Gandalf's Staff

[Marroc Underhill]

If Gandalf had been able to crawl back upon the bridge, would he still have his Powers? Before he fell, his sword Glamdring and his Staff fell into the Chasm, what do you think would have happened if Gandalf had gotten onto the bridge and fled to "Safety" with the rest of the Fellowship, and the Balrog fell?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Did Gandalf use his Staff or Glamdring to defeat the Balrog?

[Earendilyon]

'What ifs' have no point in fiction, IMO, because the story is as it was written by the author.
Anyway: if Gandalf had gotten away, he would have prevented Boromir from attacking Frodo, who wouldn't have fled alone with Sam to Mordor. Merry and Pippin wouldn't have been captured, for Gandalf woul'd have prevented that also. The Ents wouldn't have been roused, so Saruman would've conquered Rohan, preventing them from aiding Gondor. Gondor would've been overcome by the power of the Witch King. They even would not have had the aid of the Undead, for Aragorn wouldn't have been there to take them with him to Pelargir. (As a side note: the Undead wouldn't have redeemed themselves.)
The Fellowship (except prob. for Boromir and Aragorn, who would've travelled to Minas Tirith) would go to Mordor. Since Sauron had not to spend all his efforts in attacking Gondor and keeping in check Saruman and making his Mordor armies ready for the war, he would have ample of time and energy to seek the One Ring. He would have been aided by the fact of Gandalf's presence, who he would feel when close by.
To come to the point of all this: the West would have been utterly lost and even we would now be living in dire circumstances (which we wouldn't mind, because we would not know any other reality).

Edit: I typed 'Boromir and Gandalf' instead of 'Boromir and Aragorn'. smilies/frown.gif

[ October 11, 2003: Message edited by: Earendilyon ]

[Olorin_TLA]

Gandlaf still would have had his power...the power is in him, not the staff, regardless of whether or not you view staffs are "channeling devices" for power or as symbolic, or simply a staff.

[Finwe]

Gandalf's staff, I think, functioned as a channel for his powers, and it was a symbol of his power. The principle applied for the rest of the Istari. In The Two Towers, when Saruman was thrown down by Gandalf, his staff was broken, symbolizing the breaking of his power. Also, when Saruman is insulting Gandalf, he says:


Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dur itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards....


That must have meant that the power of the Wizards was "vested" in their staffs, and the taking (or breaking) of their staffs would result in a loss of power, like what happened to Saruman.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I doubt this to be the case, Finwe. The breaking of the staff was most likely the result of breaking of power, not the other way around.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Indeed, I believe the breaking of the staff was merely symbolic.

[Eldar14]

Maybe in many ways their staves are used in a similar way as Sauron's ring, just not to such an extreme. Maybe they vested some of their power in the staff when it was created, so that when they have it, their power is even greater than before, but they are weaker without it. If their staves had no power, then Gandalf would have not needed it in Two Towers to save the King of Rohan.

[Olorin_TLA]

He didn't need it. smilies/wink.gif As far as I'm aware, he didn't use his staff at all, except to terrify Grima.

[Secret Fire]

I have always seen the staves as a status symbol/ symbol of thier power. Note that Gandalf broke his own staff on the bridge in Khazad Dum, not that it fell and he was still able to defeat the Balrog. Perhaps the staves are contingent upon the power of the wizard to remain unbroken (ie as long as the wizard haspower, he has a staff), but their power is not dependent upon the staff as we saw that Gandalf did not need one in his battle with the balrog. Therefore, Gandalf broke Sarumon's staff as a symbol that he had taken his place and stripped Sarumon of both power and authority for mento see. Also, perhaps it is a symbol for men to see that thye have power. smilies/eek.gif smilies/evil.gif smilies/eek.gif

[Lord of Angmar]

'What ifs' have no point in fiction, IMO, because the story is as it was written by the author.(Earendilyon)

I could not disagree more. Conjecture makes for interesting debate, particularly in regards to Professor Tolkien's world, where there is such depth that 'what ifs' can be discussed thoroughly and interestingly.

The breaking of the staff was most likely the result of breaking of power, not the other way around. (Gwaihir)

I agree with you and Eomer. Although I did not fully understand the initial question posed by the thread-starter, I believe that the power of the Istari was not derived from their staffs (although the staffs obviously had more use than merely as walking-sticks). Had Gandalf fled with the Fellowship without his staff and Glamdring, I do not think his power would have been dimmed much. After all, as far as we know, he left his imprisonment at Isengard without the staff he carried at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring.

[Findegil]

If you read of Frodos dream in the house of Bombadil you will find that Gandalf had his staff still when he was imprisoned on the summit of Orthanc. So, I don't think he left it behind when he was carried away by Gwahir.

I have interpreted the braeking of Gandalf staff on the brige of Khazad-dûm as desperat act of Gandalf himself. He saw in the coming of the balrog and the already forseen result of the encounter with it (look at Aragorns words before they enter), the end of his quest come. He was defeated, and the breaking of the staff was symbol for that. But he did accept the rules set for the istari and laid the doom of the world in the hand of the fellowship and one ruler of all fate. Because of this humilation he did, he was in the result send back. Not to help Frodo in his quest, which he had brought on the way well enough to be successful. Gandalf was obviously sent back too save waht could be saved of the western culture.

Only a small aside: Did Glamdring fall from Gandalfs hand when he was draged into the chasam? I never get that impresion from the bock, especialy because he used it in the fight against the Balrog under the earth.


Respectfully
Findegil

[Olorin_TLA]

Lord of Angmar, thank you: fiction is after all a long "what if"; if there was no point, there'd be no fiction. Ever. smilies/wink.gif

As for symbollic desperation, Findegil, amybe, but don't forget that LotR ain't just symbolism, it's got cahracters who act like they would if real: breaking the staff may not have been symbollic, at least on Gandalf's part, but simply the only thing he could think of doing at the time.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Nah. Fiction isn't a long 'what if', as that is stupid. It is a long 'what is written'.

[Olorin_TLA]

No, because if it was a long "what is" you'd have NOTHING because nobody would ever have written anything for others to copy. The very essence of fiction is thinking imaginatively, which is a "what if".

[Earendilyon]

I don't see why a question like 'what if Gandalf not had fallen' be the essence of fiction. JRRT may have asked himself while writing 'what if x or y', but once he had written his story, it was a story, which couldn't be changed, not even by JRRT himself. The only thing he could do, was to make another version of it, but the original still would exist.
Why would we ask ourselves 'what if Gandald had fallen'? In the story as it is, he has. So, we can't change it. The only thinng we could ask ourselves, is: 'what would I have written, if I had written this story?'

[Olorin_TLA]

Not that specific quesiton; but to take that chapter, he must have thought "what's going to happen?" then "how will Gandalf die" and "who will he fight" and "what then?" You see?

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Well obviously for the author, he's the one that wrote it in the first place. But I'm not going to argue with you over whether fiction is 'what is' or 'what if', whatever that's supposed to mean anyway.

Imagination? I would personally rate this discussion as one of the least imaginative ones I have seen. There is much more you can do with 'conjecture' than this, although I haven't got a problem at all with anyone wondering whether or not the Ring would have been destroyed if Gandalf hadn't been killed. Your statement merely seems strange.

[Scott]

One point that I think might have been overlooked is the fact that while he is in the Shire, Saruman is left poweless. Now, would this be because it is the Shire? No, of course not. Would this be because Gandalf had put a curse on Saruman from using his powers? Again, no. He was left powerless because his staff was broken.

