Gandalf's Intended Plan in the books (was: movie-Aragorn's vulnerability)
wrob
"Saruman Posessing Theoden" thread, since it may be of interest.
Consider this a book WI; an analysis of the potential impact of
the Ring on various characters; a discussion of the difference in
the nature of temptation in the books vs. movies; take your pick.
> IN FACT, I don't know if Tolkien addresses this, but absent the fall
> of Boromir, book-Aragorn MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE to let Frodo go!!
> This actually makes movie-Aragorn stronger than book-Aragorn for a
> brief moment. It is totally wrong to assert that book-Aragorn was
> immune to the power of the ring due to his prior steadfastness, as
> so many people do.
This is only speculation, but I suspect Gandalf, had he "lived",
would have split the Fellowship at Rauros, with Gandalf, Aragorn,
Boromir, Merry and Pippin going to Minas Tirith as decoys/reinforcement,
and Legolas, Gimli, Frodo and Sam going to the borders of Mordor.
The job of Legolas and Gimli would have been to provide a distraction
and seek a way into Mordor without Smeagol's help, using Henneth Annun
as a base. Frodo and Sam would have hid out in secret, until Legolas
and Gimli found a way into Mordor, and provided said distraction.
The logic of this is pretty watertight, assuming
no unlucky events such as actually occurred with Gandalf and Boromir:
* Merry and Pippin drew a lot of attention to themselves, more than
anyone else besides Aragorn. They would have been a liability in
Mordor, but made good decoys, and provided an unexpected tactical/
morale boost by their very presence in the West.
* It was known that Boromir's primary alliegance was to Gondor.
* Sending Aragorn to Mordor with the Ringbearer and sending Boromir
to Gondor would have torn the fellowship apart, all the moreso
since Aragorn would have personally preferred to go to Gondor.
Without Gandalf on hand, he could not do so, having sworn to
protect the Ringbearer more or less; he would not have taken
Frodo's word alone that Aragorn's protection was no longer needed.
Sending Aragorn to Boromir would have kept the two potential rivals
as close as possible to each other, which is usually the safest place.
* Legolas was not one of the High-Elves and so did not have "great power"
in the spirit world. Given the elves' natural wisdom the Ring, would
not be drawn to him initially, and he could have played a role much
like that of Faramir, only he could have gone further. Absent Aragorn,
Legolas' scouting abilities and familiarity with the ways of orcs would
have been necessary to find a safe path into Mordor, if one existed.
We know that Gandalf would not have taken Frodo through Cirith Ungol,
a route that was very nearly disastrous, but any safer route would
probably have been deep in enemy held territory to the north or
south, so Legolas' abilities would again be crucial. Once on the
edge of Mordor, Legolas and Gimli would have had to let Frodo go on
alone; it is arguable that they would have failed this test, in which
case the quest would have failed. Legolas would also have been tempted
to kill Smeagol, which would have had all sorts of negative consequences.
* Gimli's stature would be useful, as was that of the two Hobbits, and he
would know a thing or two about Orcs and getting past their underground
strongholds. An elf and a dwarf on the borders of Mordor would have made
obvious spies and thus provided a perfect distraction, provided they left
the Ringbearer's side in order to provide a distraction.
Assuming they had to enter Mordor for their presence to provide enough
of a distraction for Frodo and Sam to cross, it would have been a suicide
mission on L&G's part, since their capture would be Game Over.
Gimli's temptation by the Ring would probably have manifested as irrational
over-protectiveness of the two hobbits and an unwillingness to
leave their side or risk any potential danger to the Ringbearer.
* Gandalf would probably have had the foresight to keep Frodo and Sam together.
He would have had to talk book-Aragorn into laying down his guardship
over the Ringbearer, however, since book-Aragorn is not so obviously
tempted by the Ring so early in the game. Aragorn in Gorgoroth would
have been a disaster, since Frodo must NOT be placed in a situation
where Aragorn's prowess as a warrior and leader and willingness
to lay down his life would have made any difference.
Instead, both Sauron and the Ring would have been drawn to Aragorn's
presence, and Aragorn would have been faced with a Sophie's Choice:
Die and let Sauron have the Ring, or kill Frodo and claim the Ring
himself, fleeing Mordor and abandoning any hopes of destroying it.
Since Aragorn was all-too-able to actually claim and wield the ring--
if not hold it from Sauron in-person -- the choice would be even more
potent. Aragorn was trying to defeat Sauron so as to become King, so
he would not have consciously elected to the suicide mission approach
of entering Mordor on separate paths to cause a distraction. Doing so
would have led to his death and the death of the line of Kings without
ensuring the success of the Quest.
In response, Tar-Elenion replies:
> I recall reading that it would have been Gandalf, Gimli, Frodo and Sam.
> Legolas would have been sent with the others. But I do not recall
> where I read that so don't ask me for a citation.
"Hoooom, well....That doesn't make any sense to me."
My scenario above would have a --much-- higher probability of success.
But perhaps this decision on Gandalf's part would have been his great failing.
