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

It has always never ceased to suprise me the response Gandalf gave to Pippin's excitement over seeing Frodo in good health again, still bearing the ring.

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?

[Kitanna]

I always took it of a fear of the outside world. What if Pippin said something so rash outside the safety of Rivendell? In the movie isn't it Pippin who gives away Frodo as a Baggins? Pippin's just asking for trouble by saying it. I think Gandalf responded as anyone who fears someone saying too much in the open.

[Rumil]

I think Gandalf is being a bit tetchy, not without some justification!

Here they are deciding the fate of the free world and Pippin is making light-hearted, if not downright silly, jokes.

But remember that Gandalf argued in favour of allowing Merry and Pippin to go on the quest, against Elrond's advice. Maybe he's having some second thoughts at this moment!

Saying the name of a 'Wizard' out loud was traditionally considered a bad move in some cultures, as it somehow focussed their attention on you, even at a considerable distance. I can't offhand think of anywhere where this is clearly stated in LoTR but might have been at the back of the Prof's mind when he was writing this?

[Inziladun]

Here they are deciding the fate of the free world and Pippin is making light-hearted, if not downright silly, jokes.

Probably so.
Gandalf may have thought that Pippin simply needed reminding of the deadly peril and dark days ahead. Gandalf also knew of the power the Ring had already attained over Frodo, and may have been reacting to the idea of Frodo claiming it for his own (as of course, did happen).

[Groin Redbeard]

When Gandalf is saying this, I don't picture him as glaring and talking with a raised voice at Pippin. Instead I picture it as a grandfather calming down a kid who has gotten too excited. Nobody knew better than Gandalf about extraordinary evil Sauron and to take something so light heartily would be cause a reaction from him.

My brothers and I always used to go outside and play war with each other, and not seeing it's horrors we took it very light heartily. My dad on the other hand has seen carnage and the terrible things that can occur, and he would often gently rebuke us for cheering during an old WWII film at bombs and shells exploding.

Originally Posted by Rumil

Here they are deciding the fate of the free world and Pippin is making light-hearted, if not downright silly, jokes.

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

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?

[Nerwen]

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?

Do you mean this?

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

I don't think that's terribly light-hearted, Mansun.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Do you mean this?



I don't think that's terribly light-hearted, 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.

[Nerwen]

Mansun, exactly what about it is light-hearted? It strikes me as being rather grim.

Btw– I'm not so sure that all posters think...

Pippin: Gandalf has been saying many cheerful things like that.

In Gandalf's world, humour is strictly forbidden, it seems. What a miserable fellow he was.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Mansun

In Gandalf's world, humour is strictly forbidden, it seems.

I think that we could cut Gandalf a bit of slack here. He has seen and done things that Pippin wouldn't even dare do. It was Gandalf who came up with the master plan to defeat Sauron, so let's not be to hasty to accuse Gandalf of being "Mr. serious!"

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I think that we could cut Gandalf a bit of slack here. He has seen and done things that Pippin wouldn't even dare do. It was Gandalf who came up with the master plan to defeat Sauron, so let's not be to hasty to accuse Gandalf of being "Mr. serious!"

What is the use of filling young Hobbits with dread all the time, even when no imminent danger exists, such as in Rivendell? Frodo had nearly become undead, and was for the first time conscious and talking merrily to the other Hobbits. Some humour would have cheered him up, I would have thought. Gandalf was not the lord of Rivendell, after all! Elrond was the master here. Would he have objected like this?

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Elrond was the master here. Would he have objected like this?

Probably.

Gandalf is like a parent scolding a child who has screamed in church. He does it in a way that suggests to the naughty child (in this case Pippin) he should refrain from doing so in the future. Gandalf was wise and he cared deeply about the hobbits. It was safer to scold Pippin for mentioning the Ring and the Lord of the Ring in Rivendell than running the chance of it coming out in the open when spies are abroad.

I think Gandalf acted appropriately given what we know of his character. This would be quite a different story if Gandalf had issued a spanking to Pippin for his words.

Originally Posted by Kitanna

I think Gandalf acted appropriately given what we know of his character. This would be quite a different story if Gandalf had issued a spanking to Pippin for his words.

