Gandalf, blood of hobbits on his hands?

[The Might]

I think the whole problem here is that people are talking about this way too superficially and from a distance, as readers. I mean of course you can do that, who cares how many Hobbits died, they don't even exist! Oh, but they do, at least in our minds, so let's try for just one second to really picture this happening.

A grand total of 19? Here is a little question for you, Morthoron and all others supporting this view - would you, if needed, sacrifice 19 of the people you know, cherish and respect for the sake of common good?
If the answer is yes, than we seem to have very different views on this. If it is no, than it would mean to me at least that you should condemn Gandalf to a certain degree for not coming along to the Shire, but sitting down and enjoying a talk with Tom Bombadil.

Now, you say that this was no longer Gandalf's business, not his errand. But firstly, should we believe that all the goods that he had done previously were only done intentionatly in order to just stop Sauron? Would he not have acted in that way had it not served his purpose? I believe that as an innate good being Gandalf would have and should have helped others, no matter what his errand was. It's not like after the Ring was destroyed he should say, "I'm done here, bye!". Not very much his character.

Furthermore, I agree that the Hobbits had to grow to a new level, to be able to stand alone for themselves, if you read the post I made previously I do not believe I question that anywhere. The thing is, do you always need blood to flow in order to learn your lesson or to change something for the better?

Is there no other path that Gandalf could have lead the Hobbits on? I would like to believe there was a more peaceful way to solve the situation with the ruffians, some kind of passive resistance or maybe simply Gandalf as a charismatic leader showing the ruffians there was more to life than just ruling over others.

Accuse me of idealism if you wish to, but in a world plagued by wars with children, not men, children enrolled by both factions dying for "great ideals", no matter what these ideals are depending on the faction, I'd rather sit down and consider some alternatives, lest we destroy ourselves as a result of the pursuit of such ideals.

[Bêthberry]

So I suppose people are disagreeing with Tolkien's decision as the author to depict the Scouring of the Shire in the way he did. What does it mean, after all, to criticise Gandalf for not stopping ole Sharkey? Is this an attempt to find a logical error in Tolkien's Legendarium? Or is this one of those hypotheticals?

After all, Gandalf is a character who acts as his author wants him to act. Are people here saying that Tolkien made a mistake in not having his wizard hero step in? That Tolkien was cruel in sacrificing 19 hobbits?

[The Might]

Ah good point, Bethberry. And yes, I would even take it as far as that and consider that Tolkien's methods should be considered somewaht outdated.

For him it seemed perhaps normal that Gandalf should act that way, that the Hobbits should fight for their rights, after all he was a war veteran and knew what it meant to sacrifice lives in battle.

So I now realise that this brings the discussion to a different level, debating whether Tolkien himself should be seen as guilty for promovating jingoistic and aggressive tendencies as opposed to more peaceful means.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

So I now realise that this brings the discussion to a different level, debating whether Tolkien himself should be seen as guilty for promovating jingoistic and aggressive tendencies as opposed to more peaceful means.

Are you saying that the War of the Ring and the Scouring of the Shire had reasonable chances of being resolved peacefully?

[The Might]

Yes.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by The Might

Yes.

The only "peaceful" end to the War of the Ring would have seen the West surrendering to Sauron at the start.
Likewise, diplomacy was not an option when dealing with the Ruffians. The Mayor of the Shire tried going to Bag End for a "peaceful" protest and got locked in prison for it.
Elderly Lobelia Sackville-Baggins attacked one of them with an umbrella and suffered the same fate.
If you're trying to say Gandalf could have organized some sort of passive resistance or diplomatic solution, my answer is that the Hobbits would have been just as capable of bringing that about, if it could be done at all. And it couldn't.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by The Might

Yes.

Okay, I give. How, exactly could the Ring War have been resolved peacefully- dialogue and diplomacy with (ahem) Sauron? Sauron already proved, several times, that blockading doesn't work against him. He just waits a few generations for the mortals to die out and change their policies, if not subverting them outright.

I'm curious to hear your solution.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

A good deal of this debate also can reflect upon the notion of the moral/ethical obligations of a soldier who follows the orders of his superior, no matter how repugnant he may personally feel about them. That is a matter that has been debated for a very, very long time, with no certain "correct" conclusion. Gandalf is not entirely a free agent. He is, as he himself has stated, a steward -- a person who wields some degree of authority, but under the commands of, and answerable to, superior "officers." In saying that it is "no longer his job" to fight for others or solve their problems for them, he might very well be trying to say that he is not allowed to do these things, now that his primary mission is completed. Although this does not seem to be in Gandalf's character, to me, it seems to be in character with the Valar, who fear that "unnecessary" involvement and interference with the lives and free will of the Children will have disastrous ends. It may well be that Gandalf went to visit Tom Bombadil because it was one place so detached from the events happening in the rest of Middle-earth, he might find refuge there from the heartache he surely felt over being commanded to keep out of the doings in the Shire. If he were free to choose, I do think he would have wanted to go to the aid of the Hobbits, but I cannot help but feel that he did not truly have that freedom, at this point.

Well, it's another thought.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by The Might

A grand total of 19? Here is a little question for you, Morthoron and all others supporting this view - would you, if needed, sacrifice 19 of the people you know, cherish and respect for the sake of common good?
If the answer is yes, than we seem to have very different views on this. If it is no, than it would mean to me at least that you should condemn Gandalf to a certain degree for not coming along to the Shire, but sitting down and enjoying a talk with Tom Bombadil.

