Why didn't Saruman Take Gandalf's Staff and Glamdring?
Gordon Nash
Wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken them from him? How many
jailors let their prisoners keep two powerful weapons? It really doesn't make
any sense. He might have even Broken Gandalf's staff just as Gandalf broke his
when given the opportunity.
On a slightly different subject but still ispired by Gandalf's Captivity.
Gandalf was kept at the top of Orthanc, 500 feet above the ground. There are no
ancient buildings close to this size. Even the pyramids were not meant to be
lived in, no one went to the top of them. Building's more than about 10 floors
didn't exist till modern times because there were no elevators. Just think
about it, Saruman had to walk up this enormous flight of stairs to bring
Gandalf to his prison, then someone, had to walk up there every day to feed
him. This is a lot of effort. Do you think Saruman had some sort of magic
elevator?
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
David Sulger
>Gandalf was kept at the top of Orthanc,
>500 feet above the ground. There are no
>ancient buildings close to this size.
But Orthanc wasn't built bt the ancient Numenoreans. They carved the
interior of the tower out of solid rock.
--Dave
Mark Wells
>When Gandalf escaped from Orthanc he still had Glamdring and his Staff.
>Wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken them from him? How many
>jailors let their prisoners keep two powerful weapons? It really doesn't make
>any sense. He might have even Broken Gandalf's staff just as Gandalf broke his
>when given the opportunity.
Because he didn't want to start slugging it out with another Istar in
a confined space. (Duels between Ainur have a tendency to become
unpleasant.) Neither did Gandalf, of course, so he went quietly when
Saruman imprisoned him on the tower. Saruman probably realized that
he shouldn't push his luck by trying to take Gandalf's sword, staff,
ring[0], etc. by force.
>On a slightly different subject but still ispired by Gandalf's Captivity.
>Gandalf was kept at the top of Orthanc, 500 feet above the ground. There are no
>ancient buildings close to this size. Even the pyramids were not meant to be
>lived in, no one went to the top of them. Building's more than about 10 floors
>didn't exist till modern times because there were no elevators. Just think
>about it, Saruman had to walk up this enormous flight of stairs to bring
>Gandalf to his prison, then someone, had to walk up there every day to feed
>him. This is a lot of effort. Do you think Saruman had some sort of magic
>elevator?
Saruman apparently had a lot of slave labor available. He wasn't the
type to waste resources building machines to make his or anyone else's
life easier--he used his engineering talents purely as a means to
power. He would probably find that building an elevator to the top of
the tower would be more expensive than taking some poor Dunlending out
of the dungeon and making him walk up there every day to feed Gandalf.
Unless Gandalf didn't need to be fed. Hey, he's a wizard. Can't he
just subcreate himself some dinner?
[0] He might not have known about Narya. I would expect the world's
foremost expert on the Rings of Power to be able to tell when one of
his prisoners has one of them, but maybe not. The Three are almost
completely invisible when worn.
Michael Martinez
>When Gandalf escaped from Orthanc he still had Glamdring and his Staff.
>Wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken them from him? How many
>jailors let their prisoners keep two powerful weapons? It really doesn't make
>any sense. He might have even Broken Gandalf's staff just as Gandalf broke his
>when given the opportunity.
Gandalf was still dangerous, even though he was clearly not powerful enough to
escape from Isengard. It does seem strange that Saruman should leave the
sword with him, but Gandalf could have gotten a new staff just about anywhere
he found trees (and this rationalization assumes the staff was nothing more
than a staff, though Gandalf might choose to channel his power through it).
>On a slightly different subject but still ispired by Gandalf's Captivity.
>Gandalf was kept at the top of Orthanc, 500 feet above the ground. There are no
>ancient buildings close to this size. Even the pyramids were not meant to be
>lived in, no one went to the top of them. Building's more than about 10 floors
>didn't exist till modern times because there were no elevators. Just think
>about it, Saruman had to walk up this enormous flight of stairs to bring
>Gandalf to his prison, then someone, had to walk up there every day to feed
>him. This is a lot of effort. Do you think Saruman had some sort of magic
>elevator?
Saruman did indeed have machinery, and the Numenoreans may have had some of
their own. But then, people have climbed mountains without complaining, so I
guess a 500-foot tower didn't matter much.
--
\\ // Science Fiction and Fantasy in...@xenite.org
\\// Looking for Web-based discussion forums?
//\\ Check out the Message Board Directory!
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Alan Graham
Although he had Gandalf trapped on the tower of Orthanc, he did not have
control over him, so would have hesitated in trying to take his staff, and
the inevitable trouble that would have caused him.
By simply imprisoning Gandalf (as he had thought) he kept him out of the way
until Saruman had found the Ring, or Gandalf had changed his mind and
accepted Saruman as his leader.
Al
Gordon Nash wrote in message
<19991217000302...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>When Gandalf escaped from Orthanc he still had Glamdring and his Staff.
>Wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken them from him? How many
>jailors let their prisoners keep two powerful weapons? It really doesn't
make
>any sense. He might have even Broken Gandalf's staff just as Gandalf broke
his
>when given the opportunity.
>
>On a slightly different subject but still ispired by Gandalf's Captivity.
>Gandalf was kept at the top of Orthanc, 500 feet above the ground. There
are no
>ancient buildings close to this size. Even the pyramids were not meant to
be
>lived in, no one went to the top of them. Building's more than about 10
floors
>didn't exist till modern times because there were no elevators. Just think
>about it, Saruman had to walk up this enormous flight of stairs to bring
>Gandalf to his prison, then someone, had to walk up there every day to feed
>him. This is a lot of effort. Do you think Saruman had some sort of magic
>elevator?
>Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Simon Paquet
>[0] He might not have known about Narya. I would expect the world's
>foremost expert on the Rings of Power to be able to tell when one of
>his prisoners has one of them, but maybe not. The Three are almost
>completely invisible when worn.
I don't think, that Saruman knew, that Gandalf wore Narya. Remember, it
needed the power of the Ruling Ring, that Frodo could guess that
Galadriel wore Nenya.
Ciao
Simon
--
"How do you know the chosen ones? No greater love hath a man, then he
lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory,
not for fame, for one person in the dark, where no one will ever know
or see." (Babylon 5 - Comes The Inquisitor)
Gordon Nash
>foremost expert on the Rings of Power to be able to tell when one of
>his prisoners has one of them, but maybe not. The Three are almost
>completely invisible when worn.
I think that he suspected that Gandalf might have Narya but I don't think there
is any way he could detect it.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>he found trees (and this rationalization assumes the staff was nothing more
>than a staff, though Gandalf might choose to channel his power through it).
Then Saruman could have just gotten a new staff too and breaking his old one
would not have been a big deal.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Rileysan
Gordon Nash <gord...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991217150009...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
I think the point you are eluding to is correct ... the staffs of the
wizards WERE special and probably contained great power (very much like the
rings of power). In FoTR, Saruman accused Gandalf of wanting to rule
everyone and everything and also wanting to acquire the "five staffs of the
wizards". Additionally, Gandalf used his staff a number of times throughout
TLOR ... including when he entered the halls of Theoden. (Wormtoungue was
enraged that Gandalf was allowed to bring his staff into the presence of the
king ... if nothing else, because he feared the power Gandalf had with the
staff).
Rileysan
Conrad Dunkerson
news:83ean2$n...@news.or.intel.com...
> Additionally, Gandalf used his staff a number of times throughout
> TLOR ... including when he entered the halls of Theoden.
An interesting point is that Gandalf destroyed his staff breaking
the bridge at Khazad-dum... and yet when he shows up again he has a
staff. So, either he could get a new staff from some source (any
given tree or possibly the Elves of Lorien) -or- a new staff was
created for him by Eru when he was sent back.
Michael Martinez
Gandalf's breaking of Saruman's staff does not imply that the staff has any
special significance beyond the symbolic nature attached to it. The Istari
were known to possess and use staves. Gandalf lost his staff in Moria and was
given a new one in Lorien. He wasn't diminished by the loss of his staff so
far as we can determine, since he did ultimately defeat the Balrog.
Stan Brown
Nash) wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>When Gandalf escaped from Orthanc he still had Glamdring and his Staff.
>Wouldn't it make sense for Saruman to have taken them from him? How many
>jailors let their prisoners keep two powerful weapons?
For some reason, prisoners in H and LotR are not relieved of their
valuables. Remember that Gandalf got both key and map from Thrain in
Sauron's dungeons, just before the start of /The Hobbit/. One would think
Sauron, or a light-fingered guard, would have taken them from him before
that.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Tolkien FAQs:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/TolkNgFaq.html (Jensen)
http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~gsl9286/aft/faq/ (Loos)
Inklings site list:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GregorArlt/inklings_sites.html
more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm
Conrad Dunkerson
news:83ee48$174...@news.uswest.net...