While Saruman was still in most every aspect still a Maia, because his staff was broken - his channel or "divining rod" if you will - he was left mojo inept.

As for whether conjecture on this is even relevant, all I have to say is that conjecture and imagination are the very stuff that good fiction are made of. Simple conjecture doesn't necessarily translate into sacriligious "fan-fictioning". It only means that the reader is consciously thinking about what they're reading. Isn't that what this forum was set up for?

~Scott

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Wasn't Gandalf's staff-breaking act a physical manifestation of his power to break the bridge?

Yours, if you want to :p
->The True Son of Finrod, and of Amarië the Vanyar

[Melimo]

I disagree with you Scott. When Saruman arrived in the Shire, he was without his wizardly powers because he had spent them all in his efforts against Rohan, which had failed. To me, Tolkien's concept of the Powers of Arda seems to be that the more they use their powers, the less their inherent strength becomes, especially if their effort ends up being wasted. I believe that Gandalf breaks Saruman's staff as a symbol of the fact that Saruman has squandered his power, and has only his voice left as a tool.

[Finwe]

Gandalf broke Saruman's staff because he had departed from the path of the Istari, and had thrown his lot with Sauron, the Enemy that they were supposed to be inspiring the rest of Middle-earth to fight against. He had failed in his duty as a Wizard, and thus, the "new" Gandalf, who was now the Head of the Order, expelled him from the Order.

[Firefoot]

Reading back over the section it says nothing about Gandalf dropping Glamdring, so he must still have it for battling the Balrog.

Anyhow, I would say that the breaking of a staff is a result of the "breaking of power", if you will, but the staff is not merely symbollic.
"The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age," said Hama.
Then again before King Theoden:
He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf coud be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice: "Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?..."

I think that these to quotes from TTT, Book 3, Chapter 6, would show that the staff is more than symbolic. I would say that it is like a channel for their power, and while they are not completely powerless without their staffs, it is certainly a part of their power.

[Gurthang]

Exactly, Firefoot. The Staff had no power within itself, and no one but a wizard could use the staff for anything but a walking stick(and maybe a quarterstaff).

The staff was merely a tool, and when placed in the hands of a skilled individual, it could be used very effectively. The wizard used the staff to concentrate his power and focus the energy. The staff is somewhat like a sword. It can be used effectively by someone with the strength to wield it. Without the sword, the person still has his own strength, only he can't use it as affectively. The concept is the same with a staff, the wizard still has his power, but cannot use it as effectively without a tool to work it with. Not an extremely sound analogy, but you see my point.

The breaking of a staff is not only symbolic, it would greatly help in defeating a wizard. But it does not cause complete power loss. Simply a loss of an effecive tool.

[Olorin]

Unless I'm mistaking, I believe that when Gandalf was battling the Nazgul at Pelennor, a beam of light came out of HIS HAND, not his staff. This illustrates that he didn't need his staff to use his power.

If I misread it, I apologize.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Unless I'm mistaking, I believe that when Gandalf was battling the Nazgul at Pelennor, a beam of light came out of HIS HAND, not his staff. This illustrates that he didn't need his staff to use his power.

If I misread it, I apologize.
Nope, your right. Which of course brings up again the topic of the ROTK movie (As I'm sure it's been discussed before) with the W-K braking Gandalf's staff. :mad:

[Essex]

I was going to raise a new Thread, but had a quick hunt and found a very interesting Thread which covers a lot of the points here.

I raise this Post because of the numerous arguments over Gandalf's staff breaking in the Movie.

Apologies to the Book loving brigade who don't want to mention the movies in this section.

I agree with some of the posts above that a Wizard’s staff is mainly Symbolic. When Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff, it is to merely show to Saruman and the watching parties that Saruman’s reign is over. Saruman still had powers (in his voice for one) that did not need a staff.

If we look at various scenes where Gandalf shows his strength of Magic, it doesn't really show him using his staff does it?

1/ Gandalf forcing back the Nazgul on the Pellenor fields WITH HIS HAND.

2/ Gandalf before fighting the Balrog on the bridge, issues a Word of Command to hold the door. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength… I had to speak a word of Command. No mention of using his staff.

3/ In Frodo’s dream at Tom’s house, we see Gandalf lighting the sky with his staff on top of Orthanc. Now if a staff is meant to be THAT potent, why not use it somehow to get down from the tower (other than to send out an SOS….)

4/ When fighting the Wargs, he uses it only as a deterrent to the Wargs. Gandalf stood up and strode forward, holding his staff aloft. 'Listen, Hound of Sauron! ' he cried. `Gandalf is here. Fly, if you value your foul skin! I will shrivel you from tail to snout, if you come within this ring.'Notice he again uses a spell and a piece of burning wood to defeat them. In the wavering firelight Gandalf seemed suddenly to grow: he rose up, a great menacing shape like the monument of some ancient king of stone set upon a hill. Stooping like a cloud, he lifted a burning branch and strode to meet the wolves. They gave back before him. High in the air he tossed the blazing brand. It flared with a sudden white radiance like lightning; and his voice rolled like thunder……Naur an edraith ammen! Naur dan i ngaurhoth!

5/ A KEY point. Gandalf breaks Saruman’s staff WITH HIS HAND, not his own staff. He also called back Saruman before this. The power of Gandalf is in his own hands and words, not his Staff. 'Come back, Saruman!' said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again. and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, leaning on it, breathing hard……He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.'

Now, points where I see Gandalf actually using his staff

1/ Gandalf mentions a Word of Command to light a faggot on Caradhras. I admit here he uses his staff, but to me this is merely a conduit of his power, which was in his ‘Word’ Picking up a faggot he held it aloft for a moment, and then with a word of command_, naur an edraith ammen!_ he thrust the end of his staff into the midst of it. At once a great spout of green and blue flame sprang out, and the wood flared and sputtered.

2/ At the gates of Moria, he tries to open the door using his staff and a spell, to no avail. e stepped up to the rock again, and lightly touched with his staff the silver star in the middle beneath the sign of the anvil. Annon edhellen, edro hi ammen! Fennas nogothrim, lasto beth lammen! he said in a commanding voice. The silver lines faded, but the blank grey stone did not stir.Notice how Gandalf throws his staff on the ground when he realizes how it cannot help him. Then he threw his staff on the ground, and sat down in silence.In the end it is the power of a single word that opens the door. Also, he tries to re open the broken doors with his staff when they are inside, but to no avail.

3/ He DOES use his staff to light the way in Moria though….

4/ The MAIN use of his staff in the books is here At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. So he could break the bridge using his staff, but it was destroyed in the process…..

5/ He seems to use the Staff to rid the 3 hunters of their weapons, I admit. But again, is the staff just used as a conduit of his power. Was it actually needed? His white garments shone. He lifted up his staff, and Gimli's axe leaped from his grasp and fell ringing on the ground. The sword of Aragorn, stiff in his motionless hand, blazed with a sudden fire. Legolas gave a great shout and shot an arrow high into the air: it vanished in a flash of flame.

6/ Against Grima. He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers But he did not use his staff to ‘heal’ Theoden.

In conclusion, Gandalf’s staff, although useful, is not all empowering. HE can function well without a staff. Therefore, (and sorry to end this on a movie note), if the Witch King could destroy Gandalf’s staff does not mean he can destroy Gandalf as well.

[ohtatyaro]

Great post, Essex :)

To have a summary to it: (and I always felt that must be the thing) - staff iz wizard's conductor. I mean, the power is in wizard, and staff helps him conduct it, let it out

:)

[alatar]

Great post Essex.

