Two Gandalfs

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

There are multiple 'Gandalfs', multiple 'Galadriels', multiple 'Elronds' (& of course a couple of 'Glorfindels' )scattered through the works. Come to that there are multiple 'Gondolins' - the Fall of Gondolin we have in BoLT is not the same as the account we find in the published Sil.

Certainly it's true that over the course of Tolkien's work on the Legendarium, characters, places, and events underwent profound changes. Texts written at different times are often in direct contradiction with one another - and indeed one must expect that a revision of some story will contradict earlier versions. Characters changed, sometimes profoundly - the character that eventually became Sauron, for example, started out as a cat.

But to me to say that there are "two Gandalfs" or "two Gondolins" sounds suspiciously mystical. There aren't really two Gondolins, because Gondolin isn't real. There are simply certain texts that say certain things about Gondolin and other texts that say other things. As I said in that most infamous of threads:

Nor do I care about the semantics of "the same character" and "different characters with the same name" and "the same character with different names", etc., etc.

It is semantics because it depends entirely upon your definition of "characters". Your Galadriel (1) and your Galadriel (2) differ in certain ways and are similar in others. On the most basic level, that's all there is to be said. There's no need to argue about how to translate those differences into a proposition using the word "character".

This is the same reason that I have a problem with the insistence (e.g. by M. Martinez) that the Silmarillion is a "different mythology" from the Book of Lost Tales. That's a perfectly valid way of defining "mythology" in the context of Tolkien's work (we could speak of BoLT mythology, '30s mythology, '50s mythology, Myths Transformed mythology, . . .) but it is just a definition. Similarly, we could call the two Galadriels different characters, or we could call them the same character portrayed differently - but we would not be saying anything substantive; we would simply be defining a convention for the word "character".

A distinct question we might ask is: how different is the portrayal of person/thing/event A in text X from the portrayal of A in text Y? Do the portrayals directly contradict each other? Do they implicitly contradict each other? Do they differ in style or tone? And so forth.

Now, obviously there are differences to be found. But I think that these differences tend to be exaggerated, largely because we know so much about the way Tolkien wrote. What in other works we might call character development or simply the portrayal of different aspects of a character's personality, in Tolkien we tend to call conradiction, because we know about his tendency to revise and rewrite and change elements of the story.

In the case of Galadriel, we have some direct contradiction among some of the stories. The late version that has her leave Aman separately from Feanor is in direct contradiction to the earlier version that had her join in the rebellion. But what about Gandalf? Here we do not have direct contradiction. The claim is that we have different portrayals. But what specific things did Gandalf do in The Hobbit that LotR Gandalf could not have done? Is there really enough there to call the portrayals implicitly contradictory?

I don't think there is. We certainly do see more aspects of Gandalf's personality in LotR, but I see no problem there. Most people speak differently, for example, depending on whom they are addressing. Why shouldn't Gandalf do the same? Tolkien even notes (I can't recall whether this is in the appendices or only in HoMe XII) that the variation in speaking style by some of the characters was intentional.

For what it's worth, I see a far greater change in personality when he goes from being Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White.

Yet its a trap Tolkien himself falls into.The changes he made to TH later, to bring it line with LotR - principally the change in Riddles in the Dark - don't really fit the mood of the rest of the book.

This is an interesting issue. Do the changes really not fit the mood of the rest of the book? I first read The Hobbit (or rather, had it read to me) about seventeen years ago. It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone. Of course, it's possible that I simply wasn't attentive enough. Still, I can't help thinking that this:

And they weren't actually necessary, as the original version of that chapter is accounted for in the story of Bilbo's 'lie' about how he came by the Ring which we're given in LotR.

. . . is being a bit too kind to the story of Bilbo's lie. It always struck me as rather forced.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone.

I can put my name beneath that.

as for the

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

the character that eventually became Sauron, for example, started out as a cat.

I proclaim it the quote of the week and ask for permission to use it a signature (not immediately, but after some future change of my current one)

Funny thing being, for the rest of it I'm probably on the opposite end of the balance: I tend to assimilate all of the accounts to produce one coherent mental picture of any given character - but that probably would be rather a position of a 'low-brow' reader, who wants to know what to expect from 'persons' (and one can't help thinking of characters as 'persons' when carried off by the tide of the story) s/he is reading about, than 'high-brow' researcher who studies development of the text and characters.

