmatched, and yet still I am matched, for he was a member of our order before evil took him].

Then there was a sortie from the city led by the Prince of Dol Amroth kinsman of Faramir and his folk, and Gandalf at his side. In the [?notch] of time they came up, and [?two] miles from the city drove back the enemy, making great slaugther, for the enemy cavalry were [?few] and [?little]...; the Nazgûl [?would (not) stand] the onslaught of Gandalf, for their Captain was not with them.

Seems that one of the original ideas was the the Witch King was one of the Wizard kind. Even after revision he retains the title of sorcerer, which might mean that he's a staff-less wizard. So maybe PJ went back to the Witch-King's roots, seeing that in some text that Gandalf admits that he cannot 'overmatch' the Witch-King (unless the contest is smoke rings), and so has the W-K literally floors Gandalf, who would have eventually fought back, ending in a draw.

Also, being a sorcerer, could the W-K pumped himself up just for the battle, spending all his power for one last throw, knowing that if he won the day, he could sleep it off for a few eons? And, like the darkness (you had to squint to see it in PJ's version), did his overamp run out too soon, leaving him vulnerable to Merry and Éowyn?

Mansun

08-23-2007, 02:25 PM

Also, being a sorcerer, could the W-K pumped himself up just for the battle, spending all his power for one last throw, knowing that if he won the day, he could sleep it off for a few eons? And, like the darkness (you had to squint to see it in PJ's version), did his overamp run out too soon, leaving him vulnerable to Merry and Éowyn?

This battle would not be a draw if the real potential of Gandalf is dragged out of him by sheer need. The reference of the Witch King being the greatest servant of Mordor is of no avail here, since a servant of Morgoth had already fallen in battle to Gandalf.

The Witch King would have been at his greatest power when Sauron still had the Ring during the second age in the battle against the Last Alliance. Since he could not even make an impact in battle there, Sauron himself had to come to rescue him & the others.

William Cloud Hicklin

08-24-2007, 08:46 AM

So maybe PJ went back to the Witch-King's roots, seeing that in some text that Gandalf admits that he cannot 'overmatch' the Witch-King (unless the contest is smoke rings), and so has the W-K literally floors Gandalf, who would have eventually fought back, ending in a draw.

Oh, come on. PJ going back through the HoME drafts in the name of some sort of 'accuracy'? Mr. Wizard Wrestling Federation? Mr. Saruman-fireball? The guy who had only read the book once, twenty years before, when he began filming? No, PJ shot the scene the way he did because he thought it would be kewl, and he liked neato-keen exploding staffs, and was determined that the W-K appear suitably badass (and get another cheap laff via Pippin). Jackson here as elsewhere has all the subtlety of a brick.

Mansun

08-24-2007, 10:40 AM

Who here honestly thought that Gandalf would triumph against the Balrog when they came toe to toe in Moria? The advantage seemed with the Balrog at the time just before they started battle. Here we seem to have a similar situation, the Witch King seems to have the greater menace at face value, but who is it that would have ultimately triumphed?

alatar

08-24-2007, 03:38 PM

Oh, come on. PJ going back through the HoME drafts in the name of some sort of 'accuracy'? Mr. Wizard Wrestling Federation? Mr. Saruman-fireball? The guy who had only read the book once, twenty years before, when he began filming? No, PJ shot the scene the way he did because he thought it would be kewl, and he liked neato-keen exploding staffs, and was determined that the W-K appear suitably badass (and get another cheap laff via Pippin). Jackson here as elsewhere has all the subtlety of a brick.
That's funny; I thought that there were only a few differences from the text, as PJ and crew weren't exactly sure of the number of hairs in Gandalf's beard (they estimated) and the height of Treebeard was reduced by 10 cm due to a New Zealand safety regulation that applied to the live actors.

Other that that, it was spot on, wasn't it?

alatar keeps posting on this thread (1) to provide additional information for others from the Books! and (2) knows that if this thread cracks the 500 post barrier that the Barrow Wight himself will provide alatar with an electric dog polisher signed by Billy Boyd.

TheGreatElvenWarrior

08-26-2007, 05:46 PM

That's funny; I thought that there were only a few differences from the text, as PJ and crew weren't exactly sure of the number of hairs in Gandalf's beard (they estimated) and the height of Treebeard was reduced by 10 cm due to a New Zealand safety regulation that applied to the live actors.

Other that that, it was spot on, wasn't it?

Haha very funny (TGEW laughs at the only things that PJ got wrong on movies was Gandalf's Beard and Treebeard.) Back to Gandalf Vs. WK...
Now where was I... Oh yes, the start of my ranting,
This was a total injustice to Gandalf's character and if they should do something like that then PJ should of had Gandalf kill the WK since he wasn't a living man either he was a wizard...
Sooo I have finished if anyone has anything to add to that then they can post it.

