Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Since Saucepan has condignly reminded me that Jackson's trilogy has little if anything to do with Tolkien's book of the same name, I'll respond to the far more interesting off-topic argument on the related Books thread this evening.

What I will say here is that this difference between the book and the films is a fundamental one, and symptomatic of a general failure on the part of the film-makers to portray a profound and significant theme in LR: that virtue and courage alone are not enough. What wins the battle more often than not is faith: the faith, and indeed the hope, to persevere against seemingly impossible odds simply because the only alternative is to give in. We have to understand that Tolkien's universe contains an omnipotent deity, who can and does sometimes reward such faith with divine assistance. Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other; balancing the nobility of holding firmly to the right cause just because it is right, even if it is guaranteed to fail, against the idea that we are servants of a higher power, who rewards good service with aid. The reason why good characters seem able to defeat far more powerful evil ones is that they have divine assistance, through wyrd or Providence. "God's forethought", as Alfred the Great called it. Tom Shippey goes through this argument in much more detail in The Road to Middle-earth.

To reduce Tolkien's book to conflict on a physical plain is to misapprehend its nature entirely, and worse: to reduce it to a tired Hollywood cliché that little people with pure hearts can overturn mighty empires. Tolkien wasn't saying that the weak can defeat the strong: he was saying that with God's help the righteous can (not will) defeat the wicked, if they strive to the utmost limits of their endurance and skill without despair or pride. In other words: God helps those as help themselves. This is why Tolkien made the forces of darkness so overwhelmingly strong; this is why he introduced the word 'heathen' into Denethor's ranting as he reached the limits of despair (another botched scene). The odds have to be overwhelming if his composite theory of courage is to have full play. He wasn't using a story to proselytise as Lewis did, but simply taking for granted a theistic world view and incorporating into it the starkest and most unflinching form of valour. It's not a view that many people would have understood even in Tolkien's day, but nowadays it seems to be missed entirely, and from such a misapprehension stems the belief that because Merry can incapacitate the Chief Ringwraith, by the same token the Witch-King can defeat Gandalf. Sauron may be awesome, but he is to Eru as Fredegar Bolger is to him. He just can't offer the same kind of support to his followers.

Either it went over Peter Jackson's head or he was in some way persuaded to abandon it in favour of more conventional film motifs. Perhaps this was inevitable given the way in which films are funded and the expectations of profitability that are placed on them; but it's also why the films are on a lower plain of art than Tolkien's books; why the books are more original, more satisfying and ultimately more enjoyable. Tolkien wasn't trying to appeal to a mass audience (although significantly he does) or please financial backers, but to please himself; and so his work has an integrity in its bold risk-taking that is lacked by interpretations produced by committee with an eye always on cost, turnover and public reception. Obvious theistic themes don't play well in the world of business, and in any case subtlety isn't what blockbusters are about: so when I think about a duel between Gandalf and the Witch-king, I'd rather consider Tolkien's complexities and subtleties than Jackson's more predictable and orthodox Hollywood approach. No doubt in a duel between his characters you'd have Witch-king and Gandalf fight each other for half an hour, with each alternately getting the upper hand; then just as W-K was about to deliver the coup de grâce, Gandalf would suddenly find a hidden reserve of strength, his questing hand would find the handle of a discarded sword and he'd gut his enemy with a perfectly timed upstroke and a wry quip. That's the Hollywood way, but my point about the films has always been that it wasn't Tolkien's.

[Raynor]

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other

LotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.

To reduce Tolkien's book to conflict on a physical plain is to misapprehend its nature entirely, and worse: to reduce it to a tired Hollywood cliché that little people with pure hearts can overturn mighty empires.

The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms. I don't know how else to refute it. I don't know if it was already a cliche during his time, but he certainly didn't give a damn.

Tolkien wasn't saying that the weak can defeat the strong: he was saying that with God's help the righteous can (not will) defeat the wicked

Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

As it happens, I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow, so I'll address some questions that have been raised here and let the rest slide. I don't propose to get bogged down in a long-running debate here. I suggest that any responses to this should go to PM or a thread in Books.

Originally Posted by me

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other

Originally Posted by Raynor

LotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT. It should always be borne in mind that this is just one word applied (either disparagingly, neutrally or positively, whichever expert seems most convincing) to one character (Byrhtnoth of Essex) in a single poem (The Battle of Maldon). The Northern heroic spirit is something far greater.

...that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere , incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.

Letters #45. p.56.

The words of Beorhtwald [in Maldon] have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will... Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put into the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards only loyalty upwards. Personal pride was therefore in him at its lowest, and love and loyalty at their highest.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth. Section III: ofermod.

The Northern heroic spirit is about facing impossible odds simply for the cold comfort of having done the right thing. In order to achieve its full power this spirit must be faced with a situation entirely without hope, either in this world or the next; such as that of the Norse mythology, in which good and order are destined to be destroyed by evil and chaos. The philosophy against which Tolkien was attempting to balance this spirit was one which has at its centre the idea of an omnipotent deity, whose ultimate triumph over evil is assured, and who is capable of moving events invisibly, with millennia of foresight, to grant victory to the faithful. Tolkien solves the paradox by keeping the deity, but making Providence play a part only when hopeless situations are about to reach their inevitable conclusions.