I believe both approaches are lawful, both may be enjoyed (and by the one and the same person too) just my personal taste makes me prefer the former one.

With which I suggest we should rename (in the light of recent development, not without gentle push from yours truly, and with kind persmission of the author - lmp) current thread into Ganduplets Coming, or Canonicity Strikes Back and start it all anew

The last paragraph being a kidding, of course

[Bêthberry]

HI, could you please clear out your mailbox? I hear Father Christmas is having a hard time getting his letters through.

(will delete this later, after it has been read)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Do the changes really not fit the mood of the rest of the book? I first read The Hobbit (or rather, had it read to me) about seventeen years ago. It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone.

Always something that will be down to the individual reader, of course. I have to say that the more I consider the two 'Gollums' the more the original version seems to fit with the tone of the rest of the story. Take the 1937 account:

‘Must we give it the thing, preciouss? Yess, we must!. we must fetch it, preciouss, & give it the present we promised.’ So Gollum paddled back to his boat, & Bilbo thought he had heard the last of him. but he had not. The hobbit was just thinking of going back up the passage - having had quite enough of Gollum & the dark water’s edge - when he heard him wailing & squeaking away in the gloom. He was on his island (of which, of course, Bilbo knew nothing), scrabbling here & there, searching & seeking in vain, & turning out his pockets.‘Where iss it? Where iss it?’ Bilbo heard him squeaking. ‘Lost, lost, my preciouss, lost, lost! Bless us & splash us! We haven’t the present we promised, & we haven’t even got it for ourselveses.’Bilbo turned round & waited, wondering what it could be that the creature was making such a fuss about. This proved very fortunate afterwards. For Gollum came back & made a tremendous spluttering & whispering & croaking; & in the end Bilbo gathered that Gollum had had a ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages & ages before in old days when such rings were less uncommon. Sometimes he had it in his pocket; usually he kept it in a little hole in the rock on his island; sometimes he wore it - when he was very, very hungry, & tired of fish, & crept along dark passages looking for stray goblins. Then he might venture even into places where the torches were lit & made his eyes blink & smart; but he would be safe. O yes! very nearly safe; for if you slipped that ring on your finger, you were invisible; only in the sunlight could you be seen, & then only by your shadow, & that was a faint & shaky sort of shadow.I don’t know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo’s pardoned. He kept on saying: ‘We are ssorry; we didn’t mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only present, if it won the competition.’ He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation.

The reason this fits more with the rest of TH, for me, is the absence of the tragic element, & perhaps more importantly the lack of any real 'threat' in the competition with Gollum. The Gollum of the revised Riddles chapter is a true 'horror', a canibalistic, immoral, creature, as well as a tragic victim. We feel a pity for him that we don't feel for the Trolls or goblins, or even for Smaug. The Gollum of the original is 'just' a monster, like all the others, just another 'adventure' Bilbo has along the way. In fact, in the original he is A gollum - one of (apparently) a whole race of such creatures. He is not the tragic, lost Hobbit, of LotR.

As I say, a matter or individual opinion.....

[Tevildo]

Aiwendil's comments:

This is an interesting issue. Do the changes really not fit the mood of the rest of the book? I first read The Hobbit (or rather, had it read to me) about seventeen years ago. It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone.

My earliest reading of the Hobbit was an old Houghton Mifflin first edition that I got from the library. Later on, I bought the revised Ballentine paperback even before I read LotR.

I was aware of a change in tone with the revisions. Since Riddles was a pivotal point in the story, I sensed there was something different going on. Plus, I knew that an author wouldn't go back and rewrite a book unless he had a serious reason for doing that (even if I didn't know what the reason was). Those changes cast a shadow over my reading of the story and lent a different tone than before. It wasn't as grim as LotR, but that chapter sounded more serious and less like a children's story.

Look at the critical phrase "my precious". I later read it again in Lord of the Rings. In the first edition, Gollum uses the word to describe himself. In the later revisions, "my precious" seems to refer to the Ring. Just a little change like that makes a difference. The Ring has become something more than a handy gadget to make someone invisible. Bilbo continues to use the Ring to get himself out of scrapes but you still can't help recalling the darker tones of the Riddles chapter.