I would have to say though that in Tolkien's world that the Staffs are integral somehow with Wizards - i.e. a sorceror may use magic etc, but a wizard always carries a staff. And I think that we are all talking about the Five.

Somewhere in the Books, Appendices (?) there is a quote regarding wizards and a word meaning "staff-man/men." Also, is it Saruman that taunts Gandalf about getting the Keys to Orthanc and Barad-dur and the Staffs of the Five Wizards? Pretty important, those staffs seems to be.

Weren't the staffs part of the Istari's disguises? Their staffs were to help these old men appear less intimdating, as it gave them something on which to lean.

Gandalf without a staff may still be formidible, but I couldn't see him without it - it's his trademark tool, like Aragorn's sword, Legolas's bow and Gimli's axe. I would also conclude that there's something connection between the wizard, his staff and his abilities.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Somewhere in the Books, Appendices (?) there is a quote regarding wizards and a word meaning "staff-man/men." (alatar)
Perhaps you mean Gandalf:

Gandalf . . . is an actual Norse name . . . used by me [J.R.R Tolkien] since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff."
UT IV 2

[HerenIstarion]

But I can not stand a temptation ;)

The discussion reminds me of Terry Pratchett and the song Nanny Ogg was fond of singing:

The Wizards Staff Has A Knob On Its End...

Work the rest up for yourselves ;)

But lest the post be deleted, let us have a quick go at it from Tolkien angle as well

My belief is, that, in the first place, the staff is there at all:

A) For such is a tradition (in Western Mythology, that is) Wizard should have a staff, a cloak, hood/hat
B) For the name Gandalf was chosen, and Gandalf = Wandelf

Rest, I'll just repeat what was said - there is no need (or obligation) for the wizard to employ his power via staff (I delibirately refrain from using word 'magic' here, reasons given in numerous posts around).

To give you an analogy - the pen enhences my writing skill, but be there a pen or not, I know how to write, and I probably would find a way of writing in case of need (just it would be less refined, or more clumsy, without a pen)

Not backed up theory of mine is, however, the following:

Maiar needed staffs in case they were 'true' incarnates. Matter as an obstacle, overcome by other (and special) 'channeling' matter.

Or another analogy - as a spell (or rather a 'song' with Tolkien (or even a word, sometimes the same thing)) gives a thought a form and power to change, so the staff channels the 'sheer' power.

No time to elaborate on this, unfortunately. Maybe later

cheers :)

[Kuruharan]

Maiar needed staffs in case they were 'true' incarnates. Matter as an obstacle, overcome by other (and special) 'channeling' matter.

Or another analogy - as a spell (or rather a 'song' with Tolkien (or even a word, sometimes the same thing)) gives a thought a form and power to change, so the staff channels the 'sheer' power.

Who or what does your theory propose the staff channels? The Valar or the Istari's native power...

[alatar]

Perhaps you mean Gandalf:

Gandalf . . . is an actual Norse name . . . used by me [J.R.R Tolkien] since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff."
UT IV 2

Exactly! Thanks. I knew that I read something like that somewhere.

That's what I get for trying to do this without my book in front of me... :)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

That's what I get for trying to do this without my book in front of me... :)
Don't worry, alatar. Some of us do it all the time. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11081)

Anywhen, H-I's channelling theory looks good. For their spirit to interact with the stuff of Arda, they need bodies. For their potency to do the same, they would need a medium (cf. One Ring).

[Essex]

For their potency to do the same, they would need a mediumbut not neccesarily as my posts above prove. for example, Gandalf broke Saruman's staff by raising his hand and using his voice.

[alatar]

but not neccesarily as my posts above prove. for example, Gandalf broke Saruman's staff by raising his hand and using his voice.

Not sure. Again I wish that I had the books in front of me, but my paperbacks have been packed away somewhere by the wife and I loaned my hard cover to my brother who has taken 3+ years to arrive at Bree. :(

Is there a place on-line in which the text is available?

Anyway, at the time of the Saruman staff breaking, does Gandalf have his hand on his staff? I wonder if this is the case in many of the events noted by Essex.

[Essex]

alatar,

look at post #27 above which shows the text. Here is an expanded version. Trust me, it's from the book.'Come back, Saruman!' said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again. and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, leaning on it, breathing hard. His face was lined and shrunken. His hand clutched his heavy black staff like a claw.
'I did not give you leave to go,' said Gandalf sternly. 'I have not finished. You have become a fool, Saruman, and yet pitiable. You might still have turned away from folly and evil, and have been of service. But you choose to stay and gnaw the ends of your old plots. Stay then! But I warn you. you will not easily come out again. Not unless the dark hands of the East stretch out to take you. Saruman!' he cried, and his voice grew in power and authority. 'Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council.'
He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet. 'Go!' said Gandalf. With a cry Saruman fell back and crawled awayThis shows that it was the power of his voice (and hand if you must) that broke his sword.

IMO, what one needs to do when analysing a scene, is to think WHY Tolkien wrote it this way. What, IMO, he is doing here by writing that Gandalf raised his hand and used his voice is EXPLICITLY showing that Gandalf DOES NOT NEED TO USE HIS STAFF to cast Saruman from the Order. (If he wanted to show Gandalf was chanelling power or gaining power from his staff he would have written "raised his staff' instead of 'raised his hand') Indeed, at the start of the passage, all Gandalf needed to haul Saruman back was the power of his Voice. Tolkien is showing in this scene that Gandalf can break Saruman's staff and cast him from the Order with his own power, simple and direct, and not chanelling through any object.

PS Gandalf's staff is mentioned ONCE by Tolkien in the whole of the Voice of Saruman Chapter, and just as a door knocker! Gandalf stood before the door of Orthanc and beat on it with his staff. It rang with a hollow sound. 'Saruman, Saruman!' he cried in a loud commanding voice. 'Saruman come forth!'

[Formendacil]

In this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11558) thread, which was on magic in general, I made this post concerning my thoughts on the staffs:

Here's a thought I had concerning the staffs of Gandalf and Saruman (and the other wizards).

Personally, I don't think that staffs were necessary to the working of Gandalf's (or any wizard's) magic. To me, this is proven by Gandalf's action against the Balrog, after the staff was broken. The staff might have been a useful tool to help disguise the user's power from ordinary men, and maybe it actually was some help in focussing the power. Who knows?

My idea is that the main purpose for the staff was as a symbol of each's wizard's commission as one of the Istari. Something like a rod of office (such as the stewards carried). The rod doesn't contain the steward's authority, it merely acts as a symbol of it. Thus, if a wizard loses his staff (or breaks it, whatever), it is sufficient to simply acquire a new one.

However, it is a very different case when Gandalf divests Saruman of his staff, and breaks it. Gandalf has been sent back as the new leader of the Istari. He is now Saruman's superior. Just as ceremonially taking back of the rod from Faramir divested him of his power as steward, so too did Gandalf's taking of Saruman's staff rob him of his power as one of the Istari.

Anyways, that's the thought I had. Take it or leave it as you see fit.

[alatar]

Thanks Essex for providing the text, and I DO trust that it is the verbatim, as anything less would be blasphemy.;)

Again, not to nitpick (but that's how this will appear :)), but the text says nothing in regards to whether Gandalf's hand is on his staff or not. Presumably, if he were not mounted, he would have his staff in hand.

Surely you will give me something else to consider after reading the above, but in anticipation, as an example of 'item not mentioned explicitly, therefore...' I would point out that the Three Elvish rings were all in use, yet I can't remember any references such as "Elrond used his ring to" etc.