Mansun

08-28-2007, 10:10 AM

alatar

08-28-2007, 11:10 AM

Was Merry's blade that killed the Witch King mentioned as enchanted in the films? I do not recall that it was, meaning that any fine blade such as Orcrist (as far as the film is concerned) could probably pierce the Witch King. If so, it is definately advantage Gandalf in the film.
I ranted on Merry's blade here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=380039&postcount=273) and elsewhere. If it's the blade that Merry holds right before the WK battle, then it's not magical as he has to sharpen it while in Rohan. And Gandalf's blade isn't magical either or it would have had the blue glow when Gandalf was in the Gondor siege.

Mansun

08-28-2007, 02:44 PM

I ranted on Merry's blade here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=380039&postcount=273) and elsewhere. If it's the blade that Merry holds right before the WK battle, then it's not magical as he has to sharpen it while in Rohan. And Gandalf's blade isn't magical either or it would have had the blue glow when Gandalf was in the Gondor siege.

Gandalf does not need a magical blade to kill the Witch King in the film.

Folwren

08-28-2007, 02:55 PM

Gandalf does not need a magical blade to kill the Witch King in the film.

Neither does Merry, apparently.

Mansun

08-29-2007, 12:00 PM

Neither does Merry, apparently.

Did I question whether Merry did need a magical blade??? Machiavellianism (a tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain) may be an interesting theory for you, Folwren.

Finduilas

08-29-2007, 12:08 PM

Mansun

08-29-2007, 12:20 PM

On Merry not needing an enchanted blade, someone told me once that Merry, and for the same reason Eowyn, was able to kill the Nazgul because he wasn't a man. He, or she (I can't remember who I was talking to), thought that when the Witchking said no man can kill me, that he meant that only women or other races could.

Just thought I would add another explaination. Maybe that's what PJ thought:p

Does that mean an Oliphaunt could kill the Witch King? The theory is only a prophecy, not a fact.

A woman was needed in the story to give some noble credibility to women in Middle Earth. Otherwise women would be seen as the maids & housewives, & not the brave, noble cavalry sort which few could yet demonstrate. The killing of the Witch King in the manner of a woman also makes him look very foolsh of his overconfidence, even severely over-rated as an opponent. A good example of machiavellianism.

Finduilas

08-29-2007, 12:28 PM

Does that mean an Oliphaunt could kill the Witch King? The theory is only a prophecy, not a fact.

I know. But you can't argue with some people. He held to it, and I didn't have a book with me so I couldn't prove him wrong.

alatar

08-29-2007, 12:43 PM

Mansun

08-29-2007, 01:45 PM

Remember when (at least in the books) Gandalf states that a "power" exists in the Shire as well? Methinks that Hobbits create a zone of chaos wherever they go. Look what happened when one or more of the four were present:

Five Nazgul fail at Weathertop.
A Ranger is caught off his guard.
Nine Nazgul drown.
Fight ensues at the "Last Homely House."
Snowy mountaintop explodes.
Cave troll falls.
Dwarven bridgework collapses.
Balrog fails.
Gandalf falls.
Dwarf caught off his guard.
Steward's son dies.
Uruks fail.
Gollum is captured (think about it).
Other Steward's son loses mind.
Winged Nazgul fails with Ring in plain sight.
Orthanc falls.
Saruman dies.
Shelob fails.
Fight ensues in Tower of Cirith Ungol.
Gollum falls.
Rohirrim become blinded to female warrior in their midst in plain sight.
Mumakil fail.
Witch-King bests Gandalf.
Steward takes flying leap.
Minas Tirith almost overrun.
Aragorn gets trampled by Battle Troll.
Sauron falls.
Pippin catches bouquet.

And so on. The reason that book Aragorn quarantines the Shire is not for the benefit for the Little Folk, but to protect the rest of us from them.

This could be because without mighty creatures like Gandalf in the world, Hobbits would not be able to exist for very long. Great powers, such as Gandalf & Aragorn, as well as High Elves, are drawn to the Shire in the knowledge that it needs protection. Even the Nine Riders did not readily wade through the Shire as openly as, say, when the Hobbits were attacked at Weathertop. The Shire is symbolic of everything that is good of Middle Earth, & if it were to fall, most likely Middle Earth would fall with it.

A very good point, but a little astray from the thread though.

alatar

08-30-2007, 11:17 AM

A very good point, but a little astray from the thread though.
Maybe. Just showing how one can observe 'A;' observe 'B;' notice that when B occurs A is always in the vicinity and therefore conclude that A is a possible catalyst for B. They may or may not be related, but you can post without exploring the true relationship. ;)

William Cloud Hicklin

08-30-2007, 08:53 PM

On Merry not needing an enchanted blade, someone told me once that Merry, and for the same reason Eowyn, was able to kill the Nazgul because he wasn't a man. He, or she (I can't remember who I was talking to), thought that when the Witchking said no man can kill me, that he meant that only women or other races could.

But remember what Tolkien says: "No other blade could have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that bound his unseen sinews to his will..."

