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

[Bêthberry]

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]

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

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.

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?

The intriguing thing is Tolkien's decision to have Gandalf return from the dead. The quotes I gave from HoM-e show there was never any point at which Tolkien considered Gandalf was going to be removed permanently from the story due to the events in Moria. The original intent was that he would seem to the others to have died but actually not (the fall wasn't as far as they believed, he landed on top of the Balrog, etc) & we can speculate that that was his intention even after publication (as Hammond/Scull point out the first three printings of LotR lack any mention on Gandalf's part of his having 'passed through death'. None of this denies any of Bb's points re the subjective effect Gandalf's apparent death has on the other members of the Company.

So, at some point Tolkien decides that 'No, he did really die'. Why? Well, clearly Gandalf had to be 'different' after his return because by that time the 'tale had grown in the telling'. When Gandalf originally fell in Moria Aragorn was still a Hobbit called Trotter with wooden shoes, by the time he reappeared things had gotten much bigger, darker & more significant: we've moved from the fairy story world of The New Hobbit into the mythic world of The Sil. In that world you don't get to finish off a Balrog by landing on top of it & then walking away (in fact it wasn't even intended that Gandalf should face a Balrog there, it was either Saruman or a Black Rider).

Gandalf returns 'different' but he doesn't actually return 'resurrected' (because he didn't die) for a very long time. Of course its possible that the 'knowledge' that Gandalf had 'really died' was in Tolkien's mind before hand but that he didn't realise it till later (when he writes to Father Murray that 'Gandalf should have said to Wormtongue that he 'had passed through death'), & Hammond & Scull point out the similarity of Gandalf's appearance to the Three Hunters to the appearance of the resurrected Christ to his disciples on the road to Emmaus - in both cases the 'followers' do not recognise their leader till he chooses to reveal himself to them.

Another possibility, of course, is that Tolkien was originally unsure whether to state clearly that Gandalf had died & been resurrected - maybe he felt it was a bit too close to the Christian story & didn't want to be accused of belittling Christ's resurrection.

However, all that is merely speculation. The point, in the context of this thread, is that Gandalf was always intended to be around in one form or another, the only issue for Tolkien seems to have been whether he 'died' in the middle or not.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legolas

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.

Well, Legolas does not directly name me personally, but I'll address his comments anyway as an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding that has popped up other places.

It is not that I 'don't care personally' what Tolkien thought. It is that I prefer to have authors' statements about their intentions carefully weighed against the stories they write and carefully examined in terms of when the statement was written vis a vis when the art was written, what the context is of the statement, who the recipient is of the statement. Sometimes author can misremember things, even their own work. Sometimes only years later can an author see--or be able to create--a logical framework or explanation for the artistic process. And sometimes authors as much as readers read back into their work things that weren't necessarily uppermost in their mind or even deep in the depths of their creative cauldron. This latter point seems to be the one most clearly related to some of the changes made to TH.

In short, any author's claim of intention is not an indisputable fact but a written document which needs to be thoughtfully considered before its applicability can be accepted. It isn't automatic, like a fingerprint in a court of law or forensics, even with an author such as Tolkien. And perhaps Tolkien even more than other authors, since he was such a niggler and since his stories were consciously changed in the revision.

So really what I am suggesting is the kind of analysis of writing process which davem has offerred here, something which gives us greater insight into how the story came to be in its final form. Where was that statement from Tolkien that he wanted to avoid a Fall in the Legendarium in order to avoid the appearance of parody? Maybe it was only after Tolkien saw some of the reactions of his readers that he came to understand how he wanted Gandalf's return to appear. 'Intention' is a long process.

[davem]

One thing that occurs to me - accepting that Tolkien never intended to remove Gandalf from play for the whole game - is that its probably the point at which Tolkien 'realises' Gandalf is a Maiar that he feels able to think about killing him off. Not that he seems to go the whole hog even then, but it certainly only becomes possible (imo) at that point. If Gandalf is simply a 'Wizard/Magician' as he appears in TH (ie an old MAN who can do magic as opposed to a supernatural being) then he cannot die & come back to life as that would be bordering on blasphemy from a Christian perspective.