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

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

No imminent danger exists? At this point, they do not know what became of all of the Nazgul, who are at their most dangerous when they are unclad. Frodo should not have survived his wounding with the Morgul knife, and though he did, can anyone in Rivendell say precisely WHY he did not? Do they yet know for certain that this is simply because of Frodo's "hobbit tenacity," or because of some design of the Ring itself? And there is the very imminent and immediate danger in the very presence of that Ring in Rivendell. Gandalf we know has felt its pull, and though he has refused it, does not trust himself to touch it again -- do we know how others would fare in the presence of that danger? We know that it was in Rivendell that Boromir first saw the Ring and began to desire it -- who else might have felt that same desire? The very presence of the Ring is a terrible danger, and to make light of it is potentially offering an invitation for it to start looking for a new bearer in the person who might not consider it dangerous, and would not be so careful in protecting it. In my opinion, Gandalf is not being a wet blanket because he is a gloomy, snarky person; he is demonstrating concern for Pippin, because of his affection for him. It is noted by Tolkien that one of Gandalf's shortcomings is a quick temper for the rebuking of folly, and after spending a good long while as Saruman's prisoner because of Saruman's lust for the Ring (a thing that he, unlike Pippin, has never seen nor even been its presence), any apparent flippancy regarding the Ring would likely seem to him the worst of folly. I believe that Gandalf acts as he does because he fears for the hobbits, who are comparatively young and inexperienced, and he feels it is better to risk getting a reputation as someone gloomy and grumpy than it is to let them (or anyone, for that matter) treat too lightly something that is a danger to their entire world. They may be sitting in a fortress inside Rivendell, but in bringing the Ring within that fortress, they have brought with them the very heart of their enemy -- and it would be best not to stir that heart unnecessarily. IMHO, of course.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

No imminent danger exists? At this point, they do not know what became of all of the Nazgul, who are at their most dangerous when they are unclad. Frodo should not have survived his wounding with the Morgul knife, and though he did, can anyone in Rivendell say precisely WHY he did not? Do they yet know for certain that this is simply because of Frodo's "hobbit tenacity," or because of some design of the Ring itself? And there is the very imminent and immediate danger in the very presence of that Ring in Rivendell. Gandalf we know has felt its pull, and though he has refused it, does not trust himself to touch it again -- do we know how others would fare in the presence of that danger? We know that it was in Rivendell that Boromir first saw the Ring and began to desire it -- who else might have felt that same desire? The very presence of the Ring is a terrible danger, and to make light of it is potentially offering an invitation for it to start looking for a new bearer in the person who might not consider it dangerous, and would not be so careful in protecting it. In my opinion, Gandalf is not being a wet blanket because he is a gloomy, snarky person; he is demonstrating concern for Pippin, because of his affection for him. It is noted by Tolkien that one of Gandalf's shortcomings is a quick temper for the rebuking of folly, and after spending a good long while as Saruman's prisoner because of Saruman's lust for the Ring (a thing that he, unlike Pippin, has never seen nor even been its presence), any apparent flippancy regarding the Ring would likely seem to him the worst of folly. I believe that Gandalf acts as he does because he fears for the hobbits, who are comparatively young and inexperienced, and he feels it is better to risk getting a reputation as someone gloomy and grumpy than it is to let them (or anyone, for that matter) treat too lightly something that is a danger to their entire world. They may be sitting in a fortress inside Rivendell, but in bringing the Ring within that fortress, they have brought with them the very heart of their enemy -- and it would be best not to stir that heart unnecessarily. IMHO, of course.

Gandalf said to Frodo that they were all safe for the present in Rivendell. The Nine would not have been able to enter the House of Elrond, and I doubt they would dare to. No imminent danger existed, except perhaps paranoia or complacency. Sauron would not have sent an army to Rivendell anytime soon, having a small matter of Gondor and other enemies to contend with first. Isengard was no match for Rivendell, of course.

If Gandalf was as hot-headed against folly as you say, what stopped him from sending home the foolish Pippin?

[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"):

"'Work of the Enemy!' said Gandalf. 'Such deeds he loves: friend at war with friend, loyalty divided in the confusion of hearts.'"

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.

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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Rumil

Saying the name of a 'Wizard' out loud was traditionally considered a bad move in some cultures, as it somehow focussed their attention on you, even at a considerable distance. I can't offhand think of anywhere where this is clearly stated in LoTR but might have been at the back of the Prof's mind when he was writing this?