I really need to get those books out as (1) I hate trying to make a point based on memory and (2) this forum is making me want to dive in, yet again.

I like Formendacil's comments regarding the staff being a symbol of office.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

They are still physical channels of spiritual potency. I said "a medium": A staff is one of them, perhaps. But there are others, as you have proven.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I don't believe that Saruman's taunt (regarding the "staffs of the Five Wizards") means that the staffs themselves are very powerful. He's referring to his self-deceit that Gandalf wants to rule everything, and be predominant over all, including the other Istari (he also mentions the Keys of Barad-dur, which would be symbolic of a victory over Sauron).

I think that Gandalf breaking his staff on the Bridge of Khazad-dum is symbolic of his sacrifice. By breaking the bridge, and the staff with it, he is dooming both himself and the Balrog to death, assuring that the rest of the Company (and thus the Ring) will make it out of Moria. I think he knows before he breaks the bridge that he and the Balrog will both die, and he accepts it so that the cause of the Free Peoples will survive. As a result, he is rewarded by being allowed to return to Middle-earth with enhanced power, to lead the cause of the Free Peoples.

That's my take on those two points of this truly fascinating discussion.

[alatar]

I don't believe that Saruman's taunt (regarding the "staffs of the Five Wizards") means that the staffs themselves are very powerful. He's referring to his self-deceit that Gandalf wants to rule everything, and be predominant over all, including the other Istari (he also mentions the Keys of Barad-dur, which would be symbolic of a victory over Sauron).

Agreed. The staffs have great symbolic meaning. If Gandalf were to 'have them,' then I would take that as meaning he 'owned' or was more powerful than the Four.

And so to have a broken staff would mean what?

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I thought I would call attention to an interesting tidbit I ran across in the CbC forum which has relevance here:

Which brings me to Gandalf’s staff. The fact that he (far more subtly than Aragorn) insists on retaining it [during the scene before Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf enter Theoden's hall and are asked to give up weapons] lends some credence to the theory that the Staves of the Istari were more than symbolic. I wonder whether he would have been able to achieve what he does once within the Hall without it? The suggestion is that it at least enhances his power to dispel Wormtongue’s webs of deceit. - Wisdom courtesy of Saucy on this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11572) thread. Clarification in [brackets] is mine.

I thought it was far too relevant a fact not to be added to this discussion, but unfortunately, I can't take credit for noticing it myself. ;)

Sophia

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I have had my say regarding staves in general, and I'm sticking to it. :smokin:

And, in regards to this:
I think that Gandalf breaking his staff on the Bridge of Khazad-dum is symbolic of his sacrifice. By breaking the bridge, and the staff with it, he is dooming both himself and the Balrog to death, assuring that the rest of the Company (and thus the Ring) will make it out of Moria. I think he knows before he breaks the bridge that he and the Balrog will both die, and he accepts it so that the cause of the Free Peoples will survive. As a result, he is rewarded by being allowed to return to Middle-earth with enhanced power, to lead the cause of the Free Peoples. (Elladan and Elrohir)
But wouldn't leaving the Fellowship without his guidance constitute a shirking of his responsibility? Sure, everything turned out well during the time Aragorn led the fellowship, but what if Gandalf hadn't met them in Fangorn, because Gandalf hadn't been allowed to return?

Here's my view: Everything Gandalf did on that Bridge was just to scare ol' Roggie off. He could fight with it, yes, but he would lose time that he didn't have. But when the Balrog insisted on crossing the Bridge, he had to make sure it didn't reach the other end; ergo, the Bridge-breaking.

I think the Balrog's whip getting him was just pure coincidence. Although a good coincidence at that.

[Kuruharan]

Everything Gandalf did on that Bridge was just to scare ol' Roggie off. He could fight with it, yes, but he would lose time that he didn't have. But when the Balrog insisted on crossing the Bridge, he had to make sure it didn't reach the other end; ergo, the Bridge-breaking.

I'm not so sure that Gandalf expected to scare the Balrog off. The Balrog may have been mighty curious about this odd critter in front of him, a being which he knew to be Ainu (which the Balrog would probably have found odd enough) but not "dressed" as one. Uncertainty, but not necessarily fear, could possibly have been his dominant feeling.

I think Gandalf planned to break the bridge from the beginning. What better way to cut off pursuit?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

This Balrog ran away from Eönwë's buddies. It knows fear.

Maybe not from Gandy, but there's a chance . . .

[Kuruharan]

I did not say it did not know fear. I said it was not necessarily afraid at that moment.

Eönwë had a lot more guys with him too.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

But if Gandalf meant to break the Bridge all along, why the speech?

He was hoping to scare it off. Breaking the Bridge would take a lot from him.

[Kuruharan]

But if Gandalf meant to break the Bridge all along, why the speech?

There are a few possibilities.

Such encounters may require the participants abide by the Marquis of Oiolossë Rules, which stipulate that formal introductions must precede the commencement of hostilities. The Balrog's failure to abide by these injunctions may have been part of the reason for his defeat.

On a more serious note (if looked at from a certain perspective) Gandalf may have been stalling for time to gather energy for his blast (note all of his huffing and puffing about immediately prior to the incident).

[Essex]

I'm not so sure that Gandalf expected to scare the Balrog off. The Balrog may have been mighty curious about this odd critter in front of him, a being which he knew to be Ainu (which the Balrog would probably have found odd enough) but not "dressed" as one. Uncertainty, but not necessarily fear, could possibly have been his dominant feeling.We also have to keep in mind that the two had already had a confrontation at the Chamber. (where they battled each other by the door using their 'Spells' and 'Words of Command'). So the Balrog should have been at least a little WARY of Gandalf at this point. I believe this is why Gandalf first tried to at least drag the Balrog to a stalemate on the bridge, instead of fighting him straight off.

[alatar]

I believe this is why Gandalf first tried to at least drag the Balrog to a stalemate on the bridge, instead of fighting him straight off.

I think that Gandalf thought that there was a chance that the Balrog (or whatever it was that he perceived behind the Chamber door) may be buried/hampered by the destruction of the door etc. The Bridge, being the way out (though there must have been other exits as the Orcs get out later that night), would be a good idea if it weren't held against the Nine Walkers as a few (or just Gandalf) could hold it while the others got out into the daylight. And if Gandalf could break the Bridge irregardless of Balrog appearance, the Orc pursuit would be slowed.

The Balrog complicated matters somewhat, but the same plan could work if Gandalf broke the Bridge, because wings or no, it seemed to me that the Balrog wasn't jumping the chasm. It might have been even more important to break the Bridge at that point as I'm not sure that the Balrog would have wilted in the daylight.

[Kuruharan]

It might have been even more important to break the Bridge at that point as I'm not sure that the Balrog would have wilted in the daylight.

What?

I'm not entirely sure I follow. The sunlight would not have particularly damaged the Balrog very much, but he probably would not have liked it.

However, I cannot imagine the Balrog leaving Moria for any reason whatsoever.

[The Saucepan Man]

However, I cannot imagine the Balrog leaving Moria for any reason whatsoever.The Ring perhaps?

As a Maia, could he have sensed its presence? Assuming that he was independent of Sauron, the lure would have been great for him. A Balrog could go a long way with the One Ring. And if he was under Sauron's command, then he would almost certainly have been after it.

[Kuruharan]

That sound you hear is the opening of a can o' worms...