It's not that the revisions were badly done. In fact they were done very skillfully. And if I had simply read the revisions without knowing about the original, I probably would not have been as aware of the discrepency in tone. But I did sense a difference between the unrevised and revised book even from a casual reading.

I also see a big difference between the Gandalf who is an artist in fireworks of the Hobbit and the early chapters of LotR, and the Gandalf who fought the Balrog in Moria. This was before the istar was transformed from grey to white. Perhaps it's too much to say there are two Gandalfs. There are points of connection and points of difference. But the points of difference are quite large, and I can't always fit the Gandalf of the Hobbit easily together with that of the Lord of the Rings (or for that matter the Necromancer with the later Sauron).

_______________

P.S. About that cat who was the original "Sauron".....I think JRRT made a big mistake in those revisions as well.

Tevildo, the lap cat of Melkor

[Aiwendil]

Looks like my invocation of Sauron's feline origins has conjured up the great cat himself.

Davem wrote:

The reason this fits more with the rest of TH, for me, is the absence of the tragic element, & perhaps more importantly the lack of any real 'threat' in the competition with Gollum. The Gollum of the revised Riddles chapter is a true 'horror', a canibalistic, immoral, creature, as well as a tragic victim. We feel a pity for him that we don't feel for the Trolls or goblins, or even for Smaug. The Gollum of the original is 'just' a monster, like all the others, just another 'adventure' Bilbo has along the way. In fact, in the original he is A gollum - one of (apparently) a whole race of such creatures. He is not the tragic, lost Hobbit, of LotR.

I think you are right that this is a matter of individual opinion. Still - I don't see The Hobbit as horror-less at all. On the contrary, I think that horror is an integral component of it, and of many other succesful 'children's stories'. I think you are right about tragedy - and I suppose that if the style of the revision differs significantly from that of the original, it is in this. But horror and tragedy are different things.

HerenIstarion:

and ask for permission to use it a signature (not immediately, but after some future change of my current one)

Permission granted to use this and any other inadvertantly funny things that roll off my fingers.

[THE Ka]

Gandalf does seem alot different between the Hobbit and LOTR. It might be of a specific audience but, i don't feel Tolkien was trying to convey that message... More or less, the Hobbit seems to be the "test drive" of middle earth and what it holds. You seem to be explained to by what characters learn in the Hobbit but, in the LOTR, things seem to be expected. As with gandalf, i really only see character development, or, how the main character conveys his personal image of Gandalf. Bilbo seems to view Gandalf much differently than that of Frodo who, in the beginning of the lord of the rings, bases most of his knowledge of gandalf by Bilbo's tales and gandalf's actions around him and other hobbits. As the book progresses, we see Gandalf literally, take on a new light. Frodo notices this as well, and begins to see a 'new' gandalf that he hasn't experienced before. Thus, we see through a new image.

Another factor can be that in the Hobbit, 90% of the point of view comes from Bilbo, while in the LOTR, more character's share their thoughts and views in the story.

Another person who changes, or we have a chance to see and hear more of is Elrond. Who, in the LOTR, plays more in the plot of the story than in the Hobbit. Explainning a map vs. Holding a council, frustration with in-laws and other activities... I see a change...

~Ka

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Still - I don't see The Hobbit as horror-less at all. On the contrary, I think that horror is an integral component of it, and of many other succesful 'children's stories'. I think you are right about tragedy - and I suppose that if the style of the revision differs significantly from that of the original, it is in this. But horror and tragedy are different things.

They are different things - I wish I'd posted that at a time when I should'nt have been in bed!

The 'horror' I meant wasn't that of a 'big scary monster coming to eat you up' - which is basically what all the enemies in TH are, & what the original gollum was - its a deeper horror, of being trapped alone in the dark, by yourself, for age upon age. In short, none of the other 'monsters' Bilbo encounters seem to have feelings or emotional needs - we never wonder whether Smaug gets lonely on his bed of gold under the Mountain. We never think of any of the other 'monsters' having any kind of inner life, so we don't feel pity for them. With the 'revised' Gollum we do feel pity - Tolkien goes out of his way to make him a pitiable figure - & we feel such pity because of the horror of his existence.