Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

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

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

[Essex]

Exactly, 1,000 Reader.

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

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

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

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

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

[obloquy]

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

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

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Essex

Exactly, 1,000 Reader.

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

On the other hand, 1,000 Reader believes that the Witch-King was, at least, evenly matched with Gandalf. He disagrees with this:

Originally Posted by Essex

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

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

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

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

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

Originally Posted by obloquy

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

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

Originally Posted by obloquy

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

Like you do?

Originally Posted by obloquy

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

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

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

[Essex]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

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

Yes, that is correct. Even when reading the book for the first time, and in the many re-readings of the book I've had, I still get the feeling that Gandalf is not so sure of himself than Obluquy and others are. It really doesn't seem that cut and dried as some here stubbornly believe it to be.

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

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

[alatar]

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

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

[Essex]

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

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

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

[narfforc]

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

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

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

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

No wonder Eowyn's victory makes some guys cringe.

Think that we've discussed this to tears elsewhere, but my cringing is not due to Eowyn vanquishing the Witch-King. Sure, the W-K sent Gandalf the White to the floor, and then a hobbit with a newly sharpened blade (and therefore non-magical) and a shieldmaiden make the W-K look like a crumbled soda can, but that's not enough to earn Eowyn a respite and a little glory. She kills the Witch-King! And moments later she's being chased by Gimpy Gothmog, and without the intervention of Aragorn, would have lost to the orc.

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

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by alatar

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

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

Originally Posted by JRRT

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

Just pointing that out.

[alatar]

Amidst all of the hype of the 30th anniversary of the release of the first (or is it fourth?) Star Wars movie, there was a documentary on-line at the History channel and on TV. My son wanted to watch, and so we indulged. Guess who made an appearance? None other than our esteemed Peter Jackson.

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

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

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

And speaking of formulas, mathematically speaking, if WK>Gandalf, and Eowyn>WK, and Aragorn>Eowyn, as noted here, then Aragorn>WK and subsequently, Aragorn>Gandalf.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

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



Just pointing that out.

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