The weak point siezed upon by the Ring. Using his pity and wisdom against him.
Think about it.
Gandalf was such a powerful figure that he might have been the SECOND person
in the Fellowship to have been affected by the Ring, after Boromir.
Gandalf's temptation, on the other hand would have been subtle, and
tactical at first, due to his immense wisdom.
As an Ainur, his power in spiritual conflicts may have been second only to
Sauron, but his strength of will per se, like that of the greatest Noldor,
might've actually been less than Aragorn's. Though Aragorn doubtless would
have failed more directly in the end.
Certainly Gandalf would've been last to fall and actually sieze the Ring
from Frodo -- all the more so because unlike Aragorn he had no incentive
to do so. Aragorn would have had to flee Mordor, and elude pursuit, in
order to master the Ring. Whereas in theory, Gandalf could wait for Sauron
to enter the room before giving up the quest and siezing the Ring to use it
against Him.
However, precisely because of his great wisdom and strength of character
the Ring would have immediately started working on Gandalf the Grey, subtly
weighing on his thoughts from the moment they entered the danger zone.
If Gandalf had elected to go into Mordor with the Ringbearer,
it would have been a lapse in wisdom, and possibly one stemming from
the psychological influence of the Ring. As (I think) Yuk Tang said,
you've got the "shadow-world" equivalent of a 50-000 watt light bulb
walking around the wilderness, attracting the attention of evil like
moths to a porchlight.
Perhaps Gandalf would have elected to enter the gates of Barad-Dur
and provide a live distraction so as to allow Frodo to drop the Ring.
Of all Frodo's companions, only Gandalf and Smeagol could hope to be
taken to Sauron alive and hope to avoid giving up the whole game.
However, in doing so this still would have been a terrible mistake
on Gandalf's part and no doubt Ring-influenced -- pride disguised as
heroism and self-sacrifice.
Hoping to emulate Hurin, he would have been defeated and broken, and
at least one of the hobbits might have been captured and used against him
to divulge the Ring's whereabouts and purpose. If spied alongside the
Ringbearer, Sauron would have gone to him directly, and taken Frodo
hostage regardless of who had the Ring at that point. The fact that
there were two hobbits (one to kill and one to keep and torture)
would only double Sauron's psychological leverage over Gandalf
in a face to face confrontation, with or without the Ring.
-Brian
Graham Lockwood
{snip looong theory on what Gandalf et al may have done had he "lived"}
For the most part, I think that your scenario is a plausible one, if not the
only possible one. However, I have to disagree with you on this point:
> If Gandalf had elected to go into Mordor with the Ringbearer,
> it would have been a lapse in wisdom, and possibly one stemming from
> the psychological influence of the Ring. As (I think) Yuk Tang said,
> you've got the "shadow-world" equivalent of a 50-000 watt light bulb
> walking around the wilderness, attracting the attention of evil like
> moths to a porchlight.
{snip}
I strongly disagree that Gandalf was some sort of evil-magnet. He showed
many times that he was capable of great stealth even in the lairs of some
pretty big meanies. Some instances I can think of offhand:
-Gandalf had been through Moria before and managed not to attract any
unwanted attention. Certainly not the Balrog and most likely not anyone else
either. The Fellowship themselves almost made it all the way through without
being discovered.
-In _The Hobbit_, Gandalf infiltrates the Great Goblin's caves, evades the
inevitable Goblin guards, kills the Great Goblin, frees Bilbo and the
Dwarves, and makes a hasty retreat.
-Gandalf visited Dol Guldur *twice* without being captured. The second time,
he probed deep enough to discover that Sauron himself lived there. He also
made his way into the dungeons and discovered Thrain. He managed to speak
with Thrain and receive items from him. The significance and difficulty of
this cannot be underestimated. Frankly, it seems to me like it should be
impossible without being completely invisible but it happened.
||// // "The narrative ends here. || //
|// // There is no reason to think ||//
(/ // that any more was ever written. |//
||// The manuscript, which becomes //
|// increasingly rapid towards the end, //|
(/ peters out in a scrawl." //||
|| -Christopher Tolkien, _The Lost Road_ // ||
wrob
OK, what you say makes sense. But think about it this way. It's easy to
understand why Gandalf would think Gimli and the Hobbits could sneak around
Mordor undetected, since they would be more likely mistaken for Orcs than Men.
(And Sauron seemed to maintain some sort of policy of segregation, so they
would likely run afoul of that regulation long before they'd be percieved
as spies, if a bunch of Men were thought to be running around unauthorized.)
So how is Gandalf, disguised as an old Man, going to get around in the open
plateau of Gorgoroth without raising questions? Shave his beard?
Cast a spell of "almost invisible" on the party? That places Gandalf in the
same role as that of the Eagles in the scenario most people dismiss as too
dangerous for the Ringbearer, who becomes entirely dependent on Gandalf.
I just don't see how it would work out without Gandalf leaving the party
at some point to provide a distraction, and since Sauron would've taken
Gandalf alive, you've got a potential mind-battle / interrogation causing
Sauron to go apeshit with paranoia, as happened with Smeagol (and Fingon).
