Well, Gandalf, it's nice to see you again, but...

[Anguirel]

I was wondering yesterday if I would have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings rather more had Gandalf stayed dead.

The task ahead for the Three Hunters and their chums such as Eomer would be trickier; the story darker and more fraught with danger and death; in fact, it might end up closer to the Silmarillion...but victory would assuredly still be possible. I'm not quite sure how the sub-plot of Narya would be dealt with; perhaps the Red Ring would be destroyed with Gandalf or never given to him at all. But that's a comparatively minor problem.

Wouldn't our nice message about the triumph of the race of Men, despite all the odds, be rather clear without some smug semi-seraphic septuachilogenarian running about?

I get particularly infuriated by lines like "Ha ha! None of you even have any weapons that could hurt me! I am the White Rider!" They make part of me wish Aragorn could produce a flintlock and test Gandalf's proposition...

Gandalf's occasional cheerful flashes of wisdom could easily be dispensed by Faramir, Aragorn, types like that. It's a bit depressing for Aragorn, who after Gandalf's death lacks confidence as a leader, to have that problem solved not by gaining realisation of his own abilities but by the return of his comforting mentor-figure.

And yes, I know about the Three Rebirths of Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn, going underground and all, but really, a tricolon...that's low.

So. Somebody give me a good reason why Gandalf had to pop up out of the abyss like some blasted White Rabbit, er, Rider.

[Rhod the Red]

I have a slight fantasy. It would be great if TLOTR came true and I and several others were sent as a Second Order of the Istari to carry on the task of guiding the West against Saruman and Sauron. Appearing at like the edges of Fanghorn Forest, rescuing Merry and Pippin and awaiting the rest to arrive.

Lol! Too good to come true?

I don't see anything wrong in Gandalf coming back, they needed him. Period.

[Thinlómien]

The first things that come into my mind, in random order, serious and less serious:

1) Tolkien wanted to continue with the familiar character he was maybe fond of or he needed Gandalf as a starting element in the story. Later, he just couldn't kill him. Our tender-hearted professor...

2) Wise Gandalf from Valinor is always around, and then he leaves without ever coming back to Middle-Earth. This strongly contributes to the theme of passing away and that people (hobbits, Aragorn) should do things themselves, not always wait for someone (Gandalf) to be helping them.

3) Gandalf's existence is nearly essential in Saruman's drama, and you wouldn't like to drop Saruman out, would you?

4) The good guys need a figurehead that matches the nazgûl.

5) Someone needs to be with the eagles pick Frodo and Sam up from Mt. Doom.

6) Gandalf gets close to the reader at the beginning. He is an important character. If he'd permanently die when there's still 3/4 of the book to go, that would leave the reader with a hollow feeling. (Tolkien wrote the story to himself, yes, I know, but he wouldn't have made a modern-style or poor story.)

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure how much these comments will relate to Anguirel's fascinating topic, but here goes.

As a reader, I've never really been especially enamoured of Gandalf the White. Gandalf the Grey is an intriguing mix of character. He's the tricksome wizard who folks in The Shire don't trust--and he plays up that role. He's the enigmatic mentor of Frodo. He's a mysterious, conflicted sort who doesn't see through Saruman until too late. He has this power, but must not use it. Who can handle that kind of self-control? And he's immensely important in explaining what the terrible appeal of the Ring is. In short, Gandalf the Grey is both a multi-layered character and a narrative necessity.

Once Gandalf the White comes back, to me at least, he is far less interesting. His cover is blown. He can come out shootin and that ironically limits his field of operation. All the strategic worrying at things and about things is reduced to flat out frowning about how Frodo is doing.

Of course, maybe this is an extreme confession of my pyschological quirkiness: give me a Grey Eminence anyday rather than the Sun King!

[mormegil]

I believe one key aspect that is a factor in Gandalf returning is demonstrating that the Valar are extending a hand of fellowship, so to speak, to men; specifically extending their hand of friendship again to the remnant of Numenor. Numenor, initially had the friendship and grace of the Valar and that is what made them great. Aragorn needed a hand extended to him if they were ever to be great again. Gandalf was sent to aid man, which he did and wouldn’t have been able to had he, alone of the Istari, not completed the task that was assigned to their order.

Secondly, and along the same line, Aragorn wasn’t fully ready to become king. He had too much self doubt. Gandalf, by his return, was able to alleviate that. To me Gandalf the White needed to return to make sure that men were put on the right path.

This is brief but it’s a couple of the thoughts I’ve had.

[Formendacil]

In tandem, I think, with Morm's thoughts, Gandalf' return was necessary as a sign of the importance of the battle against Sauron. Without Gandalf, the battle is something of a "small nations vs. Mighty Aggressor" sort of battle. Honourable, to be sure, and definitely worthy and in need of fighting.

With Gandalf the White there, however, the battle takes on a more... how shall I say it?.. spiritual dimension. It ceases to be merely "good guys vs. bad guys" and becomes Good vs. Evil. Without Gandalf, we lose the potent symbolism of White against Black. Also, Gandalf's power acts to help us see the sheer power of Sauron. Without Gandalf, Sauron's defeat at the hands of a Hobbit merely goes to show that he is fallible and defeatable, that he was defeated by a "mere" Hobbit.

Gandalf's presence, however, since we are shown his great power and authority, highlights Sauron's own power, since Gandalf finds himself with his hands full against the Witchking. This, in turn, makes the defeat of Sauron that much more eucatastrophic, since we are more clearly aware of just how powerful Sauron (and the Ring) is.