> Gandalf lost his staff in Moria and was given a new one in
> Lorien.
A reasonable assumption, but we don't really know where Gandalf got
his new staff for certain. JRRT may never have considered it or
overlooked the need to replace the staff entirely. Gandalf received
healing and clothes in Lorien - this might be extended to include a
staff or he might have made a new one himself or it might have been
supplied by Eru. We don't know.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:3859fddb...@news.pc-intouch.com...
> [0] He might not have known about Narya. I would expect the
> world's foremost expert on the Rings of Power to be able to tell
> when one of his prisoners has one of them, but maybe not. The
> Three are almost completely invisible when worn.
Take your pick;
"But the Red Ring remained hidden until the end, and none save
Elrond and Galadriel and Cirdan knew to whom it had been committed."
Silm, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age
"And the Grey Messenger took the Ring, and kept it ever secret; yet
the White Messenger (who was skilled to uncover all secrets) after a
time became aware of this gift, and begrudged it..."
UT, The Istari
Rileysan
until this thread.
The first question I raise is what I brought up earlier ... Do the staves of
the Istari contain power?
In FoTR, after Gandalf asked Saruman for his staff and the keys to Orthanc,
Saruman was enraged. He accused gandalf of also wanting the keys of Barad
Dur as well as the staves of the five wizards. It would seem that the staves
were very important to the Istari since Saruman decided to mention them in
this context. There are, of course, lot's of examples where Gandalf used his
staff (for more than just walking).
On the flip side, maybe Gandalf (and his staff) can be likened to Moses.
Moses' staff had no inherent power but with the power and authority of God,
Moses' staff became a powerful tool when used as intended. Perhaps Gandalf's
(and the rest of the Istari) staff was the same. It was a plain and regular
staff until, with the utterance of a few words (and the power and authority
of Eru), the staff became a powerful tool (but not so much a weapon).
After MM's comments, I am more likely to believe the latter as it would
account for Gandalf's new staff. Also, it could be argued that by breaking
Saruman's staff, Gandalf also took away Saruman's right to summon the
aforementioned power.
Thoughts?
Rileysan
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:83ef14$44v$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
Mark Wells
>I think the point you are eluding to is correct ... the staffs of the
>wizards WERE special and probably contained great power (very much like the
They were 'special' only in that the Wizards used them.
>rings of power). In FoTR, Saruman accused Gandalf of wanting to rule
>everyone and everything and also wanting to acquire the "five staffs of the
This sounds symbolic. It's like saying that Ar-Pharazon seized the
sceptre of Numenor from Tar-Miriel. Did he literally grab the sceptre out
of Tar-Miriel's hands? Well, maybe, but that's not the point. What he
seized was the title and the power that the sceptre represented.
Thus when Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, it was more a demonstration of
Saruman's defeat than an actual attack on his power. Similarly, when
Denethor broke his _own_ staff, it was a demonstration that he'd defeated
himself.
>wizards". Additionally, Gandalf used his staff a number of times throughout
>TLOR ... including when he entered the halls of Theoden. (Wormtoungue was
>enraged that Gandalf was allowed to bring his staff into the presence of the
>king ... if nothing else, because he feared the power Gandalf had with the
>staff).
A staff can be a terribly effective weapon, especially in the hands of
someone who's had thousands of years to practice.
Mark Wells
>For some reason, prisoners in H and LotR are not relieved of their
>valuables. Remember that Gandalf got both key and map from Thrain in
>Sauron's dungeons, just before the start of /The Hobbit/. One would think
>Sauron, or a light-fingered guard, would have taken them from him before
>that.
That is confusing, considering that Sauron searched Thrain thoroughly
enough to find a Ring of Power (which would normally compel its bearer to
guard it more closely than anything else). I suppose it's possible that
he found the Ring first and then stopped looking, but it seems like a
stretch. The natural first step in searching him would be to strip him
naked, and then where would he hide the map? (Stop thinking that.
That's disgusting.)
A more plausible explanation would be that Thrain hid the map and the key
in his cell before the guards took him away to be searched. Why didn't he
hide the Ring? Because it's a Ring, and it wouldn't let him leave it
unguarded in his cell. (This would obviously make it more likely to be
found, but the victims of the Rings sometimes have problems thinking
rationally about them.) So he buried the map and the key, but couldn't
bring himself to bury the Ring, so it was still on him when he was
searched. Sauron took the Ring and sent him back to his cell, where he
dug up the map and the key.
Comments?
the softrat
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>An interesting point is that Gandalf destroyed his staff breaking
>the bridge at Khazad-dum... and yet when he shows up again he has a
>staff. So, either he could get a new staff from some source (any
>given tree or possibly the Elves of Lorien) -or- a new staff was
>created for him by Eru when he was sent back.
K-Mart or Staves'R'Us.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
God? I'm no God! God has MERCY!
the softrat
(Mark Wells) wrote:
>Did he literally grab the sceptre out of Tar-Miriel's hands?
The Wicked Brute!
David Salo
ma...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote:
> That is confusing, considering that Sauron searched Thrain thoroughly
> enough to find a Ring of Power (which would normally compel its bearer to
> guard it more closely than anything else). I suppose it's possible that
> he found the Ring first and then stopped looking, but it seems like a
> stretch. The natural first step in searching him would be to strip him
> naked, and then where would he hide the map?
Possibly he _wasn't_ hiding the ring, but wearing it in its most natural
place - his finger - when he was caught; or else around his neck, like
Frodo, where it would be easily found without stripping him. It would have
been very difficult for him to hide it after his arrest. And Gandalf says
"I do not know how he endured so long, nor how he had kept these things
hidden through all his torments. I think that the Dark Power had desired
nothing from him except the Ring only, and when he had taken that he
troubled no further, but just flung the broken prisoner into the pits to
rave until he died."
Michael Martinez
>Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:83ef14$44v$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>> Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>> news:83ee48$174...@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> > Gandalf lost his staff in Moria and was given a new one in
>> > Lorien.
>>
>> A reasonable assumption, but we don't really know where Gandalf got
>> his new staff for certain. JRRT may never have considered it or
>> overlooked the need to replace the staff entirely. Gandalf received
>> healing and clothes in Lorien - this might be extended to include a
>> staff or he might have made a new one himself or it might have been
>> supplied by Eru. We don't know.
Yes, we do know, but some people just like to cloud the issues.
>To tell the truth, I never even thought about the power of Wizard's staves
>until this thread.
>
>The first question I raise is what I brought up earlier ... Do the staves of
>the Istari contain power?
If they do, Gandalf should have been stripped of his when he destroyed it.
The externalization of one's native strength is an important theme in Tolkien,
and the most potent example of externalization is Sauron's Ring which, when
destroyed, so weakens him he is unable to retain his bodily form and is
rendered simply a spirit of malevolence.
>After MM's comments, I am more likely to believe the latter as it would
>account for Gandalf's new staff. Also, it could be argued that by breaking
>Saruman's staff, Gandalf also took away Saruman's right to summon the
>aforementioned power.
The breaking of Saruman's staff concerned his being cast out of the Order of
the Istari.
Javier Caselli
> I think the point you are eluding to is correct ... the staffs of the
> wizards WERE special and probably contained great power (very much like the
> rings of power). In FoTR, Saruman accused Gandalf of wanting to rule
> everyone and everything and also wanting to acquire the "five staffs of the
> wizards". Additionally, Gandalf used his staff a number of times throughout
> TLOR ... including when he entered the halls of Theoden. (Wormtoungue was
> enraged that Gandalf was allowed to bring his staff into the presence of the
> king ... if nothing else, because he feared the power Gandalf had with the
> staff).
>
> Rileysan
Gandalf's staff was nothing but a piece of wood, the wizards only used them to
channel their power through them(like water running inside a pipe), the breaking
of Saruman staff was a simbol, when Gandalf prived Saruman's of his powers,
Gandalf did this because Eru himself gave him the power to do so, when Gandalf
was imprisoned in Isengard, Saruman could not take his powers from him(not even
Manwë had the power to alter the nature of any being, only Iluvatar had this
power.
--
"Through darkness one may come to the light"
"Yet one will walk under the sun while one may"
Greetings from Malaga(SPAIN) from Javier Caselli (j_ca...@arrakis.es)
Andrew Wells
>On a slightly different subject but still ispired by Gandalf's Captivity.
>Gandalf was kept at the top of Orthanc, 500 feet above the ground. There
are no
>ancient buildings close to this size. Even the pyramids were not meant to
be
>lived in, no one went to the top of them. Building's more than about 10
floors
>didn't exist till modern times because there were no elevators. Just think
>about it, Saruman had to walk up this enormous flight of stairs to bring
>Gandalf to his prison, then someone, had to walk up there every day to feed
>him. This is a lot of effort. Do you think Saruman had some sort of magic
>elevator?