While this issue may be deserving of its own thread (I'm not aware of a current one), in brief I will say I don't believe the Balrog would have left the nice, safe, dark underground because of the lure of the Ring. He could not have known of the existence of the Ring and so likely would not have understood its pull even if he felt it. He certainly does not strike me as the type to exert himself chasing after unnecessary trouble.

The Ring itself would probably not want to advertise itself too loudly because its master was Sauron and not the Balrog and it would not welcome that situation. In other words, perhaps at that moment it was purposefully not exerting a pull.

Unless you would want to suggest that the Watcher in the Water was the Balrog making an early snatch.

(Did I say in brief?)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Gandalf may have been stalling for time to gather energy for his blast (note all of his huffing and puffing about immediately prior to the incident). (Kuru)
Here we can reach a sort of compromise. Perhaps Gandalf was attempting to scare the Balrog off while preparing for a blast, should it come (which it did).

Re worms:

First of all, I don't think the Balrog was under any command. Like the dragons. Sauron can attempt to ally with it, but not command it.

The Balrog could be after the Ring. It doesn't have to understand its pull to be drawn by it (like, as Kuru said, the Watcher did). Although the puzzle that is Gandalf would be a better reason. Who is this being mighty in magic that dares to come in my abode? the Balrog might be thinking ever since their powers met at the Chamber door.

As for the Balrog and sunlight, well . . . (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=6080)

[alatar]

What?

I'm not entirely sure I follow. The sunlight would not have particularly damaged the Balrog very much, but he probably would not have liked it.

However, I cannot imagine the Balrog leaving Moria for any reason whatsoever.

Sorry for not being more clear. My point was that Gandalf hoped that it were daylight when they exited the East-Gate as this would deter Orc pursuit, but I don't think that daylight would have stopped the Balrog at all. Something more was needed to inhibit pursuit, such as breaking the Bridge.

And I think that it would have left Moria just to continue the battle with Gandalf. I know that it didn't appear after the battle of the burned Dwarves (sorry, can't remeber the name), but those were Dwarves and it was a bit before Sauron arose again in power. It may not have been subservient to Sauron, but I think that at the least the Balrog was in league with him. And I think that it says in the text that 'Sauron was putting out the call to all evil things.' Surely the Balrog would have responded in some fashion.

And it's always been my assumption that the Balrog was in some part responsible for what happened on top of Caradhras.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It may not have been subservient to Sauron, but I think that at the least the Balrog was in league with him. And I think that it says in the text that 'Sauron was putting out the call to all evil things.' Surely the Balrog would have responded in come fashion. (alatar)

Let us not forget that the Balrog and Sauron both were servants of Melkor. There is no point whatsoever to believe that they are now allies or something. They fell under the dominion of Melkor because he was more powerful, being a Vala and them being Maiar. The difference in power between Melkor and Sauron (or the Balrog) was way bigger then the difference of power between Sauron and the Balrog. Gandalf says, when in Moria, that he has met his equal in the Balrog. And Gandalf is only little less than Sauron.
The fact they both served under Melkor and both were high in his esteem seems to make them pretty equal. Now that Melkor is in the Void, I don't believe any Balrog would be in league with Sauron or be helping him altogether. (lathspell)

No, the Balrog and Sauron weren't on the 'same team' because that would mean the Balrog was on Sauron's team, and no way would an elfbane like that kneel to a peer. Personally, I think the orcs referring to the Balrog with cries of 'Ghash' were not all that unalike to referencing Saruman as Sharkey or referring to anything back home as 'Lugburz' wanting a prize. Those orcs may have been sent to Moria by Sauron a few centuries before to investigate and inhabit the place, but it was clear that Durin's Bane was in charge, and they kept clear of him. However, if he felt the need to use them to send message back and forth to Dol Goldur, there's no evidence of it happening. While Sauron maybe of all people knew the shadow of Moria was the Balrog, the Balrog seemingly, knowing full well Sauron was a higher up, didn't care to leave Moria for any reason. It was . . . "His realm" and any orc there was there by his leave. I wonder if he had declared himself Lord of Moria . . .

So anyway, regardless of being aware of eachother I don't think there was a lot of talk between the Balrog and Sauron. After all, the Balrog would probably take Sauron for a traitor after going AWOL when Huan ripped his throat out and leaving Morgoth without his most devious schemer during the War of Wrath. If anything, Durin's Bane probably didn't really like Sauron that much anyway, thinking him nervy to take the title of 'Dark Lord'. (Keep')

(Both quotes from Wielding the Flame of Anor (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=6080) by Keep')

[Kuruharan]

(There is just something about Balrogs. Whenever they are mentioned in a thread they seem to inevitably come to dominate it.)

First of all, I don't think the Balrog was under any command. Like the dragons. Sauron can attempt to ally with it, but not command it.

I didn't mean to imply that.

My point was that Gandalf hoped that it were daylight when they exited the East-Gate as this would deter Orc pursuit

I certainly agree with you there.

And I think that it would have left Moria just to continue the battle with Gandalf.

Why? What's the point of doing that?

It may not have been subservient to Sauron, but I think that at the least the Balrog was in league with him.

Well, there was some sort of understanding there. I don't know if I'd put it any farther than that.

[alatar]

Why? What's the point of doing that?

I have no evidence to back this up, but in my opinion the Balrog was 'called in' as it wasn't just some nine teenagers who got lost in the Mines. These were the Nine Walkers, and as Sauron (via Saruman?) knew the name and kind of each, he may have realized that it might take more than orcs and trolls to effectively attack the same. So we get the Balrog.

Or the Balrog, as Lord of Moria, is torqued off at people trampling through his kingdom without paying the poll tax, and so we get the Balrog.

Either way, what exactly is it about being outside the gates of Moria that would stop the Balrog's pursuit? We have already ruled out the environment. Could Gandalf et al stand outside the East-Gate and thumb their noses at the Balrog? Would it be merely content to drive them out? In my first example, if it was called in/alerted by Sauron, then it might realize that there may be some personal gain in destroying the Nine. If it were upset over the trespassing, might it not again attempt to extract a pound of flesh?

And just how *do* you explain to your orc and troll groupies that nine good guys, including a dwarf and some midgets, just got away because they were 'one foot over the line?'


Well, there was some sort of understanding there. I don't know if I'd put it any farther than that.

Agreed.

[Kuruharan]

but in my opinion the Balrog was 'called in'

I assume you mean called in by Sauron?

I seriously doubt that. First of all, I don't believe that Sauron and the Balrog were in that kind of communication (let's just get that out of the way).

However, assuming they were, how would Sauron communicate with the Balrog that quickly?

Would it be merely content to drive them out?

In my view, yes.

The Balrog was there to hide, not anything else.

And just how *do* you explain to your orc and troll groupies that nine good guys, including a dwarf and some midgets, just got away because they were 'one foot over the line?'

You eat them.

[The Saucepan Man]

The Balrog was there to hide, not anything else.That's a Balrog with very limited ambition.

It is possible that he was simply woken up from his ugly sleep with a sore head and a bad attitude and just wanted to work out some of his aggression before returning to catch another forty million winks. But it is equally, if not more, possible that, once roused, a powerful being like him would have plans. And, if he did, those plans would surely extend beyond the realm of Moria.

Never mind whether he had wings or not. The real question is whether he had hopes and dreams. What was his motivation? Why did he feel the need to pursue the Fellowship (to the Bridge at least). Why not just ignore this irksome intrusion and get back to his slumber? He must have sensed that there was an equal or greater power present when Gandalf brought the door down on him. Why risk a confrontation with such a being when (unlike the Dwarves that he had "dealt with" previously) the Fellowship was on its way out anyway, unless he had a particular reason for catching or preventing them? Perhaps it was just "evil instinct". Perhaps he was just following his prime directive to eliminate the good guys. But I suspect that there was more to it than that.