It seems to me that Gandalf's very presence in Mordor, if detected, would
tip Sauron off strategically that the Ring was IN Mordor, presumably so
Gandalf could use it against him, which would've been a more urgent situation
than Aragorn having it in Gondor. Sauron would have dropped everything and
sent all his armies looking for Gandalf. A hobbit or a dwarf spy is not
nearly such an urgent matter. Gandalf's got to ask himself, is third time
really the charm?
Smeagol was afraid of Gandalf and Aragorn, probably moreso than Legolas,
so he might not have been able to shadow them closely enough to take the
Ring from Frodo.
Aragorn would probably have been tempted to take the Ring when or even before
Frodo claimed it, since Aragorn was the Ring's natural "target" anyhow, only
to turn and flee realizing he had no choice but to wield it at that point.
Gandalf, who did not need to flee Sauron in order to wield the ring,
had enough innate wisdom that he would not have been so fully influenced,
but he might have tried to persuade Frodo to take it off, or do SOMETHING.
Perhaps Gandalf would have siezed the ring from Frodo with Sauron in the room,
and short of claiming the ring, cast himself into the fire. The two hobbits
would have been taken hostage by the Nazgul in any such situation, to try and
influence Gandalf's decision. Perhaps Gandalf could have body-slammed
both himself and Frodo into the fire.
-Ber
Linards Ticmanis
> However, precisely because of his great wisdom and strength of character
> the Ring would have immediately started working on Gandalf the Grey, subtly
> weighing on his thoughts from the moment they entered the danger zone.
It's interesting that in the book, Gandalf is the main driving force
behind the decision to enter Moria. (Another thing changed in the movie).
Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
On the other hand we know that Tolkien made his longest writing pause
between the two Moria chapters, right? I'd assume that the decision to
get rid of Gandalf (for the time being) was made during this interval,
or was it made earlier? Maybe he just didn't choose to rewrite the part
about Gandalf's eagerness to try Moria?
Another q. did Tolkien decide that Gandalf was to come back at the same
time he decided that he was to fall? Or was that two separate plot
decisions?
--
Linards Ticmanis
The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
preparation of the plain ground."
Morgil
"Linards Ticmanis" <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> kirjoitti
viestissä:bj0enq$27brp$1...@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de...
> It's interesting that in the book, Gandalf is the main driving force
> behind the decision to enter Moria. (Another thing changed in the movie).
>
> Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
> himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
Neither.
Morgil
wrob
> In article <3F52BEF6...@erols.com>, wr...@erols.com says...
> > Tar-Elenion wrote:
>>> [Brian] wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is only speculation, but I suspect Gandalf, had he "lived",
>>> > would have split the Fellowship at Rauros, with Gandalf, Aragorn,
>>> > Boromir, Merry & Pippin going to Minas Tirith as decoys/reinforcement,
>>> > and Legolas, Gimli, Frodo and Sam going to the borders of Mordor.
>>>
>>> I recall reading that it would have been Gandalf, Gimli, Frodo and Sam.
>>> Legolas would have been sent with the others. But I do not recall where
>>> I read that so don't ask me for a citation.
>>
>> As Treebeard says in the movie,
>> "Well... That doesn't make any sense to me."
> It made sense to JRRT (providing I recall corectly and he was the one
> who wrote it).
>> My scenario would have a much higher probability of success.
>>
>> But perhaps this decision on Gandalf's part would have been his great
>> failing. The weak point siezed upon by the Ring. Using his pity and
>> wisdom against him. Think about it.
>>
>> Gandalf was such a powerful figure that he might have been the SECOND
>> person in the Fellowship to have been affected by the Ring, after
>> Boromir.
> Gandalf had already rejected the Ring. It was his 'mission' to see to the
> defeat of Sauron, had he not died in Moria, the way to do that would have
> been to see the Ringbearer to Mt. Doom.
I'm pretty sure I disagree with how your interpretatio nof the way the Ring
works. I'd love to discuss it further, however, if you are interested in
explaining it to me.
A few points that I believe disprove your statement above:
1. Characters in the books DO grow and change, this suggests they are
4-dimensional and may respond differently to the Ring's temptation
depending on the circumstances. With the strongest and noblest
individuals, the book is quite clear that it would have been a matter
of try, try, again on the part of the Ring.
2. The temptation of the Ring is supposed to be relevant to how our minds
work in real life. The Ring is not supposed to represent some sort of
eldritch, Manichaean reification of Evil. It works through the
psychology of the bearer and his friends and protectors.
3. Tolkien is quite clear that nobody would have been able to drop it
into the fire. It is unrealistic to imagine the Ring failing to
continue working on Aragorn's pride, or Gandalf's kind-heartedness
and carefulness, had either of the two continued with Frodo to Mt. Doom.
The Ring does not simply "activate" its powers of corruption when the
bearer puts it on inside Mt. Doom, as Gandalf makes quite clear to
Frodo and Denethor both. To imagine anything else is to undermine
the characters of Frodo, Boromir, and Gollum, IMHO.