The prophecy "not by the hand of man shall he fall" was made by Glorfindel at Fornost, a thousand years before. But, interestingly, long after the sword had been made.

Meriadoc1961

08-31-2007, 12:22 PM

Remember when (at least in the books) Gandalf states that a "power" exists in the Shire as well? Methinks that Hobbits create a zone of chaos wherever they go. Look what happened when one or more of the four were present:

Five Nazgul fail at Weathertop.
A Ranger is caught off his guard.
Nine Nazgul drown.
Fight ensues at the "Last Homely House."
Snowy mountaintop explodes.
Cave troll falls.
Dwarven bridgework collapses.
Balrog fails.
Gandalf falls.
Dwarf caught off his guard.
Steward's son dies.
Uruks fail.
Gollum is captured (think about it).
Other Steward's son loses mind.
Winged Nazgul fails with Ring in plain sight.
Orthanc falls.
Saruman dies.
Shelob fails.
Fight ensues in Tower of Cirith Ungol.
Gollum falls.
Rohirrim become blinded to female warrior in their midst in plain sight.
Mumakil fail.
Witch-King bests Gandalf.
Steward takes flying leap.
Minas Tirith almost overrun.
Aragorn gets trampled by Battle Troll.
Sauron falls.
Pippin catches bouquet.

And so on. The reason that book Aragorn quarantines the Shire is not for the benefit for the Little Folk, but to protect the rest of us from them.

That may have been a bit off-topic, but it was hilarious, nonetheless!:D

The 1,000 Reader

09-02-2007, 02:22 AM

You take for granted your own idea of what Tolkien meant by his letter describing the Witch-King's "added demonic force," which has not been established conclusively. My reading of the letter bears as much legitimacy as yours does, and does not ask us to gloss over holes in logic: for example, If Sauron could literally channel more power into his Nazgul, why not do it when he knew exactly where the Ring was and didn't think anyone knew he was coming for it? Why only soup up the Witch-King? After all, wasn't the War of the Ring an "all or nothing" situation? Sauron wasn't personally at risk in Barad-dur, so why not pump even more vital juice into the Nerd-King?

Sauron never knew where the One Ring was save for when Frodo claimed it in Mount Doom. Sauron, though powerful, was still limited and "powering up" the Witch-King (or anyone) would probably be a tiring process, possibly taking some time. The Witch-King, being the Dark Lord's most dangerous servant, was probably the best candidate for an increase in might. Regarding the War of the Ring being all or nothing, Sauron was quite arrogant, with the most notable example of this being his inability to comprehend anyone trying to destroy the One Ring.

Speaking to everyone here, since Gandalf's purpose in LOTR wasn't to save the day for the people, could PJ have made the scene to show that the people of Middle-Earth would have to save themselves? To me, all the scene appears to do is reinforce that idea. I don't see how Gandalf being bested by the Witch-King is an insult to his character--he just lost a fight. His character is still intact.

Mansun

09-02-2007, 05:22 AM

Speaking to everyone here, since Gandalf's purpose in LOTR wasn't to save the day for the people, could PJ have made the scene to show that the people of Middle-Earth would have to save themselves? To me, all the scene appears to do is reinforce that idea. I don't see how Gandalf being bested by the Witch-King is an insult to his character--he just lost a fight. His character is still intact.

Gandalf was the enemy of Sauron, so being overmatched by his servant is a sore blow to the integrity of Gandalf as a major power. As I have said before, Tolkein was probably worried that an enhanced Gandalf the White would have creamed the Witch King in his previous form; a tonic of power was needed to at least give the Witch King a chance in a direct encounter. Some posters (& PJ) here have interpreted this differently, ignoring the massively increased might of Gandalf the White, against an enhanced Witch King.

By the way, Eru himself increased Gandalf's power for good measure, with a prior knowledge of knowing what Sauron may do to increase the Witch King's power. With this in mind, Eru would not have left a debt in Gandalf's power versus the Witch King!

William Cloud Hicklin

09-02-2007, 05:50 AM

In this context there's a problem with the scene on the walls where Pippin 'saves' Gandalf from an Orc- notwithstanding Gandalf the White's explicit statement in the book (The White Rider) that he was immune to ordinary weapons (even Anduril).

alatar

09-02-2007, 06:52 AM

His character is still intact.
This is the problem. Gandalf the White is lying on the ground looking fearful! He who took on a Balrog and walked the halls of Dol Guldur was afraid. Peter Jackson could have redeemed himself just by adding a faint smile on the Wizard's lips, as if to say, "You flying fool! While you're here knocking me about, 7000 horsepersons just showed up on your flank, and two of those riders hold your doom in their hands."

obloquy

09-02-2007, 11:12 AM

Sauron never knew where the One Ring was save for when Frodo claimed it in Mount Doom.

Then why did he send the Ringwraiths to the Shire? Didn't Sauron perceive the thoughts of his servants when they had the Ring and its bearer pinned down in Bree, on Weathertop, or at the Ford?