So, you're saying you would not fight and die to protect your homeland, wherever it is? You know, the one you so prominently denote in your signature line:

~Honour - Freedom - Fatherland ~
< 1815 >

Not knowing your specific homeland, I will assume that your sig line denotes the German Confederation that fought against Napoleon. Were those thousands upon thousands that fought and died for freedom in the Napoleonic Wars merely wasted lives? Shouldn't they have just settled for the yoke of Napoleon's empire?

You are saying one thing, but proudly display a symbol of freedom fighters. Do you not see a contradiction?

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, you say that this was no longer Gandalf's business, not his errand. But firstly, should we believe that all the goods that he had done previously were only done intentionatly in order to just stop Sauron? Would he not have acted in that way had it not served his purpose? I believe that as an innate good being Gandalf would have and should have helped others, no matter what his errand was. It's not like after the Ring was destroyed he should say, "I'm done here, bye!". Not very much his character.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that Gandalf knew the extent of the troubles in the Shire.

2. There is no evidence that Gandalf was aware that Saruman was in the Shire.

3. There is a great bit of supporting detail indicating Gandalf found the Hobbits extraordinary, and more than capable of handling their own problems.

4. Gandalf's mission was to bring the Free Peoples together to destroy Sauron. This was why he was sent by the Valar (and he was ordered by the Valar, going only very reluctantly). Once his mission was completed and the King was crowned in Gondor, he inferred he was going on a vacation to speak at length with Bombadil. His job was indeed done, and he felt that the comrades he left behind (Aragorn and the Hobbits), great heroes and wise folk, did not need him any longer. Again, he was no longer necessary in the 4th Age - the Age of Man. This is why he left with Galadriel and Elrond. There time was finished as well.

Originally Posted by The Might

Furthermore, I agree that the Hobbits had to grow to a new level, to be able to stand alone for themselves, if you read the post I made previously I do not believe I question that anywhere. The thing is, do you always need blood to flow in order to learn your lesson or to change something for the better?

Is there no other path that Gandalf could have lead the Hobbits on? I would like to believe there was a more peaceful way to solve the situation with the ruffians, some kind of passive resistance or maybe simply Gandalf as a charismatic leader showing the ruffians there was more to life than just ruling over others.

Gandalf had nothing further to do with the Shire, or Gondor, or Rohan. He retired. People are allowed to retire (and I would suggest that dying while fighting a Balrog would be reason enough to retire). But his unshakeable faith in the Hobbits, which he had held steadfastly throughout the Trilogy, was proved correct as usual. Passive resistance? That is a 20th century movement that has nothing to do with medieval or dark age belief systems. The idea is so anachronistic as to be ludicrous. Gandalf did not ever preach passive resistance. It was not in his nature, and that would not be the message he imparted to the Hobbits, who took an active approach to defeat evil.

Originally Posted by The Might

Accuse me of idealism if you wish to, but in a world plagued by wars with children, not men, children enrolled by both factions dying for "great ideals", no matter what these ideals are depending on the faction, I'd rather sit down and consider some alternatives, lest we destroy ourselves as a result of the pursuit of such ideals.

Passive resistance only works in places where those in control have a conscience, and where there is a free press. Gandhi and Martin Luther King worked through the media on the collective consciences of their countries to foment change. This type of protest would not and did not work in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia because the media was completely controlled by the party in control and dissent meant death (and millions upon millions died without report from the press). Saruman had no conscience. The ruffians were sadistic and avaricious. Your idealism would have no precedent, and would result in the deaths of Hobbits in any case. So you certainly have more dead hobbits than 19 playing it your way.

And your rather skewed view that the War of the Ring could have been settled peacefully is unworkable. Sauron was an immortal evil, not someone to be reasoned with. We all saw what happened when Neville Chamberlain gave us 'Peace in our time' by treating with Hitler. It merely allowed Hitler the ability to conquer countries without the need for troops to fight patriots. So it would be with Sauron.

[Selmo]

Gandalf certainly knew that there were problems in The Shire for the four Hobbits to sort out but we can only speculate on how much he knew.

Would his presence during the Scouring have made much difference? A fight with Saruman's men was inevitable. I can see Gandalf drawing his sword to protect any hobbits who happened to be within his reach but not to lead an attack; that was not his way.

As for confronting Saruman, I believe that Gandalf had gone to the limit of his powers when, at Orthanc, Saruman was humiliated, cast from the Order and had his staff broken. Gandalf could do no more.
Merry and Pippin had been exposed to Saruman's only remaining weapon, his Voice. They had seen him crawl. They could not be awed by him.

Gandalf was right to leave things to the hobbits, The only difference his interference would have made would have been to make the hobbits believe that they would always have to rely on Outsiders to solve their problems.
.

[Gordis]

What was the difference of the situation in the Shire in 3019 from hundreds of similar situations before? - there was none.

For instance, it was quite plain since TA 1050 that the force that occupied Dol Guldur was no good one. From 2060 the Istari believed it was one of the nazgul living there. So, why couldn't they gather all their Maiar band and go finish the bad Necromancer, while he was still weak?

It was also plain since at least 1409 that the King of Angmar was an evil fellow and his removal would be quite beneficial for Arnor, Rivendell and all ME. So- why couldn't the Istari seek him out and vanquish by superior magic?

Same with Castamir. Kill the guy in time and lots of lives would have been saved. Yet not a single attempt at that was made by Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman. They were prohibited to display their Power and openly fight against their foes.

Instead, they had to encourage Elves and Men to unite and oppose evil. I don't think it had ever been easy for Gandalf to send those dear to him forth, often to certain death, while remaining behind the scenes, secure in his Power. Yet it was his doom. The Valar sent him to be the Steward, but neither the King, nor the wet-nurse of the ME peoples. Men, Elves and Hobbits had to take care of their problems themselves.