Well, Gandalf, it's nice to see you again, but... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Rhod the Red · 05-06-2006, 04:01 AM

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

davem · 05-06-2006, 06:48 AM

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:

Quote:

(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 · 05-06-2006, 08:48 AM

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 · 05-06-2006, 10:52 AM

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:

Quote:

(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 · 05-06-2006, 02:13 PM

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.

Bêthberry · 05-06-2006, 08:37 PM

I have to say that I think tom bombariffic is correct to observe that Gandalf must be/do different things at different time of the story. Absolutely.

And I'm not sure it really matters much what Tolkien said in his Letters, whether those letters were written at the time of writing or post publication. Statements of intention sometimes don't or can't outweigh the evidence of the story.

The loss/disappearance of Gandalf the Grey at Moria is one of the most unexpected and heart rending situations, for readers as well as for the rest of the Fellowship. This emotional reading experience is part of the great sense of loss which pervades LotR. Does it really matter that later on Tolkien was in his letters a bit embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead? Isn't the significant fact the loss of the wizard who the others thought was their leader? What does one do when one's leader or mentor is lost?

I suppose Anguirel's question has to do with whether the fellowship needs an authority figure to help them find motivation and succour. However, to me, the question remains an aesthetic one: Gandalf the White is less interesting to me than Gandalf the Grey. Whether this reflects my own readerly pecadillos, or Tolkien's writing style and imagination, or something else, I don't think is germane to Anguirel's thread here, which I suspect might relate to the question of how or whether readers feel the need for some kind of providential messenger who can guide men and the hobbits.

Legolas · 05-06-2006, 11:19 PM

If you're looking to understand the author's intention, the purpose of the event in the book, it certainly can matter. It was originally posed "give me a good reason why Gandalf had to pop up out of the abyss." Whether you care personally what Tolkien thought is not the question. Looking to the author for reasoning is a good way to start. No one is supposing such statements will outweigh the evidence of the story. They supplement the evidence in the story; they bring it into perspective.

As noted in the post that provided the quote, Tolkien does not appear to be "embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead," but rather by the way he handled it within the story.

05-06-2006, 04:01 AM	#1
Rhod the Red Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: May 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 257	We all love a reverend, wise wizard charchter in a story! __________________ Head of the Fifth Order of the Istari Tenure: Fourth Age(Year 1) - Present Currently operating in Melbourne, Australia

05-06-2006, 08:48 AM	#3
tom bombariffic Wight Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In the house of Tom Bombariffic Posts: 196	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. __________________ The 'hum' generated by an electric car is not in fact the noise of the engine, but that of the driver's self-righteousness oscillating at a high frequency.

05-06-2006, 02:13 PM	#5
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!

05-06-2006, 08:37 PM	#6
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	I have to say that I think tom bombariffic is correct to observe that Gandalf must be/do different things at different time of the story. Absolutely. And I'm not sure it really matters much what Tolkien said in his Letters, whether those letters were written at the time of writing or post publication. Statements of intention sometimes don't or can't outweigh the evidence of the story. The loss/disappearance of Gandalf the Grey at Moria is one of the most unexpected and heart rending situations, for readers as well as for the rest of the Fellowship. This emotional reading experience is part of the great sense of loss which pervades LotR. Does it really matter that later on Tolkien was in his letters a bit embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead? Isn't the significant fact the loss of the wizard who the others thought was their leader? What does one do when one's leader or mentor is lost? I suppose Anguirel's question has to do with whether the fellowship needs an authority figure to help them find motivation and succour. However, to me, the question remains an aesthetic one: Gandalf the White is less interesting to me than Gandalf the Grey. Whether this reflects my own readerly pecadillos, or Tolkien's writing style and imagination, or something else, I don't think is germane to Anguirel's thread here, which I suspect might relate to the question of how or whether readers feel the need for some kind of providential messenger who can guide men and the hobbits. __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

05-06-2006, 11:19 PM	#7
Legolas A Northern Soul Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Valinor Posts: 1,847	If you're looking to understand the author's intention, the purpose of the event in the book, it certainly can matter. It was originally posed "give me a good reason why Gandalf had to pop up out of the abyss." Whether you care personally what Tolkien thought is not the question. Looking to the author for reasoning is a good way to start. No one is supposing such statements will outweigh the evidence of the story. They supplement the evidence in the story; they bring it into perspective. As noted in the post that provided the quote, Tolkien does not appear to be "embarassed by the credibility of having a character return from the dead," but rather by the way he handled it within the story. __________________ ...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art. Last edited by Legolas; 05-06-2006 at 11:23 PM.