Sauron, though powerful, was still limited and "powering up" the Witch-King (or anyone) would probably be a tiring process, possibly taking some time.

Based on what prior example? This is pure speculation and one of those leaps in logic I mentioned.

The Witch-King, being the Dark Lord's most dangerous servant, was probably the best candidate for an increase in might.

Yeah, no doubt. So you're saying that Sauron only had a little to give, and it was really hard for him to do it, so the Witch-King got it all. Sounds like another leap in logic.

Regarding the War of the Ring being all or nothing, Sauron was quite arrogant, with the most notable example of this being his inability to comprehend anyone trying to destroy the One Ring.

You're right, he was arrogant. Your example is an accurate one but what it reveals runs counter to your argument: His arrogance was in his presumption that military might was of primary importance. In this endeavor he put forth all that he was capable of mustering and held back nothing.

All of this is virtually irrelevant anyway since the indisputable fact is that the literal interpretation of the note has not been established.

I don't see how Gandalf being bested by the Witch-King is an insult to his character--he just lost a fight. His character is still intact.

His character--that of demigod in man's form, peer of Sauron--is decidedly not intact in the movie. If the scenario bore any hint of possibility I doubt so many people would be bent out of shape about it.

Mansun

09-03-2007, 09:33 AM

By the way, Eru himself increased Gandalf's power for good measure, with a prior knowledge of knowing what Sauron may do to increase the Witch King's power. With this in mind, Eru would not have left a debt in Gandalf's power versus the Witch King!

This qoute wins the argument in favour of Gandalf the White, & virtually proves that he would indeed be victorious against the Witch King in battle. Not that this counts too much in context with the film!

Boromir88

09-08-2007, 12:28 AM

Im going to go back to some earlier points by narfforc as I think he is dead on. From the text we see that Gandalf proved greater than the Witch-King in two ways.

First, Gandalf proved indeed to be the 'greater' when it came to power. The Witch-King comes bursting through the gate, Gandalf is the only one who stands in his way (completely unafraid) and ready to confront him. The Nazgul's greatest weapon (we are told) is their fear, and they have 'no great physical strength against the fearless.' (Letter 210). The Witch-King naturally plays to his greatest asset...fear. This doesn't work as Gandalf is unafraid and even intent on chasing after the Witch-King had Pippin not come and told him about Faramir.

The second way is that Gandalf proved to be the better commander. To expand on what narfforc said, who was it that healed Theoden? Who was it that got the Rohirrim to fight against Saruman and ultimately come in to save the day? Who was it that instructed the Rohirrim to go to Gondor's aid and hence their arrival catching Mordor off guard, and the Witch-King to flee as the Rohirrim came up on the flank? Gandalf.

So, Gandalf not only overcomes the Witch-King's greatest weapon (fear), but also proves to be the better commander as The Witch-King is caught off guard by Rohan's arrival. Gandalf in both ways proves to be greater, and I cannot see how anyone cannot claim that in the confrontation with the Witch-King that Gandalf did not get the better of him.

Mansun

09-11-2007, 12:21 PM

Gandalf the White would have creamed the Witch King, end of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool: the Witch King is not a maia like the Balrog, just a powerful sorcerer.

alatar

09-11-2007, 01:03 PM

Gandalf the White would have creamed the Witch King, end of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool: the Witch King is not a maia like the Balrog, just a powerful sorcerer.
Sauron the Great would cream any being within Middle Earth as he too is a maia; to think that a mere hobbit (merely piling on after the pummeling Sauron took by one elf with spear and one human with sword) could bring him down is the extent of folly. ;)

obloquy

09-11-2007, 02:02 PM

Sauron the Great would cream any being within Middle Earth as he too is a maia

Hmm. That is assuming that Gandalf would have remained subordinate to the rules of his mission if confronted with an opportunity to duel Sauron with no outside interference. Maybe it would have been worth it to him to forfeit his reward and "open up a can (http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/canofwhoopass-40033.jpg)." Even you, friend alatar, seem to underestimate our boy.

alatar

09-11-2007, 02:19 PM

Hmm. That is assuming that Gandalf would have remained subordinate to the rules of his mission if confronted with an opportunity to duel Sauron with no outside interference. Maybe it would have been worth it to him to forfeit his reward and "open up a can (http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/canofwhoopass-40033.jpg)." Even you, friend alatar, seem to underestimate our boy.
Gandalf remained true and so in my opinion would remain true even if Sauron came forth. The reason he's successful is that he stays on mission and doesn't say, "That's it...I'm tired of talking with hobbits and stewards and living on cram and trying to get everyone to pitch in and help fight this battle." Gandalf gets on Shadowfax. "I'm off to Mordor with a big stick, a bad attitude and a big can of Visine. Bring it on!"