The first structure of any sort taller than 500 feet was the central tower
of Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln, England, which was 525 feet tall. This was
completed about 1307, and fell in a storm in 1548.
The next building taller than 500 feet tall was the spire of St Pierre de
Beauvais, Beauvais, France, completed in 1568. This fell in 1573.
After this, the spires of Koln Cathedral, Cologne, Germany, were 513 feet
tall, and were completed in 1880.
Andrew
--
Andrew Wells
Change 10 to 9 to reach me
Conrad Dunkerson
> Yes, we do know, but some people just like to cloud the issues.
I notice you don't say how we 'know' or provide the least bit of
evidence to support this claim that Gandalf MUST have gotten his new
staff in Lorien. Just looks like another case of Michael Martinez
insulting anyone who doesn't accept his assumptions as fact.
The only 'evidence' to support your position I can think of is;
"Naked I was sent back...", "Thus it was that I came to Caras
Galadon ... and I was clothed in white.", "Naked is alas! unclear.
It was meant just literally, 'unclothed like a child' (not
discarnate), and so ready to receive the white robes of the
highest."
We might assume the 'naked' references to mean that he was sent back
without clothes or ANY possessions - but we later see that he still
has Glamdring and Narya and thus could in theory have been sent back
with a staff as well. The 'clothed in white' references could be
assumed to mean that he was also given a new staff (though
presumably not a white one) at that time... but there is no mention
of such.
As I said before, it is >reasonable< to assume that Gandalf got his
new staff in Lorien. However, it IS an assumption and you have not
provided any proof to the contrary.
It is interesting to note that in the drafts Gandalf's staff was
first broken in the explosion sealing the door, then during the
fight when the Balrog's sword was shattered, and finally in the
breaking of the bridge as per the final version. It is also said
to have had power of its own;
"All the power of my staff was expended [?in a flash]: it was
shattered to bits."
This along with Gandalf's inability to make light without it and
insistence on taking it with him into Edoras... and the breaking of
Saruman's staff followed by Saruman's loss of power (save his voice)
all seem to suggest to me that the staves of the Istari were more
than just any given piece of wood (indeed, in one version Gandalf
replaced Saruman's staff with a 'rough staff' - just a long fallen
tree limb, unshaped.) The draft material seems to be consistent
with implications of power in the published story. As such I think
it likely that Gandalf either received a new staff when he returned
or made a new one (possibly with the Elves' help) in Lorien... but
again, Tolkien never tells us.
Gordon Nash
>valuables. Remember that Gandalf got both key and map from Thrain in
>Sauron's dungeons, just before the start of /The Hobbit/. One would think
>Sauron, or a light-fingered guard, would have taken them from him before
>that.
Thank you, I have been wondering about that for years? Everyone assumes it
would have been the end if the ring had been captured, it seems to me it Sauron
never would have discovered it, it would just be left in the lost and found or
the bottom of some orc's drawer under the rubber bands or something.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>Gandalf's staff was nothing but a piece of wood, the wizards only used them
>to
>channel their power through them(like water running inside a pipe), the
>breaking
>of Saruman staff was a simbol, when Gandalf prived Saruman's of his powers,
>Gandalf did this because Eru himself gave him the power to do so, when
>Gandalf
>was imprisoned in Isengard, Saruman could not take his powers from him(not
>even
>Manwë had the power to alter the nature of any being, only Iluvatar had this
>power.
what source are you quoted for this definitive argument? I can make statements
saying exactly the opposite, it doesn't make it true? If you do have a textual
basis for your argument give it.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>of Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln, England, which was 525 feet tall. This was
>completed about 1307, and fell in a storm in 1548.
>
>The next building taller than 500 feet tall was the spire of St Pierre de
>Beauvais, Beauvais, France, completed in 1568. This fell in 1573.
>
>After this, the spires of Koln Cathedral, Cologne, Germany, were 513 feet
>tall, and were completed in 1880.
>
>
None of these high places were inhabited so the elevator question did not
arise. In all of them only the ground floor was used. The spires are akin to
the Obelisks in Egypt, monuments not building to live or work in. I should have
made my point clearer though.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Conrad B. Dunkerson
Someone had written;
Which one? There were several definitive statements in that block
of text. Some of them I can think of supporting passages for (Eru
giving Gandalf the power to deal with Saruman), some I cannot recall
any passages addressing (Saruman being incapable of taking Gandalf's
powers) and some I can think of contradictory evidence for (only
Iluvatar being able to alter the nature of other beings, the staves
being 'just wood' used to channel the power of the wizard).
In general, definitive statements should probably be avoided as none
of us are really qualified to speak for the author. Still, when a
particular point seems so obviously 'true' it is often easy to
assume that everyone else will see it the same way and state it
unconditionally.
Stan Brown
intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>Thus when Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, it was more a demonstration of
>Saruman's defeat than an actual attack on his power. Similarly, when
>Denethor broke his _own_ staff, it was a demonstration that he'd defeated
>himself.
I agree that "demonstration of defeat" is a powerful motive.
But remember Gandalf at Théoden's court in Edoras. He pretty clearly
needed his staff to "wake" Théoden, even though he also bore Narya, the
Ring of Fire. In giving that Ring to Gandalf, Cirdan said, on the last
page of "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in /Silmarillion/,
"'Take now this Ring. ... For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith,
maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that
grows chill.'"
One would think that Théoden's situation was *exactly* what that Ring
would have been for, but it seems he couldn't have "roused" Théoden
without the staff. From "The King of the Golden Hall" in LotR Bk III:
"He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was
blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark
as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen,
standing white and tall before the blackened hearth."
Mark Wells
>One would think that Théoden's situation was *exactly* what that Ring
>would have been for, but it seems he couldn't have "roused" Théoden
>without the staff. From "The King of the Golden Hall" in LotR Bk III:
>
>"He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was
>blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark
>as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen,
>standing white and tall before the blackened hearth."
As someone else pointed out, Gandalf no more needed his staff to do this
than Moses needed his staff to part the Red Sea. The power wasn't in the
staff. It was in Gandalf. (So what _was_ the staff for? Dramatic
effect? I don't know.)
Brian Ross
so Thrain shouldn't have had any trouble parting with a piddling Ring of Power
for a little while . If he knew that his ring was in danger of being
discovered, wouldn't that be all the more reason to hide it?
I think it more likely that his captors were simply given instructions on what
to look out for -- remember Ugluk's orders to report all suspicious items found
on Frodo, with special mention given to rings. Surely Sauron would have no
knowledge or interest in a map or a key.
Brian Ross
Michael Martinez
>
>what source are you quoted for this definitive argument? I can make statements
>saying exactly the opposite, it doesn't make it true? If you do have a textual
>basis for your argument give it.
As has been pointed out before. When Gandalf broke his staff in Moria, he
doesn't seem to have been diminished in power at all. Also, as has been
pointed out before, no one but Iluvatar had the power to diminish the nature
of another being. Sauron put most of his native strength into the One Ring,
so when it was destroyed, he was considerably weakened. Tolkien nowhere says
the Wizards put their strength into their staves.
Once again, people are arguing for something completely non-canonical: that
the Wizards' staves were anything more than what Tolkien said they were.
Gordon Nash
>the Wizards' staves were anything more than what Tolkien said they were.
>
>
Where does he say what they were? Give a reference.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Michael Martinez
You want a reference for where Tolkien speaks of wooden staves. Sorry, but I
am NOT going to give you one. That's asking way too much.
Michael Martinez
Gandalf may or may not have been channeling power through the staff in that
scene. The point really is that he was NOT powerless or significantly
weakened without it. He wouldn't have been able to defeat the Balrog if that
were the case.
The staves were certainly used by the Istari to symbolize their authority or
mission, and when Gandalf broke Saruman's staff the act was very much like
when Denethor broke his own, as someone pointed out. The breaking of the
staff symbolized the dissolution of whatever contract had placed the staff in
the owner's hand.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn there is some MEDIEVAL symbolism
here. The staff in the hand of an authority figure may actually go back to
ancient times, but I can only think of the Roman fasces and the croziers of
bishops off the top of my head (or is it the mitre that the bishops hold it's
croziers they wear? -- I get the two confused).
Andrew Wells
> Andrew Wells wrote ...
All accepted. I had been trying to make the point that, until about 100
years ago, there were *no* buildings of *any* sort that were much over 500
feet, let alone ones that were inhabited.
Mark Wells
>Where does he say what they were? Give a reference.
I think the argument here is empirical. If Gandalf depended on his
staff for his power, he should have lost his power when his staff was
broken. But he didn't. (The facts that he died shortly thereafter,
and that Saruman lost his power when his staff was broken, makes this
premise questionable, which is why I have other reasons for believing
he didn't depend on his staff for his power.) Therefore, his staff
wasn't the source of his power.