> <snip of interesting theories>
> But as I said, I do not recall off hand where I read that (so it is
> possible that it is entirely in my imagination), perhaps Conrad or one of
> the others may recall it.
I'm sure it's what Tolkien believed, but he also had Gandalf leading the
party into Moria. Gandalf was not infallible in the strategic sense.
But he had a knack for relying on "foolish hopes" which was the only true
wisdom, since we know in hindsight only Providence could have destroyed
the ring. And only then with the aid of the hobbit's pity toward Gollum,
who was a minor supporting player in the strategy laid out in Rivendell.
For Gandalf to go with strategy, carefulness and pity for the two hobbits
over his irrational "instincts" derived from the Music of the Ainur
would've been a terrible mistake, IMO, and we can easily speculate that
had he done so, it would have been due to the Ring's influence on the
his own judgement or in response to Ring-influenced bickering amongst
others in the party by the time they reached Rauros.
-Brian
wrob
> wrob wrote:
>
> > However, precisely because of his great wisdom and strength of character
> > the Ring would have immediately started working on Gandalf the Grey, subtly
> > weighing on his thoughts from the moment they entered the danger zone.
>
> It's interesting that in the book, Gandalf is the main driving force
> behind the decision to enter Moria. (Another thing changed in the movie).
>
> Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
> himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
I think both possibilities are quite possible, and it's rather thoughtless
of Morgil to dismiss them. Do people *only* want to discuss on-topic
discussions that involve unresolved factual issues in the plot, i.e. loopholes,
believing the themes and characters to be entirely transparent and thus
not worth arguing over?
In any case
it's a rather dismissive rejection of a perfectly valid attempt to delve into
character and theme. Presumably folks will now argue that Gandalf's character
does not change in the books, and so is not worth extrapolating such
interesting theories because they somehow were not thought of by Tolkien
and so cannot be "proper interpretation of scripture".
I do think it's important to point out that the number one reason for
entering Moria was to regain the benefits of stealth, as was noted in
the Finding Nemo thread.
But this is the *mechanical* plot justification.
We should assume that someone so wise and farsighted as Gandalf would
have analyzed the issue further than that of simple war-gaming strategy.
If he hadn't, he would be a Mentat in one of Frank Herbert's books, not
a creature of wisdom in a deeply moral tale depicted by Tolkien.
-Ber
Morgil
"wrob" <wr...@erols.com> kirjoitti viestissä:3F53DFFC...@erols.com...
> Linards Ticmanis wrote:
> > It's interesting that in the book, Gandalf is the main driving force
> > behind the decision to enter Moria. (Another thing changed in the
movie).
> >
> > Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
> > himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
>
> I think both possibilities are quite possible, and it's rather thoughtless
> of Morgil to dismiss them.
He asked how things were "in the book" - I answered. How is
that "thoughtless"??
Morgil
wrob
> > Linards Ticmanis wrote:
> > > Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
> > > himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
> >
> > I think both possibilities are quite possible, and it's rather thoughtless
> > of Morgil to dismiss them.
>
> He asked how things were "in the book" - I answered. How is
> that "thoughtless"??
We're talking about the interior thoughts of a character, not
a point of fact. You can't assert definitively that there is
only one, strategic, reason for every decision Gandalf made.
It reduces the tale to an exercise in plot mechanics, or
worse, alternative history war-gaming amongst cardboard cut-outs.
I think it's quite plausible that Gandalf (in Tolkien's or the
Reader's interpretation) may have foreseen his confrontation with
Durin's Bane and chosen that route in hopes of throwing the
Enemy for a loop. In which case either of the possibilities
Linards mentioned are quite possible secondary motivations for
Gandalf's actions.
I similarly think Gandalf would have deliberately
done some other dam-fool thing to remove himself
from the picture on the journey to Rauros,
had he somehow survived Moria.
His instinct would have told him that the Fellowship,
and most especially the Ringbearer must not continue
to rely on him if it hoped to succeed. This is a
common enough lesson in real life group endeavors.
It is also integral to ancient tales or legends,
the necessity of the hero making the last phase
of the journey without supernatural guidance.
So it would be integral to the way the ring
worked in Tolkien's tale.
If Gandalf had stayed with the Fellowship to
Rauros, the group would've been torn apart by
bickering, since Boromir would have an obvious
chain of command to rail against. Had Gandalf
attempted to resolve this by somehow arranging
to go off himself with Frodo and Sam to Mordor,
it would have been a direct influence of the Ring
on his own judgement, methinks.
-Ber
Troels Forchhammer
wrob <wr...@erols.com> enriched us with:
>
> Morgil wrote:
>>
>> He asked how things were "in the book" - I answered. How is
>> that "thoughtless"??
>
> We're talking about the interior thoughts of a character, not
> a point of fact. You can't assert definitively that there is
> only one, strategic, reason for every decision Gandalf made.