The most that he can do to Sauron and stay true is to harry the Big Eye's plans.

obloquy

09-11-2007, 02:37 PM

Well my post was purely hypothetical. I realize there was no practical way for the duel to occur, and I know that Gandalf had the sense not to try to arrange it. However, if the confrontation had simply happened--say, Gandalf stumbles into Sauron's camp while everyone but Sauron have gone fishing--Gandalf would have to decide either to flee, or pull out all the stops and lay the smack down to the maximum of his potential. He already abandoned success once (though not the Rules) when he chose to confront the Balrog. Maybe he would have taken his chances with Sauron. It's more likely that he would have fled, knowing his character, but it also probably depends somewhat on the timing of the hypothetical run-in: if Sauron had come out instead of the Mouth and requested a throw-down (yeah, right!), I'll bet he would have accepted. At the very least it would occupy Sauron at a crucial moment. Books-wise, not Jackson-wise (re: Eyeball vs. Real Deal).

Essex

09-12-2007, 09:03 AM

Gandalf the White would have creamed the Witch King, end of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool: the Witch King is not a maia like the Balrog, just a powerful sorcerer.sigh.....

I find myself dragged back to this long winded thread.

As I said on previous posts:

David slew Goliath

Tolkien states (published in unfinished tales I think) that the Istari can be wounded and suffer injuries as mortals can.

Yes, Gandalf may well be more powerful than the WK, but that is not saying he cannot be defeated by him. The WK could get a 'lucky strike' in. If Gandalf is all powerful, why doesn't he just through a ring of protection around all of Minas Tirith and protect it that way?

The question asked years back at the start of this thread- could the WK defeat Gandalf - I say he might have had a chance - As I said before as well, LOTR is not simply black and white - if the strong always won then Sauron would not have been defeated.

Mansun

09-12-2007, 11:03 AM

sigh.....

I find myself dragged back to this long winded thread.

As I said on previous posts:

David slew Goliath

Tolkien states (published in unfinished tales I think) that the Istari can be wounded and suffer injuries as mortals can.

Yes, Gandalf may well be more powerful than the WK, but that is not saying he cannot be defeated by him. The WK could get a 'lucky strike' in. If Gandalf is all powerful, why doesn't he just through a ring of protection around all of Minas Tirith and protect it that way?

The question asked years back at the start of this thread- could the WK defeat Gandalf - I say he might have had a chance - As I said before as well, LOTR is not simply black and white - if the strong always won then Sauron would not have been defeated.

Supernatural God-like Maia vs Powerful corrupted Sorcerer

If you draw fire with fire, the bigger fire will prevail. This is not a football match, whereby the weaker side can sometimes get the better of a much stronger one. Gandalf vs the Witch King is one gigantic power against a great power, the former wins hands down.

The only reason this topic has brought up a debate is due to PJ's scene, & the fact that Tolkein never really wanted us to know how weak or powerful the Witch King was. All we know is Gandalf is more powerful than a Balrog, a great maia & servant of Morgoth which is itself almost on level terms with Sauron (without his Ring) & does not even necessarliy serve Sauron. I refuse to believe nor have ever heard of anything that could suggest the Witch King is on this supernatural god-like level of power that the maia have.

Gandalf died when he killed the Balrog - would this have happened if he had killed the Witch King too? This could also be why he was reluctant to kill him. Also, if the Witch King is anything like as powerful as a Balrog, why wasn't Gandalf petrified with fear when he faced the Witch King as when he encountered the Balrog?

obloquy

09-12-2007, 11:36 AM

David slew Goliath
.

Seriously, guy. Are you really claiming that the Witch-King had God on his side, and that Gandalf was a notorious antagonist of God's people, who mocked God himself? Because that's what the story of David and Goliath is about. Your ludicrous insistence on referring to that story even after its utter irrelevance has been established is baffling. I really am shocked.

Mansun

09-12-2007, 12:04 PM

alatar

09-12-2007, 12:10 PM

Seriously, guy.
Essex obviously is referring to the Xena (http://www.whoosh.org/epguide/giant.html#syn) episode regarding David and Goliath. ;)

Note that we've discussed this before (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=513308&postcount=402).

William Cloud Hicklin

09-13-2007, 12:18 PM

Sauron never knew where the One Ring was save for when Frodo claimed it in Mount Doom.

Then why did he send the Ringwraiths to the Shire? Didn't Sauron perceive the thoughts of his servants when they had the Ring and its bearer pinned down in Bree, on Weathertop, or at the Ford?

Tolkien addressed this in his various time-schemes and the documents excerpted for The Hunt for the Ring in UT. Apparently Sauron did *not* read his servants' minds from afar.

Sauron sent the Nine out to find "Shire" and "Baggins." he catastrophically assumed that this was near Gollum's birthplace, and the RW wasted much time combing the Vales of Anduin. The Nine only learned where the Shire was from Saruman, and in more detail from his agent (the 'squint-eyed Southerner.'). They were baffled by Frodo's detour thru the Old Forest and Strider's circitous route- they finally located the Ring again on Weathertop. But what the WK knew was *not* what Sauron knew- he only learned all this, and of the Ring's arrival in Rivendell, when the W-K made his way back to Mordor after the Bruinen (late November).

