''Three cheers for Captain Frodo, Lord of the Ring''

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Sauron doesn't need to send an army, nor Isengard. Physical safety is not the issue when the biggest danger is that of corruption from within. As we see later in RotK ("The Pyre of Denethor"):



Now or later, that trait of Sauron, the Base Deceiver, remains. The Ring is in Rivendell, as the palantir is in Minas Tirith, a more potent device of the Enemy, potentially able to spark dissent and confusion even more surely than the palantir. To the unwary and prideful, the Ring is, I believe, always a clear and present danger, no matter the location. Galadriel's temptation and moment of crisis came, after all, in the very heart of her own realm. It was no protection from the lure of the Ring; it was her personal strength, gained from thousands of years of experience which provided that. When it came to allowing Merry and Pippin to be part of the Company, Gandalf himself admitted that he did not see the path ahead clearly, and yet felt moved to think it wiser to trust to their friendship rather than to wisdom. As we know, that presentiment turned out to be a good one, since even Pippin's foolish acts eventually led to some key events in the outcome of the war. But for his dropping of the stone in Moria, Gandalf might not have faced and defeated the Balrog, died, and returned in a more powerful form. But for Pippin stealing the palantir to have a look at it, Aragorn might not have reclaimed it at a point when his act made Sauron fear that he had the Ring, and thus pushed him to begin his war too soon. Gandalf's impatience with foolishness is his own character flaw, and one that I believe makes him more believable, more "human." If he never made mistakes, never had doubts, never said things he later regretted, he would be too perfect, and thus, I think, not as interesting.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions and interpretations, of course, and on some things, I believe it is wiser to simply agree to disagree.

If Gandalf was so worried about Ring corruption over Pippin's comments, he may as well have sent the Ring into the Great Sea, where no hand would be able to use the Ring for thousands of years. Reading too much into small details can lead to gross exageration of a situation that is relatively low key. In any event, Gandalf answered to Elrond, and not the other way round. What can and cannot be said in his own house is his choice alone, the Master of Rivendell.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Mansun

If Gandalf was so worried about Ring corruption over Pippin's comments, he may as well have sent the Ring into the Great Sea, where no hand would be able to use the Ring for thousands of years.

That would have been the very definition of foolishness. Just as it was lost for centuries on the river bottom of the Anduin, by the Gladden Fields, it would lie at the bottom of the sea and would have eventually have been found. The Ring has a will of it's own, it's not a dead artifact!

Originally Posted by Mansun

Reading too much into small details can lead to gross exageration of a situation that is relatively low key. In any event, Gandalf answered to Elrond, and not the other way round. What can and cannot be said in his own house is his choice alone, the Master of Rivendell.

However, they respected each others opinions. Just as Elrond scolded Gandalf for speaking of the inscription on the Ring during the council, so did Gandalf gently scold Pippin for making too light a matter over the greatest evil in Arda. It isn't a matter of allowing people to have fun or not, as you see right after Gandalf finishes speaking Pippin responds, I think quite merrily, and Gandalf didn't stop the feast in Frodo's honor just because Pippin said something that he knew nothing about.

I think that it's safe to say that you are looking at this thing a little seriously, Mansun, and you're beginning to interpret things that were never intentioned to be there.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

That would have been the very definition of foolishness.

Sarcasm was the intention here, not a valid suggestion on Gandalf's part. In any case, sending the Ring into the Great Sea would have been one of the better options.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Sarcasm was the intention here, not a valid suggestion on Gandalf's part. In any case, sending the Ring into the Great Sea would have been one of the better options.

Throwing the One Ring into the Sea of Belegaer would be as daft as giving it back to Gollum and hope he could hide it another century or two. The Ring was in the hands of the Free Folk (a million to one shot as it was) and it had to be destroyed, not left to chance. Had the Ring not been destroyed when it was, then Sauron would have won by default, as he had more than ample forces to win without the Ring. Gondor and Rohan would have been destroyed, and Lothlorien and Rivendell would have eventually fallen as well. Sauron then could look for the Ring without any interference (and being immortal, he had plenty of time).

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf: Hush! Evil things do not come into this valley, but all the same we should not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world! We are sitting in a fortress. Outside it is getting dark.