I would still not rule out the lure of the Ring. It is possible that he would sense the presence of Sauron's evil will in the Ring, whether the Ring willed it or not. But why should the Ring not profit from finding its ways into a Balrog's hands (claws, talons, whatever)? Assuming that the Balrog did have some ambition, it could promise him many things - perhaps even dominion over Middle-earth. And it surely would not have been beyond the power of the Ring to trick him at an opportune moment, when it was in a position more easily to find its way back into his Master's hands.

There are a number of examples of evil beings making straight for Frodo during the initial stages of the Fellowship's journey. The Watcher is one. The Orc Captain in the Chamber of Mazarbul is another. So, one way or another, it seems that evil things are drawn to the Ring, just as the Orcs who attacked Isildur at the Gladden Fields were (see footnote 20 to Disaster of The Gladden Fields). In that case, the Ring is portrayed as calling to them, even though they did not know of its presence. Admittedly, Orcs would be easier to manipulate than a Balrog with a sore head but, as I said, I don't think that it would have been beyond the wit of the Ring to find its way back to its Master via the Balrog.

[Kuruharan]

Why not just ignore this irksome intrusion and get back to his slumber?...Fellowship was on its way out anyway

How was he supposed to know they were just passing through? Besides, he'd just had a rock dropped on his head. He might have taken that as a token of hostile intent.

But why should the Ring not profit from finding its ways into a Balrog's hands (claws, talons, whatever)?

The Ring wants to return to Sauron. If the Balrog was the approximate equal of Gandalf (and I think it is pretty clear he was) then he could have mastered it. This was not what the Ring wanted at all.

evil things are drawn to the Ring

This is true. If it weren't for the Watcher, I'd say it was more due to Sauron's particular hold over his slaves.

I don't think that it would have been beyond the wit of the Ring to find its way back to its Master via the Balrog.

Well, I am obviously of the opinion that this path was one that presented tremendous obstacles to the Ring achieving its goal.

[The Saucepan Man]

We seem to have lost hold of Gandalf's staff...Indeed. But threads often take twists and turns like this and, as you said, there's nothing like a Balrog debate to turn up the heat. ;)


How was he supposed to know they were just passing through?Perhaps by the fact that they were running at break-neck speed towards the exit. :p


The Ring wants to return to Sauron. If the Balrog was the approximate equal of Gandalf (and I think it is pretty clear he was) then he could have mastered it. This was not what the Ring wanted at all. A valid point. But the Ring was fast running out of options and on a one-way trip to doom (literally). I suppose it still had the Boromir gambit up its (metaphorical) sleeve. Inveigling itself into the Balrog's possesion would undoubtedly have been a risky move, but then its other options were pretty risky too. And just as Sauron was over-confident, perhaps the Ring was too. Perhaps it thought it had a good shot at mastering the Balrog. Then again, perhaps it did.

[HerenIstarion]

twists and turns, eh?

Legally, Balrog was in the right - the Fellowship committed what any lawyer would have labeled 'breaking and trespassing'. Legal defence may have pointed out that Balrog was a squatter, occupying dwarven halls legal owners never put their claims down to, but, on the other hand, as the prosecution may have retorted, dwarves themselves were guilty of selfsame 'breaking and trespassing' in the first place, as they dug into Balrog's original habitat in the lower halls without any legal ground whatsoever.

Accussed returned guilty, your honour!

So, it is just as well M-E haven't got lawyers ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

Legally, Balrog was in the right ...True enough, although he was entitled only to use reasonable force to defend his property, under English law at least.

I think that the shadow and flame, not to mention the flaming sword and whip, may have been a little over the top. :D

[Kuruharan]

Perhaps by the fact that they were running at break-neck speed towards the exit.

At the time they were running at break-neck speed for the exit he was hot on their tail (literally). He would have expected such behavior. When he set up his ambush they had been in the Twenty-first Hall and the Chamber of Mazarbul for several hours, which is where the dwarves had set up shop. He probably didn't want them gettin' ideas.

But the Ring was fast running out of options and on a one-way trip to doom

Actually, as the journey progressed its options were getting better and better with every step. You must take into account that Frodo himself failed in the end.

I suppose it still had the Boromir gambit up its (metaphorical) sleeve...but then its other options were pretty risky too.

(Lets see if we can't drag Boromir88 into the thread.)

Nah. As far as the Ring was concerned Boromir was a chump. He would have been putty in the Ring's (metaphorical) hands.

dwarves themselves were guilty of selfsame 'breaking and trespassing' in the first place, as they dug into Balrog's original habitat in the lower halls without any legal ground whatsoever.

Tut, tut councilor. That was not the Balrog's original habitat. The Balrog was trespassing without permission under other people's property (dwarven jurisprudence always draws property lines in a 360 degree circle in all directions around the center :p ).

Unless the Dwarves could tunnel into the Timeless Halls in search of mithril, they could not reach the Balrog's original habitat.

[alatar]

To bring the thread back to theme, I just want to note that Gandalf had to break his staff in order to counter the Balrog's 'preserve bridge' spell. Now that I've satisfied the legal requirement of staying on topic, here we go right back off.

In regards to my comment about the Balrog being 'called in,' a better explanation would be that it's noted somewhere in the books (is Gandalf telling this to Frodo?) that Sauron put out the call to all evil things and that's how Gollum (being even more susceptible) ends up in Mordor. I would then assume that the Balrog, being evil, at least got some kind of message, greeting card, etc, and so it knew that Sauron was back in business and was hiring. It would be complete speculation whether the Balrog submitted a resume or not ("...it says here that you worked for Morgoth before the First Age through the War of Wrath, are currently unemployed, good with a whip, know Words of Command..."). Also note that the Balrog's lack of verifiable employment kept him from obtaining a mortgage for Moria, which it had intended to buy and turn into a theme park.

Somewhere else it's noted that if Smaug were still alive that Sauron would have used him in his multi-pronged attack/war. Luckily Gandalf met a Dwarf by the side of the road or something, and so put the kabosh on that. But it must be noted that Smaug would have been controlled by, or at least a willing partner in Sauron's plan. And Smaug just seems much smarter that the Balrog - is there even 'one' Balrog quote in all of Tolkien's works ("If I really had wings I'd fly up there and smite thee, Thorondor.")? And Dol Guldur is much closer to Moria than it is to Erebor, meaning cheaper postal rates.

Now to add 2+2 to get 22. Smaug and the Balrog are both 'fire' creatures. Both are evil, have seen (and/or smelled) a Baggins, prefer to take very long naps underground in former Dwarven abodes (especially after having had less than amicable encounters with the same) in which mithril is present in some form, meet their demise through some action of the Grey Pilgrim, have wings...er, um, anyway...

With this many identical characteristics, I would then argue that if Smaug were to be a 'Friend of Sauron,' then surely the Balrog was. Saruman, who we all agree does not have wings, was a FoS, and the closest that he came to being a fire creature was in the use of pipeweed.

I rest my case before it becomes too ridiculous...too late. :D

[The Saucepan Man]

When he set up his ambush they had been in the Twenty-first Hall and the Chamber of Mazarbul for several hours, which is where the dwarves had set up shop. He probably didn't want them gettin' ideas.Given their weak-kneed reaction (Ai! Ai! It's a Balrog. Mummy, I'm scared) when he did appear, he could probably rest assured knowing that any ideas that they might (hypothetically) have had would go straight out of the window with his arrival, and that they would just keep on running. So why bother carrying on the chase? Perhaps he wanted to hold the door open for them.