Sauron didn't pick up the trail again until messengers reached him from Moria: his response was to send out Grishnakh's force with a Nazgul to set the ambush at Sarn Gebir. The last he heard from this party, it was trailing Saruman's Uruk-hai to Isengard with two hobbit prisoners- and therefore assumed (wrongly) that either M or P was the Ringbearer, and P was a prisoner in Orthanc when he looked into the Palantir. The next hint S got was Aragorn's use of the same Stone scant hours later, and from that point Sauron was fixated on the idea that Isildur's heir had the Ring west of Anduin.

Mansun

09-13-2007, 03:21 PM

Tolkien addressed this in his various time-schemes and the documents excerpted for The Hunt for the Ring in UT. Apparently Sauron did *not* read his servants' minds from afar.

Sauron sent the Nine out to find "Shire" and "Baggins." he catastrophically assumed that this was near Gollum's birthplace, and the RW wasted much time combing the Vales of Anduin. The Nine only learned where the Shire was from Saruman, and in more detail from his agent (the 'squint-eyed Southerner.'). They were baffled by Frodo's detour thru the Old Forest and Strider's circitous route- they finally located the Ring again on Weathertop. But what the WK knew was *not* what Sauron knew- he only learned all this, and of the Ring's arrival in Rivendell, when the W-K made his way back to Mordor after the Bruinen (late November).

Sauron didn't pick up the trail again until messengers reached him from Moria: his response was to send out Grishnakh's force with a Nazgul to set the ambush at Sarn Gebir. The last he heard from this party, it was trailing Saruman's Uruk-hai to Isengard with two hobbit prisoners- and therefore assumed (wrongly) that either M or P was the Ringbearer, and P was a prisoner in Orthanc when he looked into the Palantir. The next hint S got was Aragorn's use of the same Stone scant hours later, and from that point Sauron was fixated on the idea that Isildur's heir had the Ring west of Anduin.

Does this bode well in a Gandalf vs the Witch King debate?

Essex

09-14-2007, 05:53 PM

Seriously, guy. Are you really claiming that the Witch-King had God on his side, and that Gandalf was a notorious antagonist of God's people, who mocked God himself? Because that's what the story of David and Goliath is about. Your ludicrous insistence on referring to that story even after its utter irrelevance has been established is baffling. I really am shocked.It's just that sayying something like "Gandalf the White would have creamed the Witch King, end of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool: the Witch King is not a maia like the Balrog, just a powerful sorcerer." That's what gets my back up (the bold text)

Let's put aside the david v goliath Biblical meaning - what I'm trying to say is that the strong don't always win - upsets happen - the underdog can win. And Mansun, yes I know you won't like me comparing this with a football analogy, but Hereford beat Newcastle many years back!

And then let's add another example, more 'battle' like. a few years ago who would have thought a group of "insurgents" could hold the biggest force on this planet at bay for this long?

I put forward my other point again, which no one has answered I believe, that Gandalf has a body which can be injured or destroyed. He may have been a Maia, but his body can be destroyed. If it were possible for him to walk around with a impenetrable bubble to protect himself then fine (hang on - Extended Movie Gandalf does have one when Saruman shot at him!)

Looking back at this thread (to re read my points from before) - we've all gone round in circles on this thread many times (as Alatar aludes to above) - maybe it would be better to close this thread so people don't get so het up anymore (myself included)

mods, what do you think?

Mansun

09-15-2007, 09:02 AM

Looking back at this thread (to re read my points from before) - we've all gone round in circles on this thread many times (as Alatar aludes to above) - maybe it would be better to close this thread so people don't get so het up anymore (myself included)

mods, what do you think?

Do you honestly think the Witch King was greater than the Balrog from Moria, even with the added demonic force? Because of Gandalf's triumph over this hulking foe thought to be on a comparable level to Sauron, I could never see the Witch King having enough in him to trouble Gandalf to the death. The Balrog, afterall, was a creature which haunted everyone's darkest dreams, including Gandalf's & those who dwell in Loth Lorien.

Perhaps a fault of the LOTR was that Gandalf had defeated a great enemy so early in the book (& film), meaning that only Sauron was left to cause a serious threat to Gandalf in battle. Therefore Sauron should have been deployed at the end, rather than letting him sit on his throne watching & waiting like a timeless being.

Another point, Gandalf regularly called people fools, as did other characters - why cannot then posters call others fools if they choose to?

I put forward my other point again, which no one has answered I believe, that Gandalf has a body which can be injured or destroyed. He may have been a Maia, but his body can be destroyed. If it were possible for him to walk around with a impenetrable bubble to protect himself then fine (hang on - Extended Movie Gandalf does have one when Saruman shot at him!)