I think there is indeed meant to be a version of this belief in Middle-earth; look at the way the the Men of Gondor call Sauron "the Nameless One".

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

To nitpick: this was prior to the Council of Elrond , so the question of what to do with the Ring had not been settled. What Gandalf could be certain of was that the Ring was dangerous and that a major war was coming– which would affect the hobbits along with everyone else.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

And Gandalf doesn't appear to be saying it in anger (even though we know he is capable of this). I think he's meant to be rightly concerned that Pippin doesn't take the situation seriously enough.


Mansun, you have me perplexed. You cited this quote (from The White Rider) as an example of Gandalf indulging in light-hearted whimsy about the prospect of Sauron torturing the hobbits:

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

When I asked you what on earth you thought was so lighthearted about it, you responded with this quote (from Many Meetings):

Gandalf has been saying many cheerful things like that.

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.

Explain, please.

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Rumil

Saying the name of a 'Wizard' out loud was traditionally considered a bad move in some cultures, as it somehow focussed their attention on you, even at a considerable distance. I can't offhand think of anywhere where this is clearly stated in LoTR but might have been at the back of the Prof's mind when he was writing this?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I think there is indeed meant to be a version of this belief in Middle-earth; look at the way the the Men of Gondor call Sauron "the Nameless One".

I believe it came into vogue in the Dark Ages (circa the 10th Century):

ARTHUR:
Cut down a tree with a herring? It can't be done.
KNIGHTS OF NI:
Aaaaugh! Aaaugh!
HEAD KNIGHT:
Augh! Ohh! Don't say that word.
ARTHUR:
What word?
HEAD KNIGHT:
I cannot tell, suffice to say is one of the words the Knights of Ni cannot hear.
ARTHUR:
How can we not say the word if you don't tell us what it is?
KNIGHTS OF NI:
Aaaaugh!
HEAD KNIGHT:
You said it again!
ARTHUR:
What, 'is'?
KNIGHTS OF NI:
Agh! No, not 'is'.
HEAD KNIGHT:
No, not 'is'. You wouldn't get very far in life not saying 'is'.

Ummm...sorry, the thread was getting unnecessarily heavy.

But anyway, there are plenty of folk traditions against referring to the devil or god aloud (or speaking 'ill of the dead', for instance). There was a prohibition among the Israelites (and Jews afterwards) against speaking the real name of God (Tetragrammaton), and there have been similar superstitions elsewhere against speaking the real name of the devil (hence slang like Scratch, and Old Nick), and in Ireland, if one must speak of the Daoine Sidhe or the Faery Folk at all (which is not wise to do in any case), then one should say "'gentry', or else daoine maithe, which in English means good people" according to Yeats.

I'm sure such traditions might have been considered by Tolkien and used in one form or another (such as the Noldor no longer saying the name 'Melkor' and only referring to him as 'Morgoth').

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.

[Nerwen]

Why? I don't get it.

Btw, as you see I have added another question to my last post.

[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.

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

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

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.

I don't where to start with this one.

Yes, Gandalf deliberately frightened Gollum, making him think he was going to burn him.

Saying Gandalf "nearly burned Gollum alive in a flash of anger" is not a statement about Gollum's subjective impressions. It is a statement about Gandalf's actions and intentions which is simply not supported by the text.

As for the other thing... still a non sequitur, sorry.

And you still haven't answered my number one question. Where is the joke in

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

Now, I know that to explain a joke is to ruin it... but you're using this one as a key part of your argument. Where is the humour in that comment?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I don't where to start with this one.

Yes, Gandalf deliberately frightened Gollum, making him think he was going to burn him.

Saying Gandalf "nearly burned Gollum alive in a flash of anger" is not a statement about Gollum's subjective impressions. It is a statement about Gandalf's actions and intentions which is simply not supported by the text.

As for the other thing... still a non sequitur, sorry.

And you still haven't answered my number one question. Where is the joke in



Now, I know that to explain a joke is to ruin it... but you're using this one as a key part of your argument. Where is the humour in that comment?