Actually, as the journey progressed its options were getting better and better with every step.None of its options (with the exception of that clod, Boromir) were much, if at all, better than taking its chances with the Balrog. Fearsome though he was, he was defeated by a Maiar in man's clothing. And Balrogs in the first Age were defeated by Elves. Exemplary specimens of their race though they were, they were no Maiar. I doubt that he would hold too much fear for Sauron (of whom Gandalf was only the equal at full power), even with the Ring.


The Balrog was trespassing without permission under other people's property ...Whoever gave the Dwarves the right of occupation? I don't recall mention of any Title Deeds ...

And who said that Dwarvish law is applicable? Balrogian legislation provides that possession is 100% of the law. ;)

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Alatar, so what you are saying is that Sauron was forming his very own Legion of Doom to counter the Fellowship's JLA.

So Sauron=Lex Luthor
Balrog = Bizarro
Smaug would have been Riddler?
Saruman as Scarecrow
A corrupted Radagast as Cheetah
May he even could have pulled out a corrupted Alatar and Pallando to form some twisted WonderTwins knock-off ("Twin Wizards Powers Activate! Form of some Crappy wizards!!!")

See now you don't seem so ridiculous:D

[Kuruharan]

the Balrog, being evil, at least got some kind of message, greeting card

Well, he allowed the orcs to stay for 539 years without eating...all of them.

However, it is very curious that he did not seem to take part in the destruction of Balin's colony, or at least he is not mentioned.

Probably all the thrashing about woke him up and he could not quite drift back to sleep (having rocks plopped on your head might have that effect). That might explain why he took such a personal hand in trying to rid himself of the Fellowship. He wanted some peace and quiet. It seems to take Balrogs a long time to settle down and fall asleep (about 20 years or so, you have to get the rocks underneath you just right).

Note how the orcs fell perfectly silent when the Balrog entered. He had made it painfully evident to them what he wanted.

So why bother carrying on the chase?

To make sure they actually went, of course.

I doubt that he would hold too much fear for Sauron (of whom Gandalf was only the equal at full power), even with the Ring.

Yes, but if Gandalf could master the Ring in man's clothing, surely the Balrog could master the Ring in...balrog's clothing.

(Here they come, I can see them now. Someone's going to mention them. The Twin Terrors of Balrog wings and Balrog size. It was inevitable.)

Whoever gave the Dwarves the right of occupation?

Mahal, who made the mountains before the Dawn of Time. As clear a claim of ownership as I've ever seen.

[The Saucepan Man]

Mahal, who made the mountains before the Dawn of Time. As clear a claim of ownership as I've ever seen.I must have missed the bit where he served eviction notices on Smaug, Shelob, the eponymous Balrog and assorted Orcish colonies.

Or ... are you saying that the Dwarves were Aule's eviction notices? :D

[Essex]

another twist, I know, but seeing as I resurrected this thread I'm gonna give it a go.

Kuruharan You must take into account that Frodo himself failed in the end. :mad:

I always get angry when someone says this. I know there are countless threads on this, but I can't let it stand.

Q1. What was the Quest?
A1. To defeat Sauron by destroying the Ring.

Q2. Was the Ring destroyed?
A2. Yes

Q3. Was the Quest a success?
A3. Yes

Q4. Did Frodo, by his compassion for keeping Gollum alive, receive Redemption?
A4. Yes

Q5. Does it matter that Frodo did not actually throw the Ring in the Lava?
A5. No

Q6. Did Frodo Fail in the Quest to destroy the Ring
A6. No.


...


Sound of second can of worms opening on this thread.

[alatar]

Essex, is there another thread in which you post what you think/feel in regards to Frodo 'failing?' If not, how do you reconcile his actions at the Crack (claiming and not actively destroying the Ring) and not having 'failed?'

Note that I don't have a pony in this race, but just thought to ask.

[Kuruharan]

Alright!! Rock on me!!! This has got to be some sort of new record. Not only have I managed to get the thread off the original subject, it has now wandered off the second subject, past the third, and has now discovered a fourth!

Gold star for me!

are you saying that the Dwarves were Aule's eviction notices

"Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!" is usually translated as "Axes of Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!" However, more intensive research reveals that it in fact means "Notices of the Dwarves! Get off of our property!"

Note that soon after Gimli made this pronouncement at the Hornburg he moved into the place.

Essex, I echo alatar's sentiments.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I'm not commenting on an Ú-JLA, snorri. :D

Seriously: the Dragon, yes, would have allied with Sauron. But the Balrog most probably wouldn't. It's more loyal to Morgoth, and Sauron abandoned Morgoth after his defeat at Tol-in-Gaurhoth.

He's probably napping so when he comes to serve Sauron his dishonourable discharge, he'll be ready for anything, like Sauron's patented avoid-the-mailman manoeuvre.

[alatar]

Seriously: the Dragon, yes, would have allied with Sauron. But the Balrog most probably wouldn't. It's more loyal to Morgoth, and Sauron abandoned Morgoth after his defeat at Tol-in-Gaurhoth.

But Sauron's was the only gig in town, and he was able to turn Numenoreans, Maia etc to the dark side, so why not some sweet words for the Balrog ("I'll make those darned wings really work. Here, put this ring on...")

And if Sauron were to recover the One, would he then be able to control the Balrog? If so, wouldn't it have been better for the Balrog to be on the bandwagon a bit sooner, like Saruman?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

The Balrog knows where his loyalties lie. And it's not in that upstart Gorthaur.

And if Sauron were to recover the One, would he then be able to control the Balrog? If so, wouldn't it have been better for the Balrog to be on the bandwagon a bit sooner, like Saruman? (alatar)
Curumo was a different case; he was "confused" by his incarnation. The Balrog was in his proper senses, and is almost equal to Gorthaur.

[alatar]

The Balrog knows where his loyalties lie. And it's not in that upstart Gorthaur.

Curumo was a different case; he was "confused" by his incarnation. The Balrog was in his proper senses, and is almost equal to Gorthaur.

So, to bring this all back around, the reason that the Balrog chased Gandalf to the Bridge is that he wanted to commit suicide. The writing was on the wall - either to listen to Wolfboy the Cruel crow about how he 'won' for eternity or to enter the Fourth age as the last Maia standing in ME - heck, even the Firstborn were leaving the place as it was getting to be so tame.

I would disagree regarding Gorthaur being an upstart as I thought he ran the show while Melkor lie in chains. This should have had some impression on the Balrog - the Boss picked him only to 'go fetch those Elfs' or 'cover my retreat,' never to run the store.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I would disagree regarding Gorthaur being an upstart as I thought he ran the show while Melkor lie in chains. This should have had some impression on the Balrog - the Boss picked him only to 'go fetch those Elfs' or 'cover my retreat,' never to run the store. (alatar)
He was Morgoth's duly appointed lieutenant then. But not during the Second or Third Age.

[alatar]

He was Morgoth's duly appointed lieutenant then. But not during the Second or Third Age.

Agreed, but in ME, who has a better resume/bona fides?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Well, yes, Sauron, is the greatest evil being after the passing of Morgoth, but the Balrog didn't sign a contract to serve Sauron in case of Morgoth's sudden disappearance.

They could perhaps have an alliance of equals, but not Master and Servant.

