Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.
|
But on the other other other (?) hand, you could say that he only does it because it personally affects him. He doesn't work for the whole world of GOOD, he works for himself.
And on the yet another hand, one could say that Gandalf is a pretty boring character compared to the multi-sided Dumbledore. Not my own opinion either, but it could be.
And on the hand that I didn't mention yet, one could argue that Dumbledore is not a "proper" mentor.
And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands.
Quote:
|
Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron.
|
But at the same time he's the opposite. He's still one of the chess pieces, even if it is the queen and not a pawn. He is both above and within the game.
Quote:
|
Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.
|
And that he did, disregarding his sense of rightness more than once.
I think I'm just agruing for the sake or arguing here, because really I agree with you.