There is no doubt that Gandalf wanted Gollum to think that he would burn him for real if he did not speak. I say no more on the matter. I just brought it up as support for the fact that Gandalf threatening to harm helpless hobbits in a severe situation was not as unthinkable as some would think.

As for the humour to the quote above, it is something which I saw as a chink of humour within a grim and dark context. You may not have seen it, but I don't think people need to be convinced one way or the other. I never saw the comment as funny or a joke, but slightly lighthearted by Gandalf's grim standards.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is no doubt that Gandalf wanted Gollum to think that he would burn him for real if he did not speak.

No doubt whatever. But that's not what you said. You said

Didn't Gandalf nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger?

The answer to that question is: No, he didn't. Bang! There goes that part of your argument.

Originally Posted by Mansun

As for the humour to the quote above, it is something which I saw as a chink of humour within a grim and dark context. You may not have seen it, but I don't think people need to be convinced one way or the other.

Yes, we do. You are basing your argument that Gandalf is a hypocrite (for not letting Pippin make light-hearted comments about Sauron when he does so himself) on something in this quote. Therefore you must explain what that something is.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No doubt whatever. But that's not what you said. You said



The answer to that question is: No, he didn't. Bang! There goes that part of your argument.




Yes, we do. You are basing your argument that Gandalf is a hypocrite (for not letting Pippin make light-hearted comments about Sauron when he does so himself) on something in this quote. Therefore you must explain what that something is.

If you light a brand of fire close to a creature, urging them to speak or suffer the pain of fire, that is reasonable evidence to suggest Gollum was nearly burnt alive by Gandalf, as nearly is not the same as definately.

There is little point trying to convince others too wearily over whether a qoute is lighthearted to a small degree or not. If you don't see it, why should that bother anyone else?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

If you light a brand of fire close to a creature, urging them to speak or suffer the pain of fire, that is reasonable evidence to suggest Gollum was nearly burnt alive by Gandalf, as nearly is not the same as definately.

No. He threatened Gollum with torture by fire (we are not given the details) to make him speak. He did not

nearly burn Gollum alive in a flash of anger

That's what you said he did. He didn't. He wasn't acting in a rage; nor– for anything we know to the contrary– did he ever intend to burn Gollum.

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is little point trying to convince others too wearily over whether a qoute is lighthearted to a small degree or not. If you don't see it, why should that bother anyone else?

You haven't tried to convince me at all– unless saying over and over again that you think it's light-hearted is an attempt to mesmerise me into agreeing.

It matter very much that I don't see it, since as I said, you are basing a significant part of your argument on it.

Of course, your original premise was simply that Gandalf was mean to Pippin. Fine, That is basically a matter of personal opinion, and one on which we can all agree to disagree. But what you're doing is trying to prove it objectively, using "evidence" from the text which is either demonstrably wrong, or which you refuse to explain. (You have, in the course of this, also expanded the scope of your argument, so that it has become a much broader attack on the character of Gandalf.)

Yet again, what is it that you find light-hearted in

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

It's a short quote. Can't you just point out the light-hearted part to me? Why not?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

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.

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is no doubt that Gandalf wanted Gollum to think that he would burn him for real if he did not speak. I say no more on the matter. I just brought it up as support for the fact that Gandalf threatening to harm helpless hobbits in a severe situation was not as unthinkable as some would think.

Your comments are not supported by Gandalf's actions with the hobbits (including some very dangerous situations in Moria and in handling the Palantir), and do not jibe with the specific quote, which is here:

"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."

1) There is no indication that Gandalf had a fire-brand in his hand. The 'fear of fire' does not necessarily represent 'actual fire'.
2) Gandalf was interrogating a dangerous individual (and a possible enemy), not chiding a silly hobbit who obviously needed some education.
3) Gandalf would not require actual fire to make a point. If you forget, he induced a similar reaction in Bilbo when Bilbo would not surrender the Ring. Gandalf had the ability to act on a psycholgical level rather than a physical one.
4) The fate of Middle-earth was hanging in the balance when Gandalf interrogated Gollum. If you'd like to read about a more corporal means of extracting information, please refer to Sauron's torture of Gollum.

Originally Posted by Mansun

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.

I am sure Farmer Maggot disciplined his own sons in the same manner as he did Frodo -- when they were children. Again, the hobbits were adults during the Lord of the Rings; therefore the analogy is implausible.

