Gandalf: the Unilateral Coalition Builder - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Celuien · 06-11-2005, 06:37 AM

Rattling around in the back of the barrow:

Why didn't Saurman take Narya? and Saruman the Ring-maker

Quote:

And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!

Saruman could also have thought that he had Gandalf exactly where he wanted him. He probably was not expecting an escape, and told Gandalf that he would stay in Orthanc until the One Ring wa found. If Saruman took possession of the One, he wouldn't have a need to take Narya, since the One would give him control over all of the rings anyway, in addition to giving him all of the study sources he needed to perfect his own ring-making sklls.

**lindil** · 06-13-2005, 12:28 PM

Lots of interesting posts. Perhaps the Saruman oriented stuff will resume in the links Celuien posted for us [thanks]. Perhaps not....

Saruman's pride was evidenced from the first, Gandalf seems to have come slowly to his role as 'leader of the resistance to Sauron'. Indeed he only fully took up the job it seems when it was clear that the Council would remain locked in a 'protect Lothlorien and Rivendell mode' and that Saruman had turned to the dark side, seemingly convinced he was not.

Gandalf did w/ the Hobbit events set the whole stage for the final resistance to Sauron. But it was still being done in a subtle way compared to his assuming temporary command at Minas Tirith and being declared the real Leader by Aragorn in the War tent of Pellenor.

It is an unusaual thing to find a cheif leader who has no personal interest in the role. Virtually all of Tolkiens hero's and leaders had a 'taste for power':

Feanor
Fingolfin
Galadriel
Thingol
Turin
Hurin
Isildur
Elendil
Boromir
Denethor
Thorin
Balin
Finrod
Saruman

or at least a natural desire or did not resist an obligation to lead:
Aragorn
Faramir
Elendil
Beren
Cirdan[?]
Gandalf
Frodo

IN the top list we see more ultimate failures and pyrrhic victories than outright success.

In the latter we find what we could term as the more pure success stories [a generalization admittedly].

But of these only Gandalf was not born into this kind of leadership role [even though a Maia he was a rather retiring one 'seeking to understand not be understood], even Frodo was Bilbo's heir.

So he was not by temperment suited to his task, he had to reshape his own self if you will to adapt to the task and it seemingly happened slowly. There is little to say about Gandalf's adventures prior to his Dol Guldor break in and aiding the shire during the White Wolf invasion. Indeed had Saruman heard of it, he may have thought it a waste of time for a Maia...

So I wonder if this does not perhaps explain his unorthodox technique of forcing alliances and his knack for intuiting when to put himself [or others] in impossible situations.

Probably he was 'trusting to Eru', At these moments.

" How will I get the dwarves across Mirkwood and through a hostile Thranduil's realm, without being there?"

Why does Bilbo need to go? surely he asked himself this, but all we know is that he told Thorin in earnest, " If he goes you may succeed, if not - you won't and I am done with you."

So his boldness was perhaps [ring of fire aside] purely a product of clearly seeing, the correct action at any given moment.

Oner final point, how impossible it seems today that America [where I live] could ever have such a leader to lead us out of the quagmire the country [not too mention the world] is in on every level.

I am not trying to point the finger at W. so much as point out that even a minor Gandalfian figure could never navigate the political process intact.

And thus our leaders instead of building 'unlikely coalitions' resort to pushing the interests of those who paid for their elections.

An aside I admit, but that is one of things that fascinates me about M-E and Tolkien [and loved to draw such parallels between M-E and current politics in the Letters] if one takes the examples their and tries to apply them [minus magic and rings] you will almost certainly come to a different valuation and understanding of a situation than off thinking only 'within the box - or bun

]

Estelyn Telcontar · 07-03-2005, 10:53 AM

I just read this fascinating discussion in the course of catching up with threads after my vacation - very enjoyable and highly interesting contributions! Thanks to all, especially including those I can't yet rep because they seem to catch my eye with good posts so often.