Once Gandalf becomes Olorin the Maiar that all changes. Gandalf could die & be sent back to complete his divinely ordained mission, as his return is simply continuing that mission. So the death/resurrection of Gandalf becomes possible without being 'offensive'. The event becomes both more 'spectacular' (he really dies rather than just falling down a hole), & yet doesn't challenge the Christian claim for the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection, as Gandalf even after his return is still 'an incarnate Angel' (which is what he already was anyway). Imagine if Boromir had been brought back to life - how would Christians react to that?

I'm not sure this 'clicked' with Tolkien immediately - certainly he seems to have avoided stating (or having Gandalf state) that he had really died until after the book was in print. Yet it seems that it was important enough for him to get the publishers to change the words of Gandalf for the fourth & subsequent print runs. It is the very death/resurrection of Gandalf that makes him stand out as unique. We see that he is not simply a human magician the moment he reappears to the Three Hunters - up to then he actually is, in our minds, 'an old man in a battered hat, who leans upon a thorny staff'. After his return we know he is something more (but se still have not had it confirmed from the horse's mouth that he had really 'died'. It is only his words to Grima which confirm that.

Yet in the letter to Murray referring to Gandalf's death Tolkien puts the words 'died' & 'death' in quotes, making the point that Gandalf is not a Man or a Hobbit, so one could ask 'Even if he really 'died', did he actually Die? Well, certainly he didn't die in the sense that a Man (or a Hobbit) would die (& pass beyond the Circles of the World forever). He was a Maiar & 'died' in a very specific way, because Maiar, like Valar & Elves, are bound within the Circles off the World till the End. Hence, while he may 'really die' he doesn't actually Die.

EDIT

Now, I may have to eat humble pie here, because from the first printing Gandalf does tell Saruman that he is 'Gandalf the White who has returned from death'. But Tolkien is very specific in the Murray letter that Gandalf should have said to Wormtongue that he had 'passed through death'. The difference may seem a subtle one, certainly, & may mean nothing. However his words to Saruman could mean & certainly could be read as saying he had returned 'from death's door', from the verge of death. It is only his amended words to Wormtongue that he has passed through death that can only be taken to imply some form of 'resurrection' in a new form.

However you read it, I think the main point of this post still stands - that only after Tolkien has 'realised' that Gandalf is a Maiar can he really die & come back. If his words to Saruman were enough to make the point, why change his words to Wormtongue? We're still left with the question whether Tolkien decided after the event to clear up any possible misunderstandings. He clearly wanted his readers to be in no doubt that Gandalf had indeed died & returned (or been sent back) from death.

Anyway...

[Rhod the Red]

Yes, anyway!

[Goldberry101]

I think I preferred Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. It would have been kind of sad, but what I think is sadder is the way Gandalf changed. After he "died", or whatever happened he loses all that attract you to Gandalf in the first place. Mostly his mysteriousness. When he is Gandalf the White, he's so up front and open (or more so than Gandalf the Grey), but I'd almost prefer him to have died, because I think it would have forced Aragorn and others to learn to fend for themselves more, and to be stronger leaders, then they become when he comes back as Gandalf the White. (sorry I kept switching my train of thought)

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Goldberry101

I think I preferred Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White. It would have been kind of sad, but what I think is sadder is the way Gandalf changed. After he "died", or whatever happened he loses all that attract you to Gandalf in the first place. Mostly his mysteriousness. When he is Gandalf the White, he's so up front and open (or more so than Gandalf the Grey)

I don't think it is necessarily a result of the change from Grey to White. I think it's largely situational - at the point in the plot that Gandalf the White appears, everything is looking much worse for the good side. Time is running outThe Fellowship has split. Frodo and Sam are alone on the outskirts of Mordor; Merry and Pippin are in the hands of Saruman's orcs. Rohan is being attacked, providing a distraction from the goal of Ring destruction that must be dealt with nonetheless.

After the Sauron conflict is settled, we see glimpses of Gandalf the Grey's familiar personality, though those scenes are shorter now as Tolkien still had a story to finish.