Mark Wells
Martinez) wrote:
>>As someone else pointed out, Gandalf no more needed his staff to do this
>>than Moses needed his staff to part the Red Sea. The power wasn't in the
>>staff. It was in Gandalf. (So what _was_ the staff for? Dramatic
>>effect? I don't know.)
>
>Gandalf may or may not have been channeling power through the staff in that
>scene. The point really is that he was NOT powerless or significantly
>weakened without it. He wouldn't have been able to defeat the Balrog if that
>were the case.
I suppose it could be argued that he weakened the Balrog enough by
dropping it into a chasm a few thousand feet deep that he could then
defeat it without his staff.
But in general it's very un-Tolkien (and un-Gandalf in particular) for
Gandalf to derive his power from a stick. There are very few examples
in Tolkien's mythology of a great hero depending on some unique
artifact for his power. Typically the hero is great _before_
obtaining the unique artifact and it makes him even greater. (Or it
takes over his mind and betrays him to his own death, as with Isildur
and Túrin.)
>The staves were certainly used by the Istari to symbolize their authority or
That seems strange considering that it was supposed to be a secret
mission; who would need to see evidence of their authority? But then
I suppose lots of people carry staves, so they were carrying symbols
of their authority disguised as something mundane, just as they
themselves were beings of great authority and power disguised as
something mundane. Fitting, isn't it?
>I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn there is some MEDIEVAL symbolism
>here. The staff in the hand of an authority figure may actually go back to
>ancient times, but I can only think of the Roman fasces and the croziers of
I suspect it goes back at least to Moses. (But if the Romans had a
similar custom, they must have developed it independently, as most of
them had never heard of Moses.)
>bishops off the top of my head (or is it the mitre that the bishops hold it's
>croziers they wear? -- I get the two confused).
I think the crozier is the staff. The mitre is the hat.
The crozier, IIRC, is shaped like a shepherd's staff, for obvious
symbolic reasons.
Henrik Larsen
>... Tolkien nowhere says the Wizards put their strength into their
>staves.
(Sorry for jumping in.)
If the Wizard staves were just ordinary wooden staves, why did Saruman
refuse to give his to Gandalf?
-Henrik
Conrad Dunkerson
> As has been pointed out before. When Gandalf broke his staff in
> Moria, he doesn't seem to have been diminished in power at all.
We have very little information about Gandalf during the time his
staff was broken. During that period he DID defeat the Balrog, but
it is possible that he did so without using magic (granted, there
were pyrotechnics on the peak, but then he also still had Narya).
It is also conceivable that there was some difference between
deliberately breaking his own staff and destroying Saruman's against
the other's will.
> Also, as has been pointed out before, no one but Iluvatar had the
> power to diminish the nature of another being.
Without getting into definitions of 'diminish' there are some
passages indicating that Morgoth could. Also, in this case it is
said that Eru gave Gandalf the >power< to deal with Saruman as he
did - which implies that it was Gandalf himself who did it.
> Sauron put most of his native strength into the One Ring, so when
> it was destroyed, he was considerably weakened. Tolkien nowhere
> says the Wizards put their strength into their staves.
True, though he nowhere says they didn't.
> Once again, people are arguing for something completely non-
> canonical: that the Wizards' staves were anything more than what
> Tolkien said they were.
Heh, he DIDN'T say what they were. That's rather the problem.
Conrad B. Dunkerson
> In article <19991218232219...@ng-fr1.aol.com>,
gord...@aol.com (Gordon Nash) wrote:
>>> Once again, people are arguing for something completely non-
>>> canonical: that the Wizards' staves were anything more than what
>>> Tolkien said they were.
>> Where does he say what they were? Give a reference.
> You want a reference for where Tolkien speaks of wooden staves.
> Sorry, but I am NOT going to give you one. That's asking way too
> much.
Yeah! How dare you request he provide a citation to back up his
claim that people who disagree with him are arguing for "something
completely non-canonical" and against "what Tolkien said"!
Don't you know that it is Michael's prerogative to inform us what
Tolkien said without actually providing any quotations of him doing
so?
Sheesh! Some people. :)
Alan Graham
Conrad Dunkerson wrote in message
<83imc3$3h0$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...>news:83hl2a$16s...@news.uswest.net...
>
>
>> Once again, people are arguing for something completely non-
>> canonical: that the Wizards' staves were anything more than what
>> Tolkien said they were.
>
He did say they were wooden sticks
Anything more needs to be proved from the text
Al
Conrad B. Dunkerson
news:385c9eaa....@news.pc-intouch.com...
> Therefore, his staff wasn't the source of his power.
I would say rather that the staff wasn't the ONLY source of his
power. The same with Narya and Glamdring. Even when Saruman lost
his staff he still retained the power of his voice.
As to whether the staves themselves had any power. Well, I think it
is implied they did by Gandalf's insistence on taking his in to see
Theoden and Saruman's refusal to surrender his... and the statement
that he suspected Gandalf of seeking the 'rods of the five wizards'.
It seems clear that Gandalf did work magic with his staff (light,
flame, bridge breaking, Theoden healing, et cetera) though not
whether this is because the power is in the staff, it needs to be
channeled through the staff, or just for show. In the earlier
drafts the matter is somewhat clearer;
"I expect I have buried Balin. But alas for my staff: we shall have
to go by guess in the dark."
ToI, The Bridge
In this version Gandalf's staff was destroyed in the explosion at
the door, and this is the apparent reason he is unable to make
light.
"All the power of my staff was expended [?in a flash]: it was
shattered to bits."
This comes just below the prior quotation and shows that at one
stage of the story's development the staff clearly had power of its
own. Immediately after the above JRRT rewrote the explosion and
took out references to Gandalf's staff being destroyed. There are
also passages where Gandalf gives Saruman a rough staff after
breaking his original or says that Saruman must not be allowed to
escape with his staff. All of this could have been an earlier
conception, but it seems consistent with the evidence of staff based
powers (given above) surviving into the final texts.
Alan Graham
Conrad B. Dunkerson wrote in message ...
My take has always been that the staffs are used by the wizards in the
conjuring of certain spells, but that they are not intrinsically powerful.
"A staff in the hands of a wizard may be more than a prop for age"
The breaking of Saruman's staff was simply the casting of Saruman from the
order. Much of his magic derived from his Maiar origins and power was lost
to him, leaving those centred on his corporal form.
The Five Rods remark does cast doubt on this view though, I'll admit. The
only convoluted reason I can come up with is that Saruman is saying that
Gandlaf seeks to destroy the magic of the other wizards, leaving him as the
only staff wielding wizard - were before there had been five.
Al
Conrad Dunkerson
news:83isjk$gkt$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> He did say they were wooden sticks
> Anything more needs to be proved from the text
True, however;
ANYTHING which we are going to put forward as 'fact' needs to be
proved from the texts - including a view that the staves were NOT
more than just wooden sticks. The point I was trying to make is
that I believe there isn't any >proof< one way or the other in the
texts on this issue. There is evidence to support any of the
various views which have been put forward, but JRRT did not provide
us with complete technical specifications for Istari staves and thus
claiming that they 'must' be one thing or another is going beyond
the texts. Almost all of us >are< approaching this as a speculative
discussion, but there have been a few posts trying to quash the
views of others by falsely claiming that these views are disproven
by the texts (and then refusing to supply references)... that kind
of abusive behaviour only serves to hinder discussion all around.
Stan Brown
ma...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:53:02 -0500, Stan Brown <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>One would think that Théoden's situation was *exactly* what that Ring
>>would have been for, but it seems he couldn't have "roused" Théoden
>>without the staff. From "The King of the Golden Hall" in LotR Bk III:
>>
>>"He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was
>>blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark
>>as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen,
>>standing white and tall before the blackened hearth."
>
>than Moses needed his staff to part the Red Sea.
If he didn't need the staff, why didn't he just leave it at the door as
Hama asked? Seems to me that he must have insisted on bringing it in
because he needed it. If it was just a matter of honor, he would have
been able to leave it with Aragorn's sword and Gimli's axe.
I don't understand how anyone can read the full chapter (not just the
short passage quoted) and have any doubt that the staff was necessary for
him to rouse Theoden, even though we may not understand *why* it was
necessary.
Russ
(David Salo) writes:
>> None of these high places were inhabited so the elevator question did not
>> arise. In all of them only the ground floor was used. The spires are akin
>to
>> the Obelisks in Egypt, monuments not building to live or work in. I
>should have
>> made my point clearer though.
>
> The Washington Monument is a 555-foot tall obelisk which can be ascended
>to an observation room at the top. Although the normal means of ascent and
>descent is an elevator, there are also stairs. The Washington Monument was
>completed in 1884.
>
How tall is the Statue of Liberty. You have to walk up that.