Isn't Gandalf able to protect his body with special spells rather like the Witch King & Sauron? Otherwise he would be as vulnerable as a Hobbit. In the human form, Gandalf is subject to the same pains, weariness, & fear as with all humans. But the key difference is he can defend himself with a power, of which only Sauron (or any other great maia) could definately contend with.

Essex

09-20-2007, 08:28 AM

Do you honestly think the Witch King was greater than the Balrog from Moria, even with the added demonic force?You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not saying the WK WAS 'greater' than Gandalf.

Perhaps a fault of the LOTR was that Gandalf had defeated a great enemy so early in the book (& film), meaning that only Sauron was left to cause a serious threat to Gandalf in battle. good point. I agree. But then you have to remember that the battle actually was a draw wasn't it? Both Gandalf and the Balrog died. Gandalf grandly states that he defeated his enemy, but he glosses over the point that he had to be brought back to life too!!!!

Another point, Gandalf regularly called people fools, as did other characters - why cannot then posters call others fools if they choose to?And they probably call each other worse things than that but, no, it doesn't give us a right to call each other fools. That is not prudent at all. ;)

Isn't Gandalf able to protect his body with special spells rather like the Witch King & Sauron? Otherwise he would be as vulnerable as a Hobbit. In the human form, Gandalf is subject to the same pains, weariness, & fear as with all humans. But the key difference is he can defend himself with a power, of which only Sauron (or any other great maia) could definately contend with.I haven't read that anywhere as of yet........ to quote Tolkien from The Istari" in Unfinished Tales

"with theconsent of Eru they sent members of their high order, but clad in bodiesas of Men, real and not feigned, but subject of the fears and pain and weariness of earth,able to hunger and thirst and be slain. . . . And this the Valar did, desiring to amend theerrors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by theirown might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to revealthemselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men or Elves by opendisplay of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good. . . ."

so Gandalf can die. Be it by a lucky stroke perhaps............

Mansun

09-20-2007, 09:36 AM

so Gandalf can die. Be it by a lucky stroke perhaps............

Gandalf indeed can die, as he did when he defeated the Balrog. His death appears to be like a binding contract set by Eru - reveal your true power to the full extent against Sauron or his seravnts in an assault & I will end your stay in Middle Earth.

But just because he can die does not mean he is very vulnerable to enemies. He could use all is true power to protect himself against a stroke from, say the Witch King's deadly Morgul Knife, so long as he does not use it to kill the Witch King.

Essex

09-20-2007, 12:52 PM

Gandalf indeed can die, as he did when he defeated the Balrog. His death appears to be like a binding contract set by Eru - reveal your true power to the full extent against Sauron or his seravnts in an assault & I will end your stay in Middle Earth.

But just because he can die does not mean he is very vulnerable to enemies. He could use all is true power to protect himself against a stroke from, say the Witch King's deadly Morgul Knife, so long as he does not use it to kill the Witch King.and that's where our opinions differ. I cannot see any supporting evidence that allows (book) Gandalf to use a magic shield to protect himself from enemies. If he could, then the Balrog would not have killed him.

alatar

09-20-2007, 01:04 PM

and that's where our opinions differ. I cannot see any supporting evidence that allows (book) Gandalf to use a magic shield to protect himself from enemies. If he could, then the Balrog would not have killed him.
How do we know that it was the Balrog that killed Gandalf the Grey? Maybe it was the exertion - he used up all of his power - or the rarefied atmosphere. Maybe it was a result of the Balrog's fall and death that not actively resulted in Gandalf's demise.

Boromir88

09-20-2007, 01:58 PM

what I'm trying to say is that the strong don't always win - upsets happen~Essex
Yes, upsets happen, as unlikely as it is...but what Jackson shows wasn't The Witch-King getting a 'lucky' blow in on Gandalf. It wasn't Gandalf stumbling on a rock, or getting stabbed in the back...it was the Witch-King dominating Gandalf (breaking his staff) and basically making him cry.

Mansun

09-20-2007, 01:59 PM

and that's where our opinions differ. I cannot see any supporting evidence that allows (book) Gandalf to use a magic shield to protect himself from enemies. If he could, then the Balrog would not have killed him.

I believe in the LOTR it tells that Gandalf first killed the Balrog, then Gandalf died. So a magical shield theory could exist. As another poster correctly pointed out, it seems much more likey that Gandalf had used up all his life power in combat against the Balrog, fell to the ground & lost conciousness.

Recall the words Gandalf told of the 3 Hunters: "None of you have weapons that could hurt me". How then could Gandalf not have a magical ability to shield himself as though he is immune to a dint from Gimli's axe?

Yes, upsets happen, as unlikely as it is...but what Jackson shows wasn't The Witch-King getting a 'lucky' blow in on Gandalf. It wasn't Gandalf stumbling on a rock, or getting stabbed in the back...it was the Witch-King dominating Gandalf (breaking his staff) and basically making him cry.