What has that to do with asserting that Gandalf didn't
overestimate himself (which would be prideful - a deadly sin that
Tolkien wouldn't let Gandalf commit) and that he didn't enter
Moria in a suicidal rush (removing himself would be another sin)?
> It reduces the tale to an exercise in plot mechanics, or
> worse, alternative history war-gaming amongst cardboard cut-outs.
You're fighting your own wind-mills here.
> I think it's quite plausible that Gandalf (in Tolkien's or the
> Reader's interpretation)
Readers can interpret any book (or other works of art for that
matter) however they want to - discussing that is rather fruitless,
IMO.
The interesting disussion is what motivations and considerations
Tolkien imagined.
> may have foreseen his confrontation with Durin's Bane and chosen
> that route in hopes of throwing the Enemy for a loop.
Unlikely, however.
He had been through Moria before without encountering any problems,
and he didn't know that there was a Balrog in Moria.
> In which case either of the possibilities Linards mentioned are
> quite possible secondary motivations for Gandalf's actions.
I simply can't agree - they appear completely impossible to me.
You have to remember Tolkien's background as well as the story
itself - he would never have let the one faithful/successful
Istar commit a deadly sin.
> I similarly think Gandalf would have deliberately done some
> other dam-fool thing to remove himself from the picture on
> the journey to Rauros, had he somehow survived Moria.
I doubt that very much - and in particular not by having
himself killed.
<snip>
> It is also integral to ancient tales or legends, the
> necessity of the hero making the last phase of the journey
> without supernatural guidance.
That is probably one of the story-external reasons why Gandalf
had to fall somewhere - Moria being Tolkien's choice, but that
only pertains to Tolkien's motivations, not Gandalf's own.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Reader's interpretation) may have foreseen his confrontation with
> Durin's Bane and chosen that route in hopes of throwing the
> Enemy for a loop. In which case either of the possibilities
> Linards mentioned are quite possible secondary motivations for
> Gandalf's actions.
however gandalf didnt know it was balrog
phobos
> I similarly think Gandalf would have deliberately
> done some other dam-fool thing to remove himself
> from the picture on the journey to Rauros,
> had he somehow survived Moria.
>
> His instinct would have told him that the Fellowship,
> and most especially the Ringbearer must not continue
> to rely on him if it hoped to succeed. This is a
> common enough lesson in real life group endeavors.
But why suicide? Why not just make an excuse and leave, like he did
halfway through the Quest of Erebor?
Conrad Dunkerson
> It's interesting that in the book, Gandalf is the main driving force
> behind the decision to enter Moria. (Another thing changed in the movie).
> Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
> himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
Neither. My recollection is that in an earlier draft Gandalf and
Aragorn's arguments were reversed. Tolkien changed that so Gandalf
would not be arguing to avoid Moria... preventing the possible view
that he might have been doing so in an effort to 'save himself'. As
it turns out Gandalf simply thinks it is the safest route... in the
movie he seems to know that he will be in grave peril in Moria. In
the book he did not.
> On the other hand we know that Tolkien made his longest writing pause
> between the two Moria chapters, right? I'd assume that the decision to
> get rid of Gandalf (for the time being) was made during this interval,
> or was it made earlier?
Gandalf's fall in Moria was sketched out in the first draft of the
chapter... when Tolkien was still thinking that his opponent would be
a 'Black Rider' or perhaps Saruman and had not even thought of a
Balrog yet.
> Another q. did Tolkien decide that Gandalf was to come back at the same
> time he decided that he was to fall? Or was that two separate plot
> decisions?
The fact that Gandalf would return was mentioned in Tolkien's notes
immediately after the first occurence of his fall. However, there it
was attributed to the drop not being as far as it seemed or other
explanations... there was no mention of Gandalf actually DYING until
later but always with the view that he would return.
wrob
> in <3F53EA9A...@erols.com>,
> wrob <wr...@erols.com> enriched us with:
> >
> > Morgil wrote:
> >>
> >> He asked how things were "in the book" - I answered. How is
> >> that "thoughtless"??
> >
> > We're talking about the interior thoughts of a character, not
> > a point of fact. You can't assert definitively that there is
> > only one, strategic, reason for every decision Gandalf made.
>
> What has that to do with asserting that Gandalf didn't
> overestimate himself (which would be prideful - a deadly sin that
> Tolkien wouldn't let Gandalf commit) and that he didn't enter
> Moria in a suicidal rush (removing himself would be another sin)?
Pish tosh. You're asserting angels are incapable of sin, which is not only
bad theology if you believe in Lucifer, it's bad interpretation of the books.
Gandalf says "I dare not take the ring, not even to keep it safe."
Your argument removes any reason for Frodo to accept this statement as anything
other than a poorly worded excuse for Gandalf's reluctance to become an actor
against Sauron, which itself would, I suppose according to you be a sin.
Tolkien was quite clear that Gandalf would have been corrupted just like
anyone else, stating that no one, not even Sauron could have voluntarily
cast the ring into the fire. If anything, ainur seem to be more affected
by the magic of the ring, since it offers them more benefit, unless their
own spiritual state makes them immune to its power, as with Tom Bombadil,
who, unlike Gandalf, is seriously considered as a potential Ring-keeper.