What exactly was Gandalf afraid of here? Did he believe the Great Eye could reach Rivendell? Was he or others that dwelt there afraid to hear the same of Sauron? Or was Gandalf just self-centred all the time, thinking he governs everyone else's lives?

The Hobbits really had no reckoning about the true power of Sauron. Gandalf, as both a leader and father-figure to the young hobbits, had every right to put Pippin in his place.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Did Gandalf not make light-hearted comments of the gentle treatment given by Sauron to prisoners in the Dark Tower in The White Rider?

"But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower."

You are taking the above quote completely out of context, or perhaps you are merely misreading the intent. There is nothing light-hearted about it, nor sarcastic; in fact, there is nothing but grave concern.

Originally Posted by Mansun

To me Gandalf did not want anyone to celebrate anything until the Ring was destroyed and Mordor overthrown permanently. He may have feared Sauron at all times, but in the comfort of Rivendell, where elves freely be merry and sing songs (sometimes overly merry ones), why did Gandalf overreact?

They were resting before a journey that might have taken all their lives. This was not some trivial comedic romp, and so boo-hoo the poor hobbits were prevented from making ignorant jests. There was no 'overreacting'. Gandalf was cautious, and well he should be; for who among those present had been in the pits of Dol Guldur? Who had seen Mordor up close? Who had studied the very nature of the Ring? None but Elrond had any such vast experience, and he too grew grave when Gandalf recited the Ring poem in Black Speech. You didn't see much slapstick from Elrond, did you?

Originally Posted by Mansun

All posters think, and the thoughts behind their thinking differ according to their own interpretation of the problem. It was slightly hypocritical of Gandalf, to my mind, since his intitial logic suggested no humour whatsoever is allowed linking with that of the Dark Tower.

Again, where exactly is this a laughing matter? The Fellowship was, for all intents and purposes, a potential suicide squad, and Gandalf knew it. The hobbits did not understand this (in fact, I'm not sure Merry and Pippin actually 'got it' until after Gandalf died).

Originally Posted by Mansun

Gandalf was not the lord of Rivendell, after all! Elrond was the master here. Would he have objected like this?

Elrond DID object when Gandalf spoke in Black Speech. If there was no reason for concern, why then would Elrond object? The Ring had been found, the Nazgul had been sent to retrieve it, and the Ringbearer was escaping to Rivendell. Rivendell may have been safe for the moment, but Elrond made it clear that the Ring could not stay there.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Do you think, in great anger, Gandalf could ever have lost control and beat the Hobbit?

No, he wouldn't (being a Maia enclosed in a corporeal manifestation, it seems he had some level of heavenly restraint). But given the tenor of your posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe he would.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Throwing the One Ring into the Sea of Belegaer would be as daft as giving it back to Gollum and hope he could hide it another century or two.

Did you not understand, Morthoron? I said that sarcasm was being used on Gandalf's part, although throwing the Ring into the Great Sea would have been one of the better options (and NOT the best option).

Originally Posted by Morthoron

No, he wouldn't (being a Maia enclosed in a corporeal manifestation, it seems he had some level of heavenly restraint). But given the tenor of your posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe he would.

Do you forget Farmer Maggot here? He had beaten Frodo before, in the wrong side of fury. Didn't Gandalf nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger? In any case, commenting on posters directly is forbidden and can lead to a ban, Morthoron.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

EDIT: Look, if you use quotes to support your argument, it's best to explain why they support it. What is self-evident to you may seem like a complete non sequitur to someone else.

I don't think telling other posters what to do is the correct approach. There is meant to be active discussion here, not a heated argument.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Now, that's Pippin's reply to the quote from Gandalf that started this thread. It has nothing to do with the other quote from The White Rider. Yet your placement of it suggests that it's meant to be an answer to my question.

The point here was that Gandalf often said grumpy things in Rivendell to dampen the spirits of the Hobbits. An error on my part (see edit above).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I don't think telling other posters what to do is the correct approach. There is meant to be active discussion here, not a heated argument.

Who's having a heated argument? Mansun, it is very hard to have a discussion if you don't understand what the other party is getting at. I am not "telling you what to do", I'm suggesting you make your points a bit more clearly. All right?