Originally Posted by Raynor

The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms

No it doesn't. Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great. They say that sometimes the actions of the small and unconsidered can have dramatic results in world events. They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies, even tear down mighty empires. When the fate of the world rests on whether one good character shows mercy to one debased character, or who happens to find a ring in a tunnel, the small can make a difference. Bilbo's discovery of the ring has a devastating effect on the councils of the Wise, but that doesn't mean that he can waltz into Mordor and fight Sauron. Frodo's mercy to Gollum makes the difference between victory and defeat for the whole of Middle-earth, but that doesn't mean that he could have faced down the Nazgûl on his own. There are many apparent coincidences in the chain of events that lead to Sauron's downfall, but very early on Gandalf comes close to mentioning divine will.

Behind [Bilbo's discovery of the Ring] was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were meant to have it.

The Shadow of the Past

Originally Posted by Raynor

Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat. Dover Castle can be demolished - reduced completely to rubble. It is therefore not invincible, but I can't destroy it with my bare hands or on my own. If this were true then Fingolfin would have been choosing a good spot for Morgoth's iron crown in his trophy cabinet before Eärendil had even been born.

Essex: I can't say that I share all of your responses, but I'm attached enough to the book to spend hours discussing it. Suffice it to say that in my understanding of LR grace must be earned, and requires as great an act of heroism as any victory it might grant.

I'm sorry to have kept this thread so far off topic. In order to avoid continuing to do so, I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM. I shan't be responding in this thread again.

[Raynor]

I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow
...
I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM.

I am a bit confused by these two statements.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT

Since Rico Abrahamsen states that some critics did see ofermod as "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", I will take your bolded statement with a grain of salt.

Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great.
...
They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies

Aren't you contradicting yourself concerning this 'policies' issue? Anyway, Tolkien also said that the 'wheels of the world are often turned by the seemingly unknown and the weak; Elrond says that the hobbits will shake the towers and councils of the wise. I believe that the only true disagreement between us is that it seems you consider all (great) victories of the weak to be, ultimately, atributed solely to Providence. If this is indeed what Tolkien envisioned, I don't like this puppet show. A help here, or a help there, a nudge to Gollum, a whisper in the ears of Sam, that is ok. But the weak do have their crown and Frodo rightfully receives all honors.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat.

But this is a strawman of my argument.

The entire debate can be beautifully summed up by Wikipedia as follows:-

During the siege of Minas Tirith, as Gandalf races to the upper levels of the city on Shadowfax, he unexpectedly runs into the Witch-king on his fell beast. In a duel of "wills", the Nazgûl prevails and shatters Gandalf's staff, knocking the wizard off his horse. As the Witch-king raises his burning sword, he hears the army of Rohan approach the besieged city. The scene is only in the extended version of the film.

Some fans of Tolkien's books have criticized Jackson's take on the confrontation scene which they felt showed the Witch-King as the likely prevailing victor. They assert that it unlikely that the Witch-king — in reality a corrupted, undead human — could be more powerful than Gandalf, who has ancient, divine origins, and is an incarnate angelic being called a Maia, as are Sauron and Saruman. This is only hinted at in The Lord of the Rings. However, Gandalf and the other Istari, when sent to Middle-Earth from the Uttermost West to oppose Sauron, were stripped of much of their original powers, as they were intended to use persuasion and wisdom instead of fear and force. Nonetheless, Gandalf did manage to defeat Durin's Bane, considering that Balrogs are also Maia, and supplanted Saruman as the head of the Istari.


The Lord of the Rings is quite clear that the Witch-king "wields great powers". Notably, the Witch-king is responsible for the breaking of the mighty gate of Minas Tirith (as Grond the battering ram was unsuccessful until his intervention). However, Gandalf has recovered much of his past strength in his latest incarnation, as Gandalf the White. The book also hints that the other eight Nazgûl are aware that "their Captain" would come forth to "challenge the white light of their foe", and indeed, he does aggressively confront Gandalf at the broken gates of Minas Tirith; though they do not get the chance to clash as the Rohirrim arrive. Before that happens, Denethor taunts Gandalf by asking him if he is overmatched by the Witch-king, and the Wizard says, "It might be so. But our trial of strength is not yet come."

However, other references in the book tend to hint that Gandalf would have been the victor of the aborted battle. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf battled all nine Ringwraiths simultaneously at the Tower of Amon Sûl at Weathertop hill, before Frodo arrived there and the battle ended in a stalemate, even with Gandalf being heavily outnumbered. In The Two Towers Gandalf the White claims that he is "...very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord." Aragorn also says, "The Dark Lord has Nine: But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him." Finally, in The Return of the King Gandalf later says that he could have defeated the Witch-king if he had not had to save Faramir from Denethor's madness.

Other fans say that Jackson's take on the confrontation was done to heighten the drama of Éowyn and Merry's victory over the Witch-king, and not to show whether Gandalf or the Witch-king was more powerful over the other. Of course, since the films do not go into his backstory and some lines from the book have been omitted, Jackson's Gandalf may not be latently powerful as the divine being of Tolkien's books.

Had people read this from Wikipedia then a lot of hassle would have been saved. Nonetheless an interesting topic! All the same, it amazes me that some posters have never been convinced that Gandalf the White was on paper much more powerful than the Witch King with added demonic force.

[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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

WThe 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.

I indulge just to keep me from doing actual work.

[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.