> > It reduces the tale to an exercise in plot mechanics, or
> > worse, alternative history war-gaming amongst cardboard cut-outs.
>
> You're fighting your own wind-mills here.
No, but I'm sure not tilting at giants of literary criticism.
You guys are arguing story-internal "fact" and worse, evaluating
possible character actions and reactions as story-internal "fact".
> > I think it's quite plausible that Gandalf (in Tolkien's or the
> > Reader's interpretation)
>
> Readers can interpret any book (or other works of art for that
> matter) however they want to - discussing that is rather fruitless, IMO.
So we should only care about Tolkien's interpretation?? A postmodernist
would happily point out that when you mean Tolkien's interpretation, you
actually mean a version of YOUR interpretation, not MINE. I will not go
that far, although it isn't mine, but in some ways I'd be willing to go
further; you're reifying what Tolkien wrote or thought about the characters.
> The interesting disussion is what motivations and considerations
> Tolkien imagined.
No, it's not interesting, because Tolkien is not some kind of guru
or messiah. Besides which, it always boils down into an exercise in
trivial pursuit for you guys, using Letters, grocery lists, etc. If
you can find a statement on some intricate point which seems not to be
contradicted by anything else, then the discussion loses all interest
for the serious Tolkien scholar, which is what seems to be happening here.
What's interesting is what we can GET out of this or any other novels.
> > may have foreseen his confrontation with Durin's Bane and chosen
> > that route in hopes of throwing the Enemy for a loop.
>
> Unlikely, however.
> He had been through Moria before without encountering any problems,
> and he didn't know that there was a Balrog in Moria.
Which is itself a major plot hole in the entire mythology.
> > In which case either of the possibilities Linards mentioned are
> > quite possible secondary motivations for Gandalf's actions.
>
> I simply can't agree - they appear completely impossible to me.
> You have to remember Tolkien's background as well as the story
> itself - he would never have let the one faithful/successful
> Istar commit a deadly sin.
You can't take a story-external reason and use it to claim
that something is a story-internal fact. Expecially when
doing so implies that orthodox Catholics believe in the
born-again theory of unassailable virtue, which they quite
clearly do not. Story-internal, we can argue that Gandalf
was just as capable of being corrupted as all his colleagues were.
To say otherwise makes his character as shallow as the grave,
a mere cardboard cut-out of wisdom, virtue and power bailing
out the child-like humans & hobbits.
> > I similarly think Gandalf would have deliberately done some
> > other dam-fool thing to remove himself from the picture on
> > the journey to Rauros, had he somehow survived Moria.
>
> I doubt that very much - and in particular not by having
> himself killed.
If Gandalf is as farsighted as you claim, forseeing every
possible danger of temptation, he should have come to the
conclusion that the only easy way to get the Ringbearer
safely into Mordor was to remove himself from the scene.
Are you implying Tolkien didn't believe in martyrdom or
that it was a sin? Had gandalf known about the Balrog
he would have been suicidal, thereby a sin?
> > It is also integral to ancient tales or legends, the
> > necessity of the hero making the last phase of the journey
> > without supernatural guidance.
>
> That is probably one of the story-external reasons why Gandalf
> had to fall somewhere - Moria being Tolkien's choice, but that
> only pertains to Tolkien's motivations, not Gandalf's own.
Story-internal, Gandalf had to have some motivations as to
what he intended to do post-Lorien. We can (a) speculate on
that those motivations were, since they are not in the published
text of LOTR, or (b) declare that story-internal, Gandalf knew it
wouldn't happen that way with him leading them safely past Rauros.
Take your pick.
-Ber
wrob
Actually, it was a hell of a lot more than an excuse. Had Sauron
not been distracted by the eviction notice recieved by Gandalf,
Saruman, Galadriel et al. he would quite possibly have espied
Bilbo's use of the Ring in northern Mirkwood, certainly had
Bilbo & co. taken the Old Forest Road to the south.
ste...@nomail.com
: phobos wrote:
:
:> But why suicide? Why not just make an excuse and leave, like he did
:> halfway through the Quest of Erebor?
: Actually, it was a hell of a lot more than an excuse. Had Sauron
: not been distracted by the eviction notice recieved by Gandalf,
: Saruman, Galadriel et al. he would quite possibly have espied
: Bilbo's use of the Ring in northern Mirkwood, certainly had
: Bilbo & co. taken the Old Forest Road to the south.
But Gandalf's motivation for leaving then had nothing to do
with the Ring. He did not know that Bilbo had the One Ring.
It is implied that he realized that Bilbo had a ring, but at
that point he would not even have reason to suspect it was
a Great Ring.
His excuse for leaving halfway through the Quest of Erebor
was that he had more important things to do, which is not really
an excuse, but a very legitimate reason. On the other hand, there was
nothing more important than helping Frodo complete his task.