Russ
David Salo
gord...@aol.com (Gordon Nash) wrote:
> None of these high places were inhabited so the elevator question did not
> arise. In all of them only the ground floor was used. The spires are akin to
> the Obelisks in Egypt, monuments not building to live or work in. I
should have
> made my point clearer though.
The Washington Monument is a 555-foot tall obelisk which can be ascended
to an observation room at the top. Although the normal means of ascent and
descent is an elevator, there are also stairs. The Washington Monument was
completed in 1884.
David Salo
Gordon Nash
>
>am NOT going to give you one. That's asking way too much.
In other words there is no reference. Once again canonical is simply what you
say it is. O r do you think that just because the stave is wood it can't be
magic?
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>I think the argument here is empirical. If Gandalf depended on his
>staff for his power, he should have lost his power when his staff was
>broken. But he didn't. (The facts that he died shortly thereafter,
>and that Saruman lost his power when his staff was broken, makes this
>premise questionable, which is why I have other reasons for believing
>wasn't the source of his power.
No one ever suggested it was the sole sourse of his power, just that it had
power. Grima was certainly aware of the limits and uses of the power of Wizards
and their staffs. There is a reason he forbade Gandalf from bringing his staff
into the throneroom. Gandalf Clearly used the staff proving Grima's Wisdom on
the subject.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
aruguing against you are refraining from doing so. I don't know if its because
they don't want to overwhelm you with the strength of their arguments or some
other more arcane reason. I'm sure its not because there are no such
references. They speak with such authority they must be right.>
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>staff. It was in Gandalf. (So what _was_ the staff for? Dramatic
>effect? I don't know.)
So what you are saying is that Gandalf insisted on bringing the staff into the
Throne Room and risked not being able to perform his mission at all because he
wanted it to look dramatic. Does that really make sense?
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>He did say they were wooden sticks
>Anything more needs to be proved from the text
>
>
Correct including the fact that they have no power. As they are often used to
make magic, the renewal of Theoden, the braking of the Bridge, the making of
light, the kindling of fire etc, and the importance that Gandalf and Saruman
put on them. The burden of proof should be on the statement that they had no
power.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>True, however;
>ANYTHING which we are going to put forward as 'fact' needs to be
>proved from the texts - including a view that the staves were NOT
>more than just wooden sticks. The point I was trying to make is
>that I believe there isn't any >proof< one way or the other in the
>texts on this issue. There is evidence to support any of the
>various views which have been put forward, but JRRT did not provide
>us with complete technical specifications for Istari staves and thus
>claiming that they 'must' be one thing or another is going beyond
>the texts. Almost all of us >are< approaching this as a speculative
>discussion, but there have been a few posts trying to quash the
>views of others by falsely claiming that these views are disproven
>by the texts (and then refusing to supply references)... that kind
>of abusive behaviour only serves to hinder discussion all around.
Damn, you said that so much better than I did. I'm glad someone did though.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
> The Washington Monument is a 555-foot tall obelisk which can be ascended
>to an observation room at the top. Although the normal means of ascent and
>descent is an elevator, there are also stairs. The Washington Monument was
>completed in 1884.
I almost mentioned that in my post. I walked up the Washington Monument and its
the memory of that, that really inspired the whole discussion. I don't think
the public can walk up it any more though. If I"m wrong please correct me. You
can walk up the Empire State building though. There is a race up the steps
every year. OK enough off topic for me.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>
>
As a native New Yorker who has made the walk I should know that but I don't. I
believe its between 300 and 400 feet though.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
CHUCK BRAMLET
In a previous article, a...@kuhl-graham.fsnet.co.uk ("Alan Graham") says:
>My take has always been that the staffs are used by the wizards in the
>conjuring of certain spells, but that they are not intrinsically powerful.
>
>"A staff in the hands of a wizard may be more than a prop for age"
That goes along with my opinion.
The fire that G created trying to cross Redhorn Gate may not have
required the staff so much for the "power" as for the fuel after G
had used his power to create the fire in the first place.
>The breaking of Saruman's staff was simply the casting of Saruman from the
>order. Much of his magic derived from his Maiar origins and power was lost
>to him, leaving those centred on his corporal form.
It has always been my opinion that the breaking of Saruman's staff was
for symbolic reasons - he did it in fron of the Rohan Troops. I don't
really think that Saruman had much of his Istar power left by that time,
having misused it in the way that he did.
>The Five Rods remark does cast doubt on this view though, I'll admit. The
>only convoluted reason I can come up with is that Saruman is saying that
>Gandlaf seeks to destroy the magic of the other wizards, leaving him as the
>only staff wielding wizard - were before there had been five.
Or that the collecting of the "Rods of the five Wizards" was akin to an
ancient king collecting the crowns of the kings he had subjegated. More
of a "trophy" than an actual accumulation of power.
However, we do know from the text that at that time G had fewer restraints
on the use of his own power.
--
Michael Martinez
No, in other words I consider the request to be absurd, but didn't want to say
so because I was sure that would start a flame war.
But others have commented on the staves simply being wood. That's all they
were: wood. Tolkien doesn't say anywhere that they were anything more.
But feel free to cite him where he does say they were something more.
Michael Martinez
>No one ever suggested it was the sole sourse of his power, just that it had
>power. Grima was certainly aware of the limits and uses of the power of Wizards
>and their staffs. There is a reason he forbade Gandalf from bringing his staff
>into the throneroom. Gandalf Clearly used the staff proving Grima's Wisdom on
>the subject.
Grima had no clue as to what the power of an Istar was or where it came from.
He was a dupe on a mission to delay and confuse Saruman's enemies. Tolkien
never indicates anywhere that Grima knew the score.
Michael Martinez
>You are using actual citations in your arguments, This is unfair as the people
>aruguing against you are refraining from doing so. I don't know if its because
>they don't want to overwhelm you with the strength of their arguments or some
>other more arcane reason. I'm sure its not because there are no such
>references. They speak with such authority they must be right.
No, as usual, he's only telling half the story.
Michael Martinez
He was no more risking the mission by taking the staff in there than he was by
taking Gimli and Legolas.
Michael Martinez
>>He did say they were wooden sticks
>>Anything more needs to be proved from the text
>>
>>
>
>Correct including the fact that they have no power.
Wrong. Considering the text never says they had power, there is no need to
prove the text never says they had power.
The only proofs required here are those for the argument that the staves did
indeed have power, since the text doesn't support that view.
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>In article <19991219145521...@ng-bd1.aol.com>, gord...@aol.com (Gordon Nash) wrote:
>>>He did say they were wooden sticks
>>>Anything more needs to be proved from the text
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Correct including the fact that they have no power.
>
>Wrong. Considering the text never says they had power, there is no need to
>prove the text never says they had power.
>
>The only proofs required here are those for the argument that the staves did
>indeed have power, since the text doesn't support that view.
Since the text never says clearly that they were merely sticks of
wood, nothing about their power either way can be "proved from the
text". Nor is anyone required to do so in order to speculate on what
they *might* have been, a speculation that some may not consider
fruitful. Someone so speculating is going outside the text, but not
(as far as i can see) contradicting it.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Never try to outstubborn a cat." -- R. A. Heinlein
Hirgil
>did
>>indeed have power, since the text doesn't support that view.
>
>Since the text never says clearly that they were merely sticks of
>wood, nothing about their power either way can be "proved from the
>text". Nor is anyone required to do so in order to speculate on what
>they *might* have been, a speculation that some may not consider
>fruitful. Someone so speculating is going outside the text, but not
>(as far as i can see) contradicting it.
I would also like to put in a word here for a middle ground on the issue. I've
never thought that wizard staffs had power of their own (that is, that somebody
else could, say, steal a staff and use it), but I also never thought they were
merely sticks that a wizard would just as soon toss into a fire as walk around
with.
I surmise, based on no textual citation only on what seems likely to me, that
the staffs were probably chosen with care, sanctified for their use and very
like "enchanted" in some way, that is, imbued with the ability to channel a
specific wizard's magical power.
I think that if somebody else picked up a wizard's staff, they would find it
useless. In that sense, it is merely a stick. But I strongly suspect that some
sort of spell or enchantment is wound around the staff to make it useful to a
wizard, which some might call "power" if that makes them happy to do so.
Hirgil (just my $0.02)
To reply via email, remove "NOSPAM" from the above address.
----
"Faint to my ears came the gathered rumour of all the lands: the
springing and the dying, the song and the weeping, and the slow
and everlasting groan of overburdened stone."--III, 5, 1
Robert S. Coren
Brian Ross <fr...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>I think it more likely that his captors were simply given instructions on what
>to look out for -- remember Ugluk's orders to report all suspicious items found
>on Frodo, with special mention given to rings.