[Essex]

alatar (and Kuruharan)If not, how do you reconcile his actions at the Crack (claiming and not actively destroying the Ring) and not having 'failed?'Ok, let's say it again. (have a search for a post called something like frodo at the sammath naur for one of the many discussions)

Q. What was Frodo and the fellowship's Quest?
A. To destroy the Ring.

Q. Was the Ring destroyed?
A. Yes

Q. Was Frodo tempted to keep the Ring
A. Yes, at the very last moment he could not throw the Ring in the fire.

Q. Does it matter that Frodo himself did not throw the Ring in the fire?
A. No.

Q. Was it Redemption for his kindness towards Gollum that helped him complete the Quest?
A. Yes

This is the WHOLE POINT of the story. Middle-earth's Redemption because of one small hobbits kind and noble actions towards a creature who in some circumstances deserved a lot worse.

If Frodo had had Gollum killed, then he would have Failed, as Sauron would have no doubt won his Ring back. But because of his wisdom and kindness, the whole of Middle-earth was saved and the Quest was a success.

Let me hammer the point home again. Did the Quest succeed? The answer is a certain YES. Was Frodo tempted at the Sammath Naur? Of course, but through his actions the Ring was destroyed.

Victory to Frodo.

[HerenIstarion]

Trousers ( http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=374419#post374419), eh? It’s damn long tentacles this thread had grown!

Does it matter that Frodo himself did not throw the Ring in the fire

Depends on ‘matter’ what for?

For the quest, it indeed does not matter – the Ring got destroyed, and that is what matters (immediately matters). And your evaluation of Gollum’s role in for it is quite correct. For the symbol of humanity Tolkien (consciously so in the revision) was drawing, it does.

There were (and in extreme cases there still are) two concepts in Christian belief concerning salvation:

1. Only God and His guiding action is what matters. Whatever you do, whatever think, whatever you feel, you won’t be saved unless He saves you.
2. Your actions is what matters. You think right and you do right – He accepts you.

Now, Frodo (and, up to an extent, the complex of Frodo/Sam/Gollum together) may be viewed as symbol of humankind. The passage of Sammath Naur in this respect is kind of reconciliation of those two views, treatment of situation hinting at that both are true simultaneously, and could not be approached separetaly. So, Only God can save you, whatever you do, as He only is Perfect and can humble Himself perfectly, reject all Evil perfectly, drop the Ring into the Crack perfectly. No mere human can do that, but mere (dangerous word, mere) human should not sit and wait for the occurrence to take place, s/he has to act, even knowing the end unattainable without Divine help

I’m apt at analogies rather than wordplay, so consider the following:

Man is drowning in the see, praying for God to save him. He deliberately lets the floating piece of shipwreck go by insted of clinging onto, strenghtening in his faith that his prayer would see him safe to the shore rather than some piece of wood. Inevitably, he dies, and goes to Heaven. There he meets the Lord, and asks: Lord, did not you hear my prayer for safety when I was drowning? But an answer he gets is: I’ve sent you a piece of board, but you haven’t taken it.

The moral (there is always a moral, as Duchess very well knows) being selfsame – one can nor rely on one thesis only, both are at operation at the same time

So, most Frodo was able of doing is to bring the Ring to the mountain. He was destined to fail in respect it was impossible for him to let the Ring go. But as it was impossible at the outset, he did not fail at the same time – he did most of what he was able of doing. The rest was Chance (read – Divine help)

see more:

Forever? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=361299#post361299)
CbC B01 Ch2 (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=333069#post333069)
Evil (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=334722#post334722)
CbC B02 Ch10 (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=361205#post361205)


Also, Tolkien’s Letter 181 to Michael Straight:

'Lead us not into temptation &c' is the harder and the less often considered petition. The view, in the terms of my story, is that though every event or situation has (at least) two aspects: the history and development of the individual (it is something out of which he can get good, ultimate good, for himself, or fail to do so), and the history of the world (which depends on his action for its own sake) – still there are abnormal situations in which one may be placed. 'Sacrificial' situations, I should call them: sc. positions in which the 'good' of the world depends on the behaviour of an individual in circumstances which demand of him suffering and endurance far beyond the normal – even, it may happen (or seem, humanly speaking), demand a strength of body and mind which he does not possess: he is in a sense doomed to failure, doomed to fall to temptation or be broken by pressure against his 'will': that is against any choice he could make or would make unfettered, not under the duress.
Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.)

The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned. He 'apostatized' – and I have had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I had myself any idea how 'topical' such a situation might appear. It arose naturally from my 'plot' conceived in main outline in 1936.1 I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.
But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end – but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honours – since it is clear that he & Sam never concealed the precise course of events.

'Not quite 'certainly'. The clumsiness in fidelity of Sam was what finally pushed Gollum over the brink, when about to repent.

[alatar]

Essex, I tend to agree with HerenIstarion.

No small feat did Frodo accomplish, and no one else in ME could have done it, so hats off to him. However, at the end, he did give in to temptation and 'fall.' I think that what you are trying to say is that when Frodo spared/saved Gollum (multiple times), this action bought him a 'pass' on not committing the final act himself (Not sure exactly what you mean by redemption; sorry).

I understand that in some sense; had Frodo not pitied Gollum then the West would have lost. Frodo's acts of 'forgiveness' allow him to be 'forgiven' when he succumbs to temptation, and this might hold with Tolkien's Christianity.

In the same vein, I think that it took an act of God at the end, for even Frodo (as stated) was not perfect and required grace (Ephesians 2:8-9). Frodo may have stopped Faramir's arrows, but he did not make the orc arrow shoot wide of the mark, nor did he help Gollum cross the Gorgoroth.

[Essex]

Heren, well written reply.

Alatar, I tend to agree with HerenIstarion.so do I, mostly. I don't think our two posts are mutually exlusive. As Heren says:So, most Frodo was able of doing is to bring the Ring to the mountain. He was destined to fail in respect it was impossible for him to let the Ring go. But as it was impossible at the outset, he did not fail at the same time – he did most of what he was able of doing.If you think that Frodo failed because he did not throw the Ring into the fire himself, then I can't change yours or anyone elses mind. I just believe IT DOES NOT MATTER who threw the Ring in. Does anyone command Frodo ALONE to throw the Ring in the fire? No, I don't believe so, it was the role of the Quest to do so, but (and maybe I'm reading Elrond wrong) they didn't say that Frodo alone would have to throw the ring in. That's why he had 8 people helping him! (plus a few more along the way......)

Frodo saved Middle-earth. Yeah, what a failure! :rolleyes:

As I said, I can't argue anymore on Frodo failing if people are saying this becuase he did not throw the Ring in. I've said my piece and do not agree on this.

Reading Tolkien's letter, I think he is saying that Frodo saw himself as a failure. This makes his leaving Middle-earth even more of a bind to me. That he left partly because he felt he let everyone down makes it an even sadder ending than it has been to me before. Poor Frodo.

[alatar]

As I said, I can't argue anymore on Frodo failing if people are saying this becuase he did not throw the Ring in. I've said my piece and do not agree on this.

Reading Tolkien's letter, I think he is saying that Frodo saw himself as a failure. This makes his leaving Middle-earth even more of a bind to me. That he left partly because he felt he let everyone down makes it an even sadder ending than it has been to me before. Poor Frodo.

I'm with you. It's a semantic thing, methinks. You would say that Frodo did not fail and I would say that Frodo's quest did not fail. Technically, Frodo finally fell to the temptation of the Ring at the very last - but that's okay - and a nudge due to his actions/spirit etc helped him get the job done.