Stephen
wrob
> Linards Ticmanis <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
> news:<bj0enq$27brp$1...@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de>...
>
> > It's interesting that in the book, Gandalf is the main driving force
> > behind the decision to enter Moria. (Another thing changed in the movie).
>
> > Was he beginning to overestimate himself? Was he unconsciously getting
> > himself out of the way? Or neither of those?
>
> Neither.
Again, cut off debate on a hypothetical, thematic discussion about
a character's motivations in a work of fiction.
> My recollection is that in an earlier draft Gandalf and
> Aragorn's arguments were reversed. Tolkien changed that so Gandalf
> would not be arguing to avoid Moria... preventing the possible view
> that he might have been doing so in an effort to 'save himself'. As
> it turns out Gandalf simply thinks it is the safest route... in the
> movie he seems to know that he will be in grave peril in Moria. In
> the book he did not.
If that's what you choose to believe, that's fine for you.
> > On the other hand we know that Tolkien made his longest writing pause
> > between the two Moria chapters, right? I'd assume that the decision to
> > get rid of Gandalf (for the time being) was made during this interval,
> > or was it made earlier?
>
> Gandalf's fall in Moria was sketched out in the first draft of the
> chapter... when Tolkien was still thinking that his opponent would be
> a 'Black Rider' or perhaps Saruman and had not even thought of a
> Balrog yet.
Hmm, this conflicts Troel's (or Morgil's?) assertion that Gandalf would
never have walked into conflict with a Balrog knowing he was going to
fall, since the Balrog did not have epistemological existence at the
time.... which itself is a fairly bold assertion! Tell me, if a Balrog
loses its wings, does it still have Balrog nature?
> > Another q. did Tolkien decide that Gandalf was to come back at the same
> > time he decided that he was to fall? Or was that two separate plot
> > decisions?
>
> The fact that Gandalf would return was mentioned in Tolkien's notes
> immediately after the first occurence of his fall. However, there it
> was attributed to the drop not being as far as it seemed or other
> explanations... there was no mention of Gandalf actually DYING until
> later but always with the view that he would return.
Again, seemingly no interest in exploring possible motivations or
character shadings beyond the most blindingly obvious ones that
Tolkien could think to explicitly state for his readers' benefit?
(Something that in itself is an unhealthy habit for any author
that aspires to write literature with complex characters and
varied applicability or multiple interpretations.)
Linard's question was a retorical one meant to incite discussion,
not invite correction on the basis of the author's notes to himself
about the fictional character in question.
-Ber
Morgil
"wrob" <wr...@erols.com> kirjoitti viestissä:3F57AAB2...@erols.com...
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> > in <3F53EA9A...@erols.com>,
> > wrob <wr...@erols.com> enriched us with:
> > Unlikely, however.
> > He had been through Moria before without encountering any problems,
> > and he didn't know that there was a Balrog in Moria.
>
> Which is itself a major plot hole in the entire mythology.
So, you're just being dumb and annoying, and anyone not
willing to go along is "thoughtless" for not letting you to
"speculate"?
> > > I similarly think Gandalf would have deliberately done some
> > > other dam-fool thing to remove himself from the picture on
> > > the journey to Rauros, had he somehow survived Moria.
> >
> > I doubt that very much - and in particular not by having
> > himself killed.
>
> If Gandalf is as farsighted as you claim, forseeing every
> possible danger of temptation, he should have come to the
> conclusion that the only easy way to get the Ringbearer
> safely into Mordor was to remove himself from the scene.
Oh, it's all becoming clear now! It was in fact *Gandalf*
who brought down the avalanche on them at Caradhras
pass. No wonder he was so vague about who did it...
And when that didn't work, he summoned the vargs
convenietly to drive them in to the Moria. Then when
things seemed to be going too well, he manipulated
Pippin to alert the Balrog. The Force has a strong
influence on weak minded, and all...
Morgil
wrob
> "wrob" <wr...@erols.com> kirjoitti viestissä:3F57AAB2...@erols.com...
> > Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> >
> > > in <3F53EA9A...@erols.com>,
> > > wrob <wr...@erols.com> enriched us with:
>
> > > Unlikely, however.
> > > He had been through Moria before without encountering any problems,
> > > and he didn't know that there was a Balrog in Moria.
> >
> > Which is itself a major plot hole in the entire mythology.
>
> So, you're just being dumb and annoying, and anyone not
> willing to go along is "thoughtless" for not letting you to
> "speculate"?
LETTING ME GO SPECULATE? Why don't you stick it up your ass.
And you wonder why people have this attitude about Tolkien fans.
> > If Gandalf is as farsighted as you claim, forseeing every
> > possible danger of temptation, he should have come to the
> > conclusion that the only easy way to get the Ringbearer
> > safely into Mordor was to remove himself from the scene.
>
> Oh, it's all becoming clear now! It was in fact *Gandalf*
> who brought down the avalanche on them at Caradhras
> pass. No wonder he was so vague about who did it...