Just to avoid a lot of confusion, I'll suggest that you meant to type
"Shagrat" rather than "Ugluk", no?
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Similar economies might be effected in nature if lions could be
converted to vegetarianism." -- Donald Tovey [on the possibility of
peace between the followers of Brahms and Wagner/Liszt]
Conrad Dunkerson
> Wrong. Considering the text never says they had power, there is
> no need to prove the text never says they had power.
This is such a non argument. 'Considering the text never says they
did NOT have power, there is no need to prove the text never says
they did not have power.' Debate the issues, leave the chicanery
out of it.
"The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age"
Hama, TT - The King of the Golden Hall
"Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?"
Grima, TT - The King of the Golden Hall
Two characters in the text seem to feel that Gandalf's staff had
power (though possibly only in his hands).
"All the power of my staff was expended [?in a flash]: it was
shattered to bits."
Gandalf, ToI - The Bridge
This is from a draft version of the story, but it clearly shows that
at one point JRRT felt Gandalf's staff did indeed have power. The
text in question was removed when JRRT decided to have the staff
survive the explosion at the door (originally it was the staff
itself which exploded) so that Gandalf would still have it for the
fight. Thus, the removal of the reference to the power of the staff
was due to a change in the events leading up to it... rather than to
deliberately remove the reference to staff power. Given this, what
evidence is there that Tolkien changed his mind? Particularly given
the views expressed by Hama and Grima?
> The only proofs required here are those for the argument that the
> staves did indeed have power, since the text doesn't support that
> view.
Great, this is another non-argument. 'The only proofs required here
are those for the argument that the staves did not have power, since
the text doesn't support that view.'
Michael, making definitive statements about your view being the
right one and then refusing to supply citations or evidence because
you insist that you are right accomplishes nothing. If you want
your opinions to be taken seriously try debating the actual words in
the texts and the points put forward by those holding other views.
Conrad Dunkerson
> In article <19991219144323...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
gord...@aol.com (Gordon Nash) wrote:
To me;
>> You are using actual citations in your arguments, This is unfair
>> as the people aruguing against you are refraining from doing so.
> No, as usual, he's only telling half the story.
Yeah, see... this is how discussion works. I write out what I think
the answer might be and cite a bunch of quotations from the text
supporting this view. Then >you< write out what you think the
answer might be and cite a bunch of quotations from the text... and
then we discuss the merits of various points. It's really quite
amazing.
So yeah, I'm only telling half the story. Don't look to me to
provide the citations you are refusing to. I happen to think you
are wrong when you claim that the texts do not allow the possibility
that the Istari staves had power... so I'm not exactly in a position
to supply evidence of what I consider to be an incorrect claim.
Conrad Dunkerson
> But others have commented on the staves simply being wood. That's
> all they were: wood.
Citation? Do we really know that they didn't have metal heels? Do
we know what kind of wood they were? Do we know what color?
Consider, for instance, Saruman's new staff after Gandalf destroyed
his original;
"...they overtook an old man leaning on a staff...
'Well Saruman!' said Gandalf."
Doesn't say anything about what kind of staff it was. We can
probably assume wood, but heck... that's putting things into the
text and we all know how much you are opposed to THAT!
> Tolkien doesn't say anywhere that they were anything more.
He doesn't say anywhere that they weren't... keep on coming with
these non-arguments.
> But feel free to cite him where he does say they were something
> more.
Ok, here ya go;
David Salo
hir...@aol.comNOSPAM (Hirgil) wrote:
A wizard's staff is indeed just a piece of wood -- just like a sword is
just a piece of metal. A warrior with strength and skill can use a sword
to do things he can't do with his bare hands, but the sword will be useless
in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. Same thing with a
wizard's staff.
Staff = piece of wood
Wizard = power
Wizard + staff = power^n
My opinion.
David Salo
Gordon Nash
I never said they weren't made of wood. In fact I ceded that my last post. What
is your point?
> O r do you think that just because the stave is wood it can't be
>>magic?
>
>No, in other words I consider the request to be absurd,
You didn't answer my point. Do you think that because they are wood they can't
be magic. As a matter of fact the Ring is said to be made of Gold so by your
reasoning it has no power.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>
>He was a dupe on a mission to delay and confuse Saruman's enemies. Tolkien
>never indicates anywhere that Grima knew the score.
>
>
He was Saruman's right hand man.You are just making this up. You have zero
evidence for it. It really isn't worth my time refuting and I will ignore
anything else you have to say, I cede the last word to you. As for everyone
else "Whatever he's for I"m against it."
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
the Mailer Daemon.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Gordon Nash
>I surmise, based on no textual citation only on what seems likely to me, that
>the staffs were probably chosen with care, sanctified for their use and very
>like "enchanted" in some way, that is, imbued with the ability to channel a
>specific wizard's magical power.
>
>I think that if somebody else picked up a wizard's staff, they would find it
>useless. In that sense, it is merely a stick. But I strongly suspect that
>some
>sort of spell or enchantment is wound around the staff to make it useful to a
>wizard, which some might call "power" if that makes them happy to do so.
I don't know if I'd call that a middle ground, its pretty much what I feel.
There really isn't a middle ground, the Staffs are just pieces of wood or they
are not. Tough to get between them.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Bishop or Warlock or whatever...
My view is twofold:
1) A staff is a conduit for a wizard's power. Perhaps it actually is imbued
with some small fraction (like the Ring was with Sauron's power), perhaps not.
In any event, a wizard with a properly prepared staff is much more dangerous
than a wizard without. Grima knew this, that's why he urged the forbidding of
Gandalf staff at Edoras.
2) A staff is symbolic of a wizard's power. The breaking of Saruman's staff at
Isengard, while temporarily crippling him until he could find and prepare a new
one, was much more of a symbolic act, symbolizing Saruman's failure to win over
Rohan and his expelling from the Order of Wizards. This is also the sense in
which Saruman made the remark about Gandalf wanting the staffs of all Five
Wizards -- he meant that Gandalf wanted to defeat the other wizards as well.
Now, before someone flames me for presenting opinion as fact, let me say that
this post is my own opinion, and that while this opinion is not directly
supported in the book(s), neither can I find a place where it is contradicted,
and it fits the observed facts, and is ONE possible explanation.
--
B (not your average AOheLLer) (and proud of it)
Racism is being blind and thinking you can see...
Michael Martinez
wrote:
>In article <83k922$170...@news.uswest.net>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>>Correct including the fact that they have no power.
>>
>>Wrong. Considering the text never says they had power, there is no need to
>>prove the text never says they had power.
>>
>>The only proofs required here are those for the argument that the staves
>>did indeed have power, since the text doesn't support that view.
>
>Since the text never says clearly that they were merely sticks of
>wood, nothing about their power either way can be "proved from the
>text".
[snip]
This sort of false logic is brought up time and again. A mountain is a
mountain in Tolkien because he says it's there, not because someone says it
should or could be there.
There are no mountains in the Shire because Tolkien doesn't say there are any
mountains in the Shire, not because he says there aren't any mountains there.
Until and unless someone can show that Gandalf's staff had power of its own,
it had no power. Period.
The world of THE LORD OF THE RINGS is as Tolkien presented it, and not as
absurd speculations and improper citations of rejected texts would rebuild it
for him.
It should be noted that the passage taken from THE TREASON OF ISENGARD where
Gandalf says he expended all the power of his staff was immediately replaced
by a passage closer to the published text:
They followed in amazement feeling the walls, and as they
stumbled behind him he gasped out some information. 'I have
lost part of my beard and an inch of my eyebrows,' he said.
'But I have blasted the door and felled the roof against it,
and if the Chamber of Mazarbul is not a heap of ruins behind
it, then I am no wizard. But I have expended all my strength
for the moment. I can give you no more light.'
Whether this omission was deliberate or occured because of simple
incompetence really doesn't matter: the full story, as usual, was
not shared with the lurking public in the news groups. Once we
again we have people being suckered into thinking there is some
legitimate reason to believe that Tolkien left the matter of the staff
ambiguous.
I've no doubt someone will now enter into a semantic argument trying to
show that Christopher's remark 'Here the text in ink stops for the moment.
My father at once heavily rewrote the passage...' somehow means that the
earlier passage could have stood for years and perhaps represented a
strong portion of JRRT's thought despite the further observation that
"There is of course no question that the story was coming into being in
these pages, and the handwriting is so fast as to be practically a code,
while words are missed out or misrepresented, so that one must try to
puzzle out not merely what my father did write, but what he intended."
And, that, too will doubtless now be brought to play in some facetious
argument proposing that the earlier (REJECTED) text somehow provides
sufficient ambiguity to intention even though Tolkien clearly, in the
space of MINUTES, shifted the power from the staff to Gandalf.
Michael Martinez
>>Grima had no clue as to what the power of an Istar was or where it came from.