On that note– what in the quote

"But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower."

indicates light-hearted humour? This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know.

Also–

Originally Posted by Mansun

Do you forget Farmer Maggot here? He had beaten Frodo before, in the wrong side of fury. Didn't Gandalf nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger?

Again, I'm at loss to know what possible bearing Farmer Maggot has on anything.

And Gandalf did not "nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger". He threatened him with fire, to get him to talk. Not nice, I agree– but not the same thing.

Here's the quote (from The Shadow of the Past):

"I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling."

Originally Posted by Nerwen

On that note– what in the quote indicates light-hearted humour? This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know.

It is grim reading, yet with a touch of hollow humour.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Who's having a heated argument? Mansun, it is very hard to have a discussion if you don't understand what the other party is getting at. I am not "telling you what to do", I'm suggesting you make your points a bit more clearly. All right?

On that note– what in the quote



indicates light-hearted humour? This is a genuine question. I really, really want to know.

Also–



Again, I'm at loss to know what possible bearing Farmer Maggot has on anything.

And Gandalf did not "nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger". He threatened him with fire, to get him to talk. Not nice, I agree– but not the same thing.

Here's the quote (from The Shadow of the Past):

Gollum would not have understood the real intentions of Gandalf, and drawing a brand of fire at him would have been for real. In his eyes, Gollum was nearly consumed with fire.

Farmer Maggot and Gandalf were friends, that's as far as the connection goes in relation to Frodo. Gandalf must have thought of Maggot a decent enough hobbit if he visited him now and again, as with Bombadil.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As far as bans, I have never been told in over a year of posting here that directly quoting another poster is a bannable offense, particularly since direct quotes seems to be the norm around here these days (and correct in a scholarly and literary sense, considering one should always properly cite a quote). But if that is the case, then ban yourself for doing it, please, or better yet, stick to the discussion, thank you.

blah blah blah

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Did you not understand, Morthoron? I said that sarcasm was being used on Gandalf's part, although throwing the Ring into the Great Sea would have been one of the better options (and NOT the best option).

There is no saracasm evident in the particular quote. Please quote the passage directly and show me where there is sarcasm (as you say, I do not understand). Throwing the Ring in the sea was never an option for Gandalf or Elrond; therefore, it cannot be considered a better option, anymore than giving the Ring to Gollum was an option. The best option, as we all know, was to send Frodo atop an eagle and just plop the Ring in Mt. Doom, and thus Tolkien would write a ten page book.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Do you forget Farmer Maggot here? He had beaten Frodo before, in the wrong side of fury. Didn't Gandalf nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger? In any case, commenting on posters directly is forbidden and can lead to a ban, Morthoron.

Let's see, last time I checked Farmer Maggot was a hobbit, and the analogy has nothing to do with Gandalf, a Maia, in any case. Plus, Frodo was very young at the time, stealing produce. The hobbits at the time of the Lord of the Ring were adults, and it would seem rather kinky if Gandalf were spanking an adult. Perhaps he should have spanked Gimli for being cheeky suggesting they go to Moria.

As far as bans, I have never been told in over a year of posting here that directly quoting another poster is a bannable offense, particularly since direct quotes seems to be the norm around here these days (and correct in a scholarly and literary sense, considering one should always properly cite a quote). But if that is the case, then ban yourself for doing it, please, or better yet, stick to the discussion, thank you.

Originally Posted by Mansun

I don't think telling other posters what to do is the correct approach. There is meant to be active discussion here, not a heated argument.

There is nothing wrong with a heated debate, particularly regarding controversial or unconventional statements (or in this case when a quote is used improperly from a chronological standpoint). It is only when the discussion digresses into namecalling that a debate proves problematic.

Originally Posted by Mansun

The point here was that Gandalf often said grumpy things in Rivendell to dampen the spirits of the Hobbits. An error on my part (see edit above).

How was it an error exactly? The hobbits did not understand the gravity of the situation, and Gandalf, who was to lead them, pointed out in no uncertain terms what they were up against. Many an army has been destroyed by taking their opponent lightly. If you'd like, I can site a few hundred instances.