> And when that didn't work, he summoned the vargs
> convenietly to drive them in to the Moria. Then when
> things seemed to be going too well, he manipulated
> Pippin to alert the Balrog. The Force has a strong
> influence on weak minded, and all...
Guess what, pal, I don't give a shit who brought down the
storm at Caradhras. In fact, since there is no such mountain,
there is no answer to your question. I am only interested
in the books as literature. Not as life, like you folx are.
Even in the alternative.
-Ber
wrob
> LETTING ME GO SPECULATE? Why don't you stick it up your ass.
> And you wonder why people have this attitude about Tolkien fans.
PS -- There's no point in continuing the discussion, since so
few people are willing/able to set aside their fixed
interpretations of the books and approach it as literature.
So I'm signing off. Third time is the charm.
Or should I say, fool me once..!
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> not been distracted by the eviction notice recieved by Gandalf,
> Saruman, Galadriel et al. he would quite possibly have espied
> Bilbo's use of the Ring in northern Mirkwood, certainly had
> Bilbo & co. taken the Old Forest Road to the south.
cept of course gandlaf didnt know bilbo had the ring
or for certain that sauron was looking for it from dol guldur
Morgil
"wrob" <wr...@erols.com> kirjoitti viestissä:3F57B9B2...@erols.com...
> Morgil wrote:
> > So, you're just being dumb and annoying, and anyone not
> > willing to go along is "thoughtless" for not letting you to
> > "speculate"?
>
> LETTING ME GO SPECULATE? Why don't you stick it up your ass.
> And you wonder why people have this attitude about Tolkien fans.
Yes, as you have just demonstrated, you seem to
take it as a personal insult when people refuse to
accept your speculations when they clearly contradict
the facts presented in the book.
Morgil
wrob
Providence, of course.
wrob
The book is literature, you are taking it as truth. It saddens me
to see people taking fiction simultaneously more and less seriously
than they do art set in real life or an incident in real life.
What amuses me the most are the gung-ho types who view every incident
of stabbing as proof of a character's (usu. Frodo or Aragorn) virtue.
Why these aren't people in the armed forces when our soldiers are
dying so they can continue spouting off facts about what courage is
in Middle-Earth, that's what I'd like to know. Putting their money
where their mouth is.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
i thought the ring was lost in gladden fields
not rhode island
Linards Ticmanis
> Linard's question was a retorical one meant to incite discussion,
> not invite correction on the basis of the author's notes to himself
> about the fictional character in question.
Actually it was both. I haven't read the HoME drafts so the info was
welcome.
AC
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>> My recollection is that in an earlier draft Gandalf and
>> Aragorn's arguments were reversed. Tolkien changed that so Gandalf
>> would not be arguing to avoid Moria... preventing the possible view
>> that he might have been doing so in an effort to 'save himself'.
As
>> it turns out Gandalf simply thinks it is the safest route... in the
>> movie he seems to know that he will be in grave peril in Moria. In
>> the book he did not.
> If that's what you choose to believe, that's fine for you.
Um.... what? It is not what I 'choose to believe'. It is factual
information. Tolkien changed the structure of the debate about going
through Moria. There is no indication in the book that Gandalf knew
he was likely to die if he went into Moria... in the movie there is.
>> Gandalf's fall in Moria was sketched out in the first draft of the
>> chapter... when Tolkien was still thinking that his opponent would
be
>> a 'Black Rider' or perhaps Saruman and had not even thought of a
>> Balrog yet.
> Hmm, this conflicts Troel's (or Morgil's?) assertion that Gandalf would
> never have walked into conflict with a Balrog knowing he was going to
> fall, since the Balrog did not have epistemological existence at the
> time.... which itself is a fairly bold assertion!
Again... WHAT? How does the Balrog not existing in an earlier draft
have any relevance to Gandalf's decisions in regards to the Balrog in
the published story? In the book, Gandalf did not enter Moria knowing
that he would have to face a Balrog. In the movie he did. When
Gandalf DID discover that there was a Balrog he willingly sacrificed
himself to save the others, but there is no indication (in the book)
that he would have put himself in that position if he had known about
the Balrog all along.
> Tell me, if a Balrog loses its wings, does it still have Balrog nature?
Tell me, are you just trolling or do you think any of this actually
makes sense?
>> The fact that Gandalf would return was mentioned in Tolkien's notes
>> immediately after the first occurence of his fall. However, there
it
>> was attributed to the drop not being as far as it seemed or other
>> explanations... there was no mention of Gandalf actually DYING
until
>> later but always with the view that he would return.
> Again, seemingly no interest in exploring possible motivations or
> character shadings beyond the most blindingly obvious ones that
> Tolkien could think to explicitly state for his readers' benefit?
Ok... I think my question about trolling has been answered. Your
usual insults and condescending attitude, but now devoid of >any<
apparent basis.
> Linard's question was a retorical one meant to incite discussion,
> not invite correction on the basis of the author's notes to himself
> about the fictional character in question.
Linard asked about the textual history. I provided some information
about it. You were a jerk. Where did I 'correct' anyone except you?