Gandalf - geat or a joke of a wizard?

[Sarumian]

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Erlond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

Would you agree?

I definitely would!

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

It might also be worth mentioning that among the many books, commentaries and articles I've read about LOTR and M-E it was very convincingly pointed out that Wizards, while having great power, were particularly great against other magical individuals of great power (like the Balrog), and not necessarily so useful in a common fight with slings and stones, whereupon wit and wisdom served better. The capacity to wreak great ruin among his numerous foes was limited to his more "earthbound" skills, such as with gunpowder and fiery pine cones (oh dread!).

This may possibly have had something to do with the limits of his proscribed duties, but even the great among the ancient elves, for example, could only slay people one sword swipe or arrow at a time, even though many Great Lords of Elven kind waxed extremely powerful during their visit to Valinor, overshadowing their own kindred who remained behind. Some appeared to approach Even lesser Maia-like potency and ability. Gandalf was surely as great as any Elf Lord.

The great Girdle of Melian is an example of the kind of power a "good" Maia could wield, and was defensive rather than offensive and destructive, so it's doubtful whether Gandalf, even as Olorin, would, could, or might be inclined to cause his enemies to vanish in a great cloud of smoking ruin, even if he had great need to do so. The "Powers" of Middle Earth appeared to be more that of empowering and dominating, or influencing and convincing, great masses of others to do all of the slaying for them. Otherwise, the "good guys" so respected life and creation that it's probably not even in their realm of thought to overly consider the arts of mass destruction.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Azrakhor

Gandalf The Geat

Ok, ok, this was my first thread, and I didn't bother checking the spelling! Is everyone gonna point out the missing "r" to me until the end of my days?!

/joking.

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

**poke** :d

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Elrond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?

The above is a good in character way of putting it. Out of character, I don't believe all Tolkien's works were intended to be in the same style, written for the same audience, or holding the same themes. Silmarillion and other First Age works are tragedies reminiscent of Wagner, with larger than life flawed characters doomed ill thought out oaths or flaws such as pride. Lord of the Rings is more Christian less Pagan. The Hobbit is a less serious work, more fun.

In a role playing game, I have had to deal with the changing styles in character development in play. The game master wouldn't tell us the year, so I wasn't sure how to play my elven minstrel. Were her songs to be merry nonsense as in The Hobbit when Bilbo passed through Rivendell, or was the mood far more somber and serious as when Frodo arrived years later. As my character was a singer quite knowledgable in the old sagas, she is most reluctant to swear oaths, her worship of the Valar is checked by knowledge of how their stubbornness and anger contributed to much turmoil.

Thus, like many, I was trying to sustain the illusion of a whole bunch of works written about one world with a single consistent history. In the game, once we learned that Mount Doom had recently burst into flame, I decided that the merry care free days at the core of the Third Age were coming to an end, that the elves had begun to see that their time was near its closing. I played Aerlinn's singing as about one third the frivolous style of The Hobbit, two thirds Lord of the Rings. I played her personality and values too as Lord of the Rings rather than Hobbit or Silmarillion.

Perhaps one shouldn't say the books are inconsistent, but that cultures change over long periods of time.

Or, one can suppose that Bilbo and Frodo were just different personalities, and their way of scribing the tale into the Red Book was distinct as the the titles they selected for the book.

At any rate, when setting the style and themes of a role playing game, there are several distinctly different styles available. The game master and players might best decide which one they are trying to work with. I find myself, when discussing the books, remaining aware of changing style and theme as well.

[FlameofAnor]

Like it was mentioned, Gandalf was a Istari Wizard - one of five. He was one of the more powerful beings in existence, sent on divine purpose. In the midst of a Hobbit and a band of Dwarves, though, he is but a wizard - a 'conjurer of cheap tricks,' if I may borrow the saying. No doubt powerful, but to simple folk like Hobbits and Dwarves, not much more than that. To prance around like some deity shooting lightning from his fingers, glowing like an angel would no doubt, for one, make him unapproachable, and two, give away his whereabouts and intentions to the enemy.

Don't forget about Radagast the Brown, too. Tolkien says he was counted in the same class as Gandalf, but, according to the lore, his stayed out of the affairs of Men and Elves, and lived in the forest, going so far as to forsake his purpose.

I think when we think of a 'wizard' nowadays, we think of a powerful conjurer like we see in movies and other fantasy stories. I don't think Tolkien wanted his wizards to be quite so stereotypical, Mickey Mouse in a point hat, type characters. Plus, I like Gandalf's bit of subtly when dealing with minor enemies, like those creatures. It makes his confrontation and power against more sinister forces, like the Balrog, more epic.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by FlameofAnor

I think when we think of a 'wizard' nowadays, we think of a powerful conjurer like we see in movies and other fantasy stories. I don't think Tolkien wanted his wizards to be quite so stereotypical, Mickey Mouse in a point hat, type characters. Plus, I like Gandalf's bit of subtly when dealing with minor enemies, like those creatures. It makes his confrontation and power against more sinister forces, like the Balrog, more epic.