Originally Posted by Mansun

blah blah blah

Thank you for the inciteful reply. I am sure such commentary is within the bounds of the etiquette set by the moderators, as you so often remind other posters.

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is little point trying to convince others too wearily over whether a qoute is lighthearted to a small degree or not. If you don't see it, why should that bother anyone else?

As far as I can see, you are the only one posting on this thread thus far that sees any humor in the quote; therefore, Nerwen has kindly requested an explanation so that the rest of the posters can understand your point of reference. Otherwise, your position is untenable.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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

As you wish.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As far as I can see, you are the only one posting on this thread thus far that sees any humor in the quote ..... Otherwise, your position is untenable.

But you do not see very far, and the thoughts of all those that have read the qoute are largely hidden from you.


''Three cheers for Captain Frodo, Lord of the Ring'' sounds like a merry and kind hearted gesture from a young hobbit to another one who barely escaped undeath.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

As you wish.

Huh? The phrase "gentle loyalty" was the joke? Why?

...Okay... racking my brains here...

The only thing I can come up with is that your pre-existing conviction that Gandalf is a mean ol' Maia who hates hobbits leads you to assume that he can only be praising Merry or Pippin ironically.

If so, it's a circular argument:

"Gandalf is mean to hobbits. He's mean to hobbits because he's a hypocrite. He's a hypocrite because he won't let Pippin joke about Sauron, though he jokes about Merry and Pippin being tortured by Sauron. What he said is a joke because he praises Merry and Pippin. He wouldn't praise them for real because Gandalf is mean to hobbits."

Sorry, Mansun. If that's your argument, you lose.

Originally Posted by Mansun

But you do not see very far, and the thoughts of all those that have read the qoute are largely hidden from you.

Actually, Morthoron has been in telepathic communication with each and every poster apart from you. It's one of those "Dark Elf" things. Didn't you know?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mansun

''Three cheers for Captain Frodo, Lord of the Ring'' sounds like a merry and kind hearted gesture from a young hobbit to another one who barely escaped undeath.

Indeed. Trouble is, you've now gone so far beyond your original position that it looks like you're cut off from retreat.

Or to put it another way– what happened to every argument you've made since your first post? Are you conceding defeat, or what?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

As you wish.

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

The phrase in bold (your emphasis) does not imply humor, sarcasm or wit. It reflects a great measure of concern on behalf of the 'gentle', 'innocent', and 'inexperienced' hobbits. Gandalf already knew of the hideous torure inflicted on Gollum by Sauron, and did not want the gentle hobbits loyalty tested to such an extreme. The thought of the Hobbits being broken by Sauron always deeply affected Gandalf (consider how he nearly broke down when Saruman referred to Frodo at Orthanc, or Gandalf's actions when speaking to the Mouth of Sauron). It is a sad realization on Gandalf's part (hence the phrase 'let us not darken our hearts').

Originally Posted by Mansun

But you do not see very far, and the thoughts of all those that have read the qoute are largely hidden from you.

I am not referring to what is hidden, merely what is evident. Let me put it this way: of the posters who have commented directly on the quote in question, none have necessarily agreed with you. This, of course, is subject to change in the unlikely event someone else posts in support of an untenable position.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Actually, Morthoron has been in telepathic communication with each and every poster apart from you. It's one of those "Dark Elf" things. Didn't you know?

*Laughs out loud*

Ummm...yes, we Dark Elves have the same capacity as Elrond and Galadriel in the movies, having the ability to commune telelpathically over hundreds of miles. This is the reason the elves gave the Palantiri to the Numenoreans ages ago -- we simply didn't need them.

P.S. I suppose if you read sarcastic intent into the sentence, you could apply the emphasis like so: "But let us not darken our hearts by imagining the trial of their gentle loyalty in the Dark Tower," Gandalf said with a sneer and a malicious hiss as he spat the word 'gentle'. But then, one could do the same with any sentence: "Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Indeed. Trouble is, you've now gone so far beyond your original position that it looks like you're cut off from retreat.

Or to put it another way– what happened to every argument you've made since your first post? Are you conceding defeat, or what?

I am lost - was the Barrow-Downs about winning or losing? Neither, I believe.

Please continue with the original thread question. . .