One thought on the contrast between Saruman and Gandalf occurred to me - Gandalf's humility resulted in his paying attention to the seemingly small, unimportant things - Hobbits, for example. He was not above enjoying their company, just because they were obscure and rustic. Saruman (and Sauron, for that matter) ignored everything that he did not consider worth his attention - and oversaw the details that led to the downfall of both.

06-13-2005, 12:28 PM	#2
lindil Seeker of the Straight Path Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal Posts: 1,680	Lots of interesting posts. Perhaps the Saruman oriented stuff will resume in the links Celuien posted for us [thanks]. Perhaps not.... Saruman's pride was evidenced from the first, Gandalf seems to have come slowly to his role as 'leader of the resistance to Sauron'. Indeed he only fully took up the job it seems when it was clear that the Council would remain locked in a 'protect Lothlorien and Rivendell mode' and that Saruman had turned to the dark side, seemingly convinced he was not. Gandalf did w/ the Hobbit events set the whole stage for the final resistance to Sauron. But it was still being done in a subtle way compared to his assuming temporary command at Minas Tirith and being declared the real Leader by Aragorn in the War tent of Pellenor. It is an unusaual thing to find a cheif leader who has no personal interest in the role. Virtually all of Tolkiens hero's and leaders had a 'taste for power': Feanor Fingolfin Galadriel Thingol Turin Hurin Isildur Elendil Boromir Denethor Thorin Balin Finrod Saruman or at least a natural desire or did not resist an obligation to lead: Aragorn Faramir Elendil Beren Cirdan[?] Gandalf Frodo IN the top list we see more ultimate failures and pyrrhic victories than outright success. In the latter we find what we could term as the more pure success stories [a generalization admittedly]. But of these only Gandalf was not born into this kind of leadership role [even though a Maia he was a rather retiring one 'seeking to understand not be understood], even Frodo was Bilbo's heir. So he was not by temperment suited to his task, he had to reshape his own self if you will to adapt to the task and it seemingly happened slowly. There is little to say about Gandalf's adventures prior to his Dol Guldor break in and aiding the shire during the White Wolf invasion. Indeed had Saruman heard of it, he may have thought it a waste of time for a Maia... So I wonder if this does not perhaps explain his unorthodox technique of forcing alliances and his knack for intuiting when to put himself [or others] in impossible situations. Probably he was 'trusting to Eru', At these moments. " How will I get the dwarves across Mirkwood and through a hostile Thranduil's realm, without being there?" Why does Bilbo need to go? surely he asked himself this, but all we know is that he told Thorin in earnest, " If he goes you may succeed, if not - you won't and I am done with you." So his boldness was perhaps [ring of fire aside] purely a product of clearly seeing, the correct action at any given moment. Oner final point, how impossible it seems today that America [where I live] could ever have such a leader to lead us out of the quagmire the country [not too mention the world] is in on every level. I am not trying to point the finger at W. so much as point out that even a minor Gandalfian figure could never navigate the political process intact. And thus our leaders instead of building 'unlikely coalitions' resort to pushing the interests of those who paid for their elections. An aside I admit, but that is one of things that fascinates me about M-E and Tolkien [and loved to draw such parallels between M-E and current politics in the Letters] if one takes the examples their and tries to apply them [minus magic and rings] you will almost certainly come to a different valuation and understanding of a situation than off thinking only 'within the box - or bun] __________________ The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light. Last edited by lindil; 06-13-2005 at 12:33 PM.

07-03-2005, 10:53 AM	#3
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	I just read this fascinating discussion in the course of catching up with threads after my vacation - very enjoyable and highly interesting contributions! Thanks to all, especially including those I can't yet rep because they seem to catch my eye with good posts so often. One thought on the contrast between Saruman and Gandalf occurred to me - Gandalf's humility resulted in his paying attention to the seemingly small, unimportant things - Hobbits, for example. He was not above enjoying their company, just because they were obscure and rustic. Saruman (and Sauron, for that matter) ignored everything that he did not consider worth his attention - and oversaw the details that led to the downfall of both. __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'