>>
>>He was a dupe on a mission to delay and confuse Saruman's enemies. Tolkien
>>never indicates anywhere that Grima knew the score.
>>
>>
>
>He was Saruman's right hand man.You are just making this up.
I don't make this stuff up. Tolkien NOWHERE INDICTAES THAT GRIMA KNEW who or
what Saruman really was, let alone that Grima had any understanding of how an
Istar's power worked.
He does, on the other hand, say that Cirdan revealed where they came from only
to Elrond and Galadriel (in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age") and
that the Istari revealed their true names only to a few people (in "The Tale
of Years" in Appendix B to THE LORD OF THE RINGS).
In one of the Istari essays, Tolkien wrote that Men supposed the Istari were
simply men who had learned magic. The same essay says that later Men believed
the Istari were Elves, because they did not die of old age.
Crpnteron
Saruman take Narya from him which clearly had power ,by the statement made by
Cirdan
John Savard
>There are no mountains in the Shire because Tolkien doesn't say there are any
>mountains in the Shire, not because he says there aren't any mountains there.
And because we have reason to believe that, were there mountains in
the Shire, they would have been mentioned. (After all, even a map is
provided.)
>Until and unless someone can show that Gandalf's staff had power of its own,
>it had no power. Period.
I doubt that it had any "power of its own" that anyone else could
utilize.
However, it was of _some_ value...else Gandalf would not have gone to
such lengths of persuasion to be allowed to violate Denthor's order.
It could *well* be that the reason the staff had any...virtue was that
Gandalf put some of his own power into the staff, just as Sauron put
his power into the Ring.
But as Tolkien did not permit us many glimpses into how magic works in
Middle-Earth, I think it is just as fair to say that it is not
legitimate to say "the staff had no power" just as it is not
legitimate to say "the staff had power"; we are not told, but the
staff is in a situation where the question arises.
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Conrad Dunkerson
news:19991221120822...@ng-fr1.news.cs.com...
> The staff was used as a coduit thru which his power flowed .But
> why didn't Saruman take Narya from him which clearly had power ,by
> the statement made by Cirdan
The general explanation put forward for this apparent discrepancy is
that Saruman might have had to fight Gandalf if he tried to get
Narya away from him (ditto for the staff and Glamdring). Rather
than expend the effort to take these things by force he might have
chosen to imprison Gandalf until he had the ability to overpower him
easily (with the One or with Sauron as his ally). Similarly, under
this view Gandalf went into imprisonment with the hope of escape
rather than fight and die.
Conrad Dunkerson
message news:19991221023948...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> 2) A staff is symbolic of a wizard's power. The breaking of
> Saruman's staff at Isengard, while temporarily crippling him until
> he could find and prepare a new one
When the hobbits pass Saruman on the road he is leaning on a staff,
but still seems to be lacking his powers. It is possible that he
had just not had time to 'prepare' it, but I tend to view this as
evidence that the staff was either not the source of his 'lost'
powers OR that it was and he couldn't just replace it with any given
piece of wood.
> Now, before someone flames me for presenting opinion as fact, let
> me say that this post is my own opinion, and that while this
> opinion is not directly supported in the book(s), neither can I
> find a place where it is contradicted,and it fits the observed
> facts, and is ONE possible explanation.
Works for me... though most of the flames in this thread have been
directed at just such 'the book(s) allow more than one opinion' type
views. :)
Conrad Dunkerson
> In article <83kbii$193h$1...@newsie2.cent.net>, co...@spdcc.com
> (Robert S. Coren)
>> Since the text never says clearly that they were merely sticks of
>> wood, nothing about their power either way can be "proved from
>> the text".
> This sort of false logic is brought up time and again.
Mostly because this 'false' logic is also known as 'common sense'.
If the books never say that the staves did not have any power then
it is impossible to accurately claim that they could not have power.
> A mountain is a mountain in Tolkien because he says it's there,
> not because someone says it should or could be there.
True, but an inaccurate analogy. The actual situation here is more
comparable to saying that there cannot be any mountains in the East
during the Third Age because Tolkien didn't tell us of any in the
'canonical' books.
We DO have non-canonical passages where Tolkien says the staves have
power... just we have non-canonical passages about mountains in the
East. The mountains >could< be there, the staves >could< have
power. Nothing canonical Tolkien wrote contradicts the non-
canonical passages where these things ARE true.
> Until and unless someone can show that Gandalf's staff had power
> of its own, it had no power. Period.
Now this >is< false logic. Truer would be;
Until and unless someone can show that Gandalf's staff did or did
not have power of its own, it may or may not have had power.
Pretending that only the opposing view needs to be proven (and that
if it is not yours is 'fact' be default) is a terrible way to hold a
discussion.
> It should be noted that the passage taken from THE TREASON OF
> ISENGARD where Gandalf says he expended all the power of his staff
> was immediately replaced by a passage closer to the published
> text:
Sure, because he changed his mind about having the staff be
destroyed at that point. The text discussing the destruction of the
staff therefor had to be rewritten.
> Whether this omission was deliberate or occured because of simple
> incompetence really doesn't matter: the full story, as usual, was
> not shared with the lurking public in the news groups.
Yeah yeah... flame... lie... troll. Got it. The full story was
indeed shared. I said Tolkien changed the text I was quoting later.
I said it wasn't in the final version. I said it did not prove the
staff had power in the final story. None of that changes the fact
that at one point Tolkien DID say the staff had power, and he never
said that it did NOT.
> Once we again we have people being suckered into thinking there is
> some legitimate reason to believe that Tolkien left the matter of
> the staff ambiguous.
Yeah... like, because he did.
Conrad Dunkerson
> In order for the staves to have power, J.R.R. Tolkien must state
> they do, just as he must state that there are mountains in the
> Shire.
True. However, in order for the staves to NOT have power, J.R.R.
Tolkien must state that they do not. Which he didn't. Ergo, the
matter is ambiguous in the stories and open to many possible
interpretations. You should start applying these little 'logic
tests' to your own viewpoints instead of just the opposing ones.
> "Some value" -- yes, Gandalf was an old man (or, rather, a Maia
> inhabiting the body of an old man), subject to the limitations of
> that body in many ways. He required sleep, food, and in many
> scenes used the staff to walk or lean on.
> There is no mention of any virtue or power in the staff.
"The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age"
Hama, TT - The King of the Golden Hall
> It comes from the individual, not from staves.
From the individual. Or the Ring. Or the manipulation of the
'Morgoth element' in matter. Or the palantir. Or any of the
various other 'non-individual' things it comes from... possibly
including staves.
Michael Martinez
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote, in part:
>
>>There are no mountains in the Shire because Tolkien doesn't say there are any
>>mountains in the Shire, not because he says there aren't any mountains there.
>
>And because we have reason to believe that, were there mountains in
>the Shire, they would have been mentioned. (After all, even a map is
>provided.)
You're just restating the same principle. In order for the staves to have
power, J.R.R. Tolkien must state they do, just as he must state that there are
mountains in the Shire.
>However, it was of _some_ value...else Gandalf would not have gone to
>such lengths of persuasion to be allowed to violate Denthor's order.
"Some value" -- yes, Gandalf was an old man (or, rather, a Maia inhabiting the
body of an old man), subject to the limitations of that body in many ways. He
required sleep, food, and in many scenes used the staff to walk or lean on.
"The King of the Golden Hall" says Gandalf leaned on his staff until he dealt
with Wormtongue.
There is no mention of any virtue or power in the staff.
>But as Tolkien did not permit us many glimpses into how magic works in
>Middle-Earth, I think it is just as fair to say that it is not
>legitimate to say "the staff had no power" just as it is not
>legitimate to say "the staff had power"; we are not told, but the
>staff is in a situation where the question arises.
Tolkien in fact gave us quite a few glimpses into how magic works in
Middle-earth. It comes from the individual, not from staves.
Michael Martinez
>The staff was used as a coduit thru which his power flowed .But why didn't
>Saruman take Narya from him which clearly had power ,by the statement made by
>Cirdan
How was Saruman to do such a thing? And how could he have known Gandalf was
wearing Narya?
PaulB
Martinez) writes:
>There are no mountains in the Shire because Tolkien doesn't say there are any
>mountains in the Shire, not because he says there aren't any mountains there.
To take this argument to the end would mean to say that there are no trees
except where noted and no open land except where noted, &c. To use this
argument is to say that there is nothing, and not even that, the absence of
nothing as well, unless Tolkien explicitly stated it. Seems like bad logic to
me.
PB
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that
die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal
out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -JRRT
Gordon Nash
>except where noted and no open land except where noted, &c. To use this
>argument is to say that there is nothing, and not even that, the absence of
>nothing as well, unless Tolkien explicitly stated it. Seems like bad logic
>to
>me.
>
>
Actually its not logic at all, either good or bad. Its sophistry ( sorry I
think thats not spelled right.)
