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

[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?

[Rhod the Red]

We all love a reverend, wise wizard charchter in a story!

[davem]

I'm not sure Tolkien ever intended that Gandalf should die in Moria. Clearly we (as the Fellowship) are meant to think he died, but from my reading of HoM-e I can't see any point at which Tolkien thought that he had killed him off & then changed his mind. He even puzzles over how to account convincingly for his reappearance: 'How does Gandalf reappear?' (The Story Foreseen from Moria, HoM-e vol 7). Also Vol 6 'The Mines of Moria:

(Of course Gandalf must reappear later - probably fall is not as deep as it seemed. Gandalf thrusts Balrog underneath him & so ....& eventually the subterranean stream in the gulf he found a way out - but he does not turn up until they have had many adventures: not indeed until they are on borders of Mordor & the king of Ond is being beaten in battle.)

CT comments: This seems to show clearly that before ever the story of the fall of Gandalf from the Bridge of Khazad-dum was written, my father fully intended that he should return.)

Of course, this would have been too close to Gandalf's reappearance in TH just before the Battle of Five Armies, so on....

The intention always seems to have been that Gandalf would be around to play a major part in the Fall of Sauron. He just had to figure out how to separate him from the Company & probably to enhance his power.

[tom bombariffic]

From a storytelling point of view, Gandalf needed different things at different points. At first he needed to be quirky and mysterious, to emphasize how untypical of hobbits the Bagginses are; had Gandalf the White come to the shire and ordered any hobbit to do his bidding, they would probably not have doubted his authority. But Gandalf the grey is, to the hobbits' suspicious eyes, untrustworthy and mischievous.

Gandalf the Grey is also very elusive, often coming and going at night without warning, which is in keeping with the rangers' shadowy presence around the shire, and is the best way for Gandalf to gather early intelligence surrounding the ring without arousing suspicion. Gandalf the White is bold and commanding, and would have drawn Sauron's attention to the shire far too early.

Finally, as far as Gandalf the Grey goes, he needed to be recognised as strong, but not too strong. Elves and possibly Aragorn at the Council of Elrond would have recognised his power, and his potential, but others would not. Would Boromir have let the ring pass into the hands of Gandalf the White, who he would have had to recognise as his superior, and thus a potential threat, considering the treachery of Saruman? In my view, he had to be underestimated in order to gain the trust of Gondor, and possibly of the Dwarves too.

Thus Gandalf could not start the story as strong as he finished it. But he had to become stronger to justify his position as the general of the armies of good. Theoden and Denethor are both very proud leaders, and it is unlikely that they would hold any respect for Gandalf the Grey ("why should I welcome you, Gandalf Stormcrow?", says Theoden, not realising he has changed.) Gandalf also needed to be stronger, as has been said, to match up to Saruman and the Witch King of Angmar. Finally, returning more powerful than before would have given him the confidence in his own strength necessary to lead the forces of good into battle, as well as frightening the enemy, who would realise that they had more on their hands than they had bargained for.

Plus the fellowship's persistance when they think he is dead shows that they are all committed to the cause, not just being led along by Gandalf, &c &c. And it's exciting.

bombariffic.

[davem]

On the 'death' of Gandalf.

While Tolkien certainly stated in a couple of Letters (156 & 181) that Gandalf had really died, it seems that wasn't always the case. Hammond & Scull make the point:

(II: 118). I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man - In the first three printings of the first edition (1954-S) fire and death read 'fire and flood', The phrase was emended in the fourth printing (1956). In his draft letter to Robert Murray, 4 November 1954,Tolkien wrote that Gandalf probably 'should rather have said to Wormtongue: "I have not passed through death (not 'fire and flood') to bandy crooked words with a serving-man'" (Letters, p. 201). Hammond/Scull: Reader's Companion to LotR

The question is whether Tolkien originally intended Gandalf to use the words 'fire & flood' (ie that he had not in fact 'died' at all (as in the note from HoM-e 6 I gave earlier) & only changed his mind after the book was published & deciding that Gandalf had actually died & been resurrected, or whether he had decided before publication that Gandalf had actually died but just forgot to change the words Gandalf spoke.

Of course in a Letter to Robert Murray Tolkien does call the return of Gandalf in TT 'a defect' which he didn't make enough effort to rectify (though from the context it is likely he means the way he handles the return, rather than the return itself, which, as CT indicated, was always Tolkien's intention).

Tolkien was clearly put on the spot by his readers who asked a great many questions about the nature of various characters so it may be that he only 'realised' after finishing LotR that Gandalf had 'really died'.

[Lalwendë]

It makes me wonder if the use of 'death' was an afterthought for Tolkien. As we know, he was a perfectionist, and he might well not have published anything if it was not for the demands of his publishers, but just gone on rewriting and editing his work. It also makes me wonder if he was constructing the idea of Gandalf's 'rebirth' at a later stage, while in the drafting stage he did not mean that; or did he just word the phrase badly and so not get his meaning across?

I tend towards the former actually, as 'fire and flood' seem to be very appropriate for Moria - the flood of the watcher in the water (and no doubt floods in the depths of Moria) and the fire of the Balrog. The phrase fits the story well. I do not mean that 'death' does not, but I am suspicious that Tolkien did change his mind after the fact and chose to use a short word with a lot of meaning. I think my suspicion is borne out by what davem has quoted earlier from HoME.