Continuing with the idea of spiritual importance, Gandalf is a clear symbol of there being a "Greater Power" involved- whether you're considering this greater power to be just the Valar, or Eru Himself. This is in agreement with Tolkien's strong Catholic feelings. The fight of Good is aided by above. We are not just fighting on our own, or for ourselves, but on behalf of Good everywhere. Without Gandalf the White, the Lord of the Rings loses the integral sense that it has of Right vs. Wrong.

And I agree with Anguirel that this makes it different from the Silmarillion. But it is a NECESSARY and INTENDED difference. The War of the Jewels, though a war of good vs. evil is NOT a war of Right vs. Wrong. The Eldar, though they remain the good guys, are essentially waging an unsanctioned war- a war that should have had the support of the Valar to be truly Right. That is why they continued to suffer defeat, and why it wasn't until Eärendil sought forgiveness of the Valar, so to speak, that Morgoth could be defeated. It wasn't until the Noldor recieve the pardon of the Valar that they were morally Right- and thus received the "help form above" that was necessary to defeat evil.

[Legolas]

I think a key point is that men (or elves, dwarves, etc.) cannot defeat a force like Sauron's (especially with Sauron, an Ainu, in leadership). Gandalf the White and the Eagles are intentionally placed; they are reminders that man cannot do it alone, and that Eru has not simply created the world and ignored it since. He does not leave it without his own representatives and influence, when necessary. This also happened at the end of The Silmarillion - Eonwe and his army have to give the Children a push and accomplish things that would've been unsuccessful otherwise.

In both instances, the Children were matched with adversaries far greater in strength. I think that fact is unsettling to readers.

'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!'

'What hope have we without you?' - Aragorn

[Lalwendë]

Looking at this from a view of what simple pleasure I got from the books, I am certainly glad that Gandalf came back. I can see that Tolkien could have made a worthwhile point about the bravery of Men and Hobbits and the transition into the 'age of Men' by having them figure out how to beat Sauron by themselves, but there is something essentially fantastic about having a wizard throughout the story. Gandalf adds more simple magic to the tale, and when he 'dies' in Moria, it provides some suspense for the reader. I am sure I'm not alone in being horribly disappointed when in the Arthurian tales, Merlin is trapped by Nimue. The wizard, and hence all the magic, has gone!

I felt this way a little about the death of Smaug in The Hobbit. Wizards and Dragons are essentially wonderful, and putting aside plot and style and theme, appeal to me on a fundamental level. I have a sneaking suspicion Tolkien felt the same way and so would have been unable to kill off Gandalf even if he had wanted to. Maybe that is why he does come back to us. I wonder if HoME says anything about this?

[ninja91]

I agree with Rhod the Red. It was essential to the story for Gandalf to come back. If he stayed dead, would the men of the west even have survived? Denethor would have possibly fled Minas Tirith, without Gandalf to command a defense. Also, no dialogue between Gandalf and the Witch King, or the Mouth of Sauron. And, very importantly, possibly no aid from Erkenbrand during the Battle for Helm's Deep.
Gandalf was needed, no questions about it.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I tend to agree with Glaurung about
Gandalf's returning. Had he not done so it
would have been (as far as surprise and plot
alteration) rather like Janet Leigh in Psycho .
And, like Bilbo in The Hobbit, it would have put
the others in a situation where they'd have
had to, as it were, "grow up" sooner. While I
like the Gandalf and the Three Walkers meeting
in TTT Gandalf in the later story is less interesting
and it wouldn't be too hard to alter the story
(such as the relief of Helm's Deep) to compensate
for his absence.

[HerenIstarion]

Putting aside all 'functional' necessity/uselessness of his return, I'll listen to my inner sentimentalist. And this chap does say that if Gandalf haven't come back...

...there would have been less joy...and less surprise...as small-scale eucatastrophes build up to the one great Eucatastrophe of Ring being destroyed, 'Gandalf returned' formed one of the cornerstones of anticipation, I've shed tears over the chapter at my first reading, and can't swear my eyes remained dry on all following rereadings.


Verdict: Leave him be, he came exactly where and when he should have come.

Wouldn't our nice message about the triumph of the race of Men, despite all the odds, be rather clear without some smug semi-seraphic septuachilogenarian running about

Vague feeling that Valar were 'smug semi-seraphic etc' and half-realized sensation of inevitable triumph of the race of Men led certain king to build certain fleet... with all the 'certain' consequences...

m-m-m... and I don't even know what 'septuachilogenarian running' might stand for... did Gandalf do some?

[Nogrod]

There surely is a host of interpretations to the relationship of Gandalf and the possible basic plot of the LotR. I would like to bring forwards one more here (it's probably not the one I myself find the most convincing, but I think it deserves mentioning).

If the whole of the LotR is seen as a battle between the Maiar in the ME, all with their own purposes, then it's clear Tolkien couldn't drop the only good guy out of the story. The key players that played their game of chess on the board of ME were surely Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf. Of these no-one was from ME, and as Maiar, they all were grades higher and more powerful than the elves. So those three played a game, using elves, orcs, men etc. as their pawns to reach the ends they had set to themselves.

So was Gandalf bluffing everyone with his trick of "death" - both his pawns and his real enemies? (Looks like a Wizard WW-game on a grand scale... )

Sidenote: I agree with Bethberry and Goldberry101, that Gandalf the Grey is much more of a character than Gandalf the White. The Grey's character had shades and nuances, the White is just the strategical & emotional "natural-born-leader": the Good-guy indeed (and those purely good ones are mostly quite boring, to be honest, evven if they are wizards).

So was Gandalf in the end the one character Tolkien had to sacrifice to the altar of the storyline?