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Michael Martinez
>Actually its not logic at all, either good or bad. Its sophistry ( sorry I
>think thats not spelled right.)
No, the only sophistry in this thread at the moment is your own. You need to
look up the words "logic" and "sophistry" and stop provoking me with flames
and lies.
Just because a popular idea is being shot down by facts and logic is no excuse
to attack the debunker.
Michael Martinez
>
>In article <83obba$1jk...@news.usenetserver.com>, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) writes:
>
>>There are no mountains in the Shire because Tolkien doesn't say there are any
>>mountains in the Shire, not because he says there aren't any mountains there.
>
>except where noted and no open land except where noted, &c. To use this
>argument is to say that there is nothing, and not even that, the absence of
>nothing as well, unless Tolkien explicitly stated it. Seems like bad logic to
>me.
Tolkien said there were trees and open land throughout Middle-earth. The
fallacy of your attempt to turn the argument back upon itself is that you are
assuming counter examples can exist. The world of Tolkien exists only as
Tolkien described it. In some ways that world is extremely vague, but not so
vague as to incorporate the assertions of others.
The line is drawn where someone says, "Well, Tolkien didn't deny this, so it
surely can be." Once you use the absence of denial to substantiate an
assertion, you are no longer speaking of Tolkien's creation but your own.
We can point to the ambiguities and say, "There is no clear evidence one way
or the other", but we cannot point to them and say, "In the absence of denial
we can assume that this must be so."
The absence of denial in no way validates an assertion which cannot be
supported by the facts established by Tolkien. The same principle holds true
in science. We cannot say a proposed principle of anti-gravitational forces
is valid simply because no existing KNOWN principle or axiom contradicts the
proposed principle. In the absence of supporting evidence, science will
disregard the proposed principle as speculative and unscientific.
By the same token, an absence of contradiction cannot be used in a court of
law to show that an assertion is true. One must provide some sort of
supportive evidence (direct or circumstantial) which either shows clearly or
logically that the assertion is true or at least reasonable. It is not enough
to say, "He stole my money." One must show that there is evidence to support
the assertion, which evidence may in fact outweigh contradictory evidence. If
no such evidence existed, then the existence or absence of contradiction is
irrelevant. The assertion is not considered sufficient to win the issue.
Similarly, logic insists that any argument proceed from a foundation of axioms
and conform to rules which when applied provide predictable results. For
example, if we assume that P is a member of the set Q, then P will always
behave as any element in the set Q is expected to behave (by the criteria
which establish what the set Q consists of). If the argument asserts that P
is a member of Q because there are no arguments showing P is not a member of
Q, the argument is invalid. It fails to show that P conforms to the criteria
which determine whether anything is a member of Q.
In order for us to show that the Wizards' staves have inherent power, we must
produce evidence from Tolkien which support the idea. No such evidence exists
(the early draft taken from THE TREASON OF ISENGARD is rebutted by the same
chapter which shows an immediate subsequent alteration of the text transferred
the power from the staff to Gandalf).
Such evidence need not be an axiomatic assertion by Tolkien, either in the
narrative or in commentaries. But if a character says or implies that a
Wizard's staff is something more than a piece of wood, then we must show that
the character is speaking authoritatively. In the case of Grima Wormtongue we
cannot make such a case (in fact, there is evidence which shows that few
people knew the true nature of the Istari, or were even given a hint as to
that nature).
If, on the other hand, we can establish through textual evidence that a
Wizard's staff is more than just a piece of wood, the nature of the staff may
still be ambiguous. Suppose Gandalf were to say, "I cannot do this without my
staff"? Would that not then mean that the staff was more than just a piece of
wood? Yes. But would it mean the staff has inherent power of its own? No.
There is insufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion (which nonetheless
could not be ruled out since there is no contradiction in Gandalf's
hypothetical statement).
What we have, however, is nothing like this hypothetical statement. Rather,
we have a passage where Gandalf destroys his staff and then proceeds to fight
an 11-day battle with a Balrog. Nothing written by Tolkien says or implies he
would have been more powerful had he retained the staff. Hence, there is no
basis for inferring that Gandalf was diminished by the loss of his staff.
Hence, the loss of the staff and the length of the battle with the Balrog
cannot be used to substantiate the assertion that Gandalf was diminished by
the loss of his staff. Therefore we cannot assert that Gandalf was diminished
by the loss of his staff, and that means we cannot say that Gandalf's staff
was more than just a piece of wood.
We also have a passage where Gandalf is told he cannot take his staff into
Theoden's presence, and winning past that obstruction he then leans on the
staff while addressing Theoden and Wormtongue, the latter of whom says, "Did I
not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?" when Gandalf raises it and a peal
of thunder rolls across the sky.
Who is Grima Wormtongue that we should accept his inference that the staff was
important in some fashion? Did Gandalf require the staff to fight his battle
on Zirak-zigil with the Balrog? No. And yet he speaks of lightning and
thunder in that battle. Furthermore, Tolkien writes that the Istari revealed
their true names to few people (Faramir is cited as an exception) and that
only Cirdan knew where they came from, and that Cirdan told only Elrond and
Galadriel this information. Additionally, Tolkien says that Men first
believed the Istari were simply men who had acquired their powers through
study and practice, but when it became evidence these men did not die they
were assumed to be Elves.
Hence, there is no reason to believe that Grima Wormtongue had any particular
knowledge of the Istari which qualified him to make pronouncements about their
staves. His concerns, therefore, are merely the concerns of an ignorant man
and do not provide any information about the nature of the staves.
Grima's knowledge of magical artifacts is furher demonstrated to be limited by
his tossing of the Palantir down at Gandalf and Saruman. He evidently had no
idea of what it was. We may infer from that scene, therefore, that Saruman
wasn't sharing his secrets with Grima Wormtongue. Hence, it becomes
unreasonable to infer that Saruman had told Grima never to let a Wizard
approach with a staff in his hand.
Therefore, we are left with no passages which imply that a Wizard's staff is
anything more than a piece of wood, although it is clear that at least some
men believed they were. Some men believed Galadriel was unfriendly toward
them. That doesn't mean she was. Some men believed Halflings were only a
fable or myth. That doesn't mean they were.
The beliefs of men are therefore untrustworthy sources of information about
Tolkien's world, except to show that that world includes many untrustworthy or
mistaken notions in the minds of men.
Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the wooden staves were anything
more than wooden staves, it is unreasonable to assume they were more than just
pieces of wood the Wizards carried. Ruling out the assumptions doesn't mean
the staves could not function as conduits for the Istari's power. It just
means we cannot make statements of fact other than that the staves were made
of wood and that the Wizards were indeed able to function without them (even
Saruman was still able to use his power on Treebeard after Gandalf broke
Saruman's staff).
Robert S. Coren
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>The line is drawn where someone says, "Well, Tolkien didn't deny this, so it
>surely can be." Once you use the absence of denial to substantiate an
>assertion, you are no longer speaking of Tolkien's creation but your own.
>
>We can point to the ambiguities and say, "There is no clear evidence one way
>or the other", but we cannot point to them and say, "In the absence of denial
>we can assume that this must be so."
But the first of these is exactly what people are saying. Nobody is
saying "Tolkien didn't say the staves had no power, therefore they
must have had power". Only one person is saying "this must be so".
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
Baba ganoosh ganache Ganesh!
Baba ganoosh ganache!
--culinary cheer for the elephant god
Michael Martinez
>In article <83pl6o$230...@news.uswest.net>,
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>
>>surely can be." Once you use the absence of denial to substantiate an
>>assertion, you are no longer speaking of Tolkien's creation but your own.
>>
>>We can point to the ambiguities and say, "There is no clear evidence one way
>>or the other", but we cannot point to them and say, "In the absence of denial
>>we can assume that this must be so."
>
>saying "Tolkien didn't say the staves had no power, therefore they
>must have had power". Only one person is saying "this must be so".
There are no ambiguities. The first statement is valid only if there are
ambiguities.
And no one is saying anything must be so, though several of you have attempted
to mischaracterize what I say in that way.
Tolkien and Tolkien alone knows whether those staves were supposed to have any
power, but he sure didn't put anything into the text which indicates they did.
Since there's no evidence or ambiguity, there is no point to arguing about
this, but obviously that's not stopping any of you from dragging this out, day
after day....
Conrad Dunkerson
> The line is drawn where someone says, "Well, Tolkien didn't deny
> this, so it surely can be."
Which is an absolutely true statement. If it is not denied by the
texts then it is possible. It might be spectacularly unlikely (the
sky in Middle Earth turned polka-dotted once every three years), but
it is impossible to say that it could not be the case when the
author did not.
> Once you use the absence of denial to substantiate an assertion,
> you are no longer speaking of Tolkien's creation but your