This is a good point, although long ago mentioned in previous posts. The film tells us that the Witch King is much more mightier than Gandalf, even though Gandalf slew the impressive Balrog in a titanic battle. There was no upset here - the Witch King wins hands down as though it were Morgoth himself hammering down Gandalf.

The book tells us that Gandalf is mightier than a Balrog (the most dangerous opponent one can face after Sauron), but his measure of power nevertheless remains to be tested against the enhanced Witch King.

It is therefore upto the reader to decide for themselves; that I have done & conclude that given Gandalf's victory against the Balrog, one could be confident to expect Gandalf to kill the Witch King if he so chosed to do so (albeit through ending his own life via breaking the rules set by Eru).

CSteefel

09-20-2007, 11:29 PM

Perhaps I missed it further back in this long thread, but I think that at least these latest posts are missing the fact that Gandalf himself is enhanced when he returns--the White Wizard instead of the Grey Pilgrim. There are numerous instances where Gandalf's enhanced power is mentioned, ranging from the quote above about Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli not having weapons to hurt him, to the destaffing of Saruman, etc.

So Sauron may have enhanced the Witch King's power, but Gandalf's power seems to have been enhanced on his return by Eru...

All of which goes to show to me that Peter Jackson completely misread the whole thing and changed the story for some desired dramatic effect...

Essex

09-21-2007, 02:42 AM

It is therefore upto the reader to decide for themselves Exactly. That sums up the whole thread. It is up to us to decide how the battle would have gone. It doesn't make anyone a fool if they think one way or another. We all have an opinion.

I have listened to all the well thought out arguments during this long, long thread. A lot of the arguments make sense, and HAVE changed my thinking somewhat towards the relative powers of Gandalf and the Witch King.

But I still say there is some doubt in Gandalf's mind when he approaches the gate. The tension that Tolkien cranks up to this point is palpable every time I read the book. To think that Gandalf could easily wipe the floor with the WK takes this tension away from the story. In my opinion Tolkien's view that it would be a pretty close battle is brought out in the style of writing, the atmosphere and the set up to the Witch King's entrance into Minas Tirith. To have this grandious entrance by Sauron's right hand man but just to sit there yawning and thinking as you read the book - "hey, no problem, this is boring, Gandalf's gonna wipe his hide anyway" - takes EVERYTHING away from this scene.

PS - Gandalf couldn't beat him anyway as Glorfindel said :D

(sound of can of worms opening)

alatar

09-21-2007, 08:24 AM

In Peter Jackson's Arda, Arwen bests (with the help of a well-placed stream) all Nine, and also bests the best Ranger in the world. Aragorn was able to best Five of the Nine.

Arwen later becomes mortal - weird that her hands are cold as that would make her reptillian - and so we don't know what her powers were by RotK, but bleached Gandalf loses to the enhanced Witch-King, and so, in some sense, Arwen is or was greater than Gandalf. Make sense?

At least we know why PJ removed her scenes from Helm's Deep, as you couldn't generate the same amount of despair for the humans when Arwen Warrior Princess, Greater than Maia is around.

Mansun

09-21-2007, 09:56 AM

But I still say there is some doubt in Gandalf's mind when he approaches the gate. The tension that Tolkien cranks up to this point is palpable every time I read the book.

PS - Gandalf couldn't beat him anyway as Glorfindel said :D

Tension is crucial in a book & film to ensure the audience engages with it; how boring it would be if the Witch King rides over to Gandalf, who in reply says "You fool, I am a Maia sent by Eru. You are no match for me. Go back to the shadow". In this case Gandalf would show no tension, just supreme confidence that he would defeat the Witch King easily, which the audience would pick up & realise it would be an easy win for Gandalf.

The tension Gandalf experienced was much increased by the coming of a 100,000 strong host of Mordor to the gates of Minas Tirith. Had the Witch King come alone, I do not think Gandalf would have been as tense. Anyway, as I keep pointing out, Gandalf was petrified when he saw the Balrog in Moria. If he thought he was going to end up in a titanic battle with the Witch King, why then was he not as afraid?

Gandalf could best the Witch King to live up to Glorfindel's comments - he is not an ordinary living man by nature.

Mansun

09-27-2007, 03:34 PM

Essex

09-28-2007, 02:34 AM

First of all apologies for double posting, it is necessary as this is a separate point.

Somebody posted a long time ago about the fact that the Lord of the Nazgul was shaken by the fire of Gandalf at Weathertop, & that he also narrowly missed being pierced by a deadly blade, Sting, wielded by Frodo which would have been more lethal to him than the wound suffered by Frodo at the hands of the Morgul knife. I would very much like to know where this extract came from, since it also suggests that in the aftermath the Witch King was left reeling & even afraid of both Gandalf & Frodo.

Quotes from Strider:
They have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They will come again another night, if we cannot escape. They are only waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much further........................................
'Look!' he cried; and stooping he lifted from the ground a black cloak that had lain there hidden by the darkness. A foot above the lower hem there was a slash. 'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword,' he said. 'The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.