I don't know. Tolkien was a linguist. I might argue that the greater spells are in words and in courage. Mere fireballs are weak in comparison. One of my favorite examples, Eowyn exchanging prophecies with the Witch King...

A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eommond's daughter. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

One doesn't have to be a great wizard to wield words in a decisive way. If one dares to exchange words with a Nazgul, if the Nazgul makes a mistake in his prophecy...

Another example of non-wizardry magic might be oath breaking. The folk who lived along the Paths of the Dead broke an oath, which gave Isildur the power to declare an appropriate curse.

The magic of Middle Earth isn't weak and it isn't necessarily subtle. It's just different. Throwing fire or teleporting might be major physical manifestations of magic, but manipulating fate through words is nothing to sneer at.

[Galadriel55]

Please don't mistake me, I am not, and was never, expecting Gandalf to be a "Harry Potter" wizard. However, in LOTR, he's more... more. In TH he seems slightly to be a comical fool... a bit. He's not as wise, or as powerful, or as strong ("innerly") in TH than in LOTR.

In LOTR Gandalf is afraid for others, but not for his own hide. In TH, it says straightforwardly that Gandalf was afraid for himself. It just...well, messed up my picture of Gandalf.

Moreover, I noticed (more recently) that Gandalf could ot read the runes on Glamdring and Orcrist and had to ask Elrond to translate them. ???

I guess the best explanation for that is that TH and LOTR are just different in style and purpose, and shouldn't really be regrded as one whole.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I guess the best explanation for that is that TH and LOTR are just different in style and purpose, and shouldn't really be regarded as one whole.

I entirely agree. TH started out as a children's book, though it grew a few steps beyond that, clearly. It was not at all an imitation in the style of the old epics as was Silmarillion, nor the prototype for modern fantasy that LotR became. The themes and atmospheres change significantly.

This makes me feel a bit out of step here at Barrow Downs. I'm not one to let an obscure passage in Silmarillion -- or any of the other unpublished-in-his-lifetime works -- too strongly influence my reading of LotR. A lot of the unpublished work enhances and refines my feel for the Third Age, but I feel LotR is the master work. Anything unpublished which diminishes my feeling for LotR is kinda sorta expendable.

The old epics just had a different theme set. Greek tragedy might belong in the same category. The supposedly great are flawed -- selfish, arrogant and proud -- and these flaws bring tragedy to all. I see the old epic themes as reflecting what the general populace generally thought of their lords in the time before democracy. That was the way it was. Selfish arrogant lords brought ruin on everything and everyone.

On the other hand, LotR was written during a time when Hollywood cowboys wore either white hats or black, and you know the white hats are going to end up on top at the end of the last reel. LotR's good guys are still flawed. During the many years of more or less peace during the middle of the Third Age, numerous free people would fence themselves in and not speak to one another. Elf feuded with dwarf, while Galadriel and Fangorn would each advise a friend to not enter the other's woods. Yet, when there came a true threat from Mordor, all knew what was right and acted upon it.

Some might dislike the Jackson movie version of LotR because the balrog has wings. I dislike it as it breaks basic themes. In the books, the lords of the free peoples made the correct calls. In the movie, in order to call Rohan, Pippin had to stealthily light the summoning fire. The Entmoot didn't come to a slow carefully thought out decision. The hobbits goaded Fangorn into acting hastily. Thus, as pretty as the photography is, the definitive LotR movie has yet to be filmed. Someday, someone will make a version where the basic themes of LotR are allowed to stand.

Anyway, yes, the various works of Tolkien reflect very different values and themes. I try to think that elves and men learned much from their folly in the First Age, and will not repeat the ancient mistakes. I try to think that during the relative peace and stability at the time of The Hobbit, everyone was a bit frivolous and silly. I try to think that people at the end of the Third Age knew a storm was coming, and became much more focused. There are in character justifications for the changing themes, for culture shifts.

I can even understand why the movie threw away the 1950s notion of white and black hats. Modern fiction embraces shades of grey. I don't believe the movie people rewriting Tolkien believed in Tolkien. They felt a need to rewrite him for a modern audience.

But out of character, they were just different works.

Sorry for the rant. Felt a need to rant.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by blantyr

A lot of the unpublished work enhances and refines my feel for the Third Age, but I feel LotR is the master work.

Depends on how you look at it. JRRT has spent more time, and I daresay more devotion, on the First Age, even though it was never finished. He began with it, and ater added TH and LOTR. It just happened that the two were easier to polish, and more wanted by the public.

Some might dislike the Jackson movie version of LotR because the balrog has wings. I dislike it as it breaks basic themes.

Ditto. I heartily agree. (I'll spare you a rant here)

Sorry for the rant. Felt a need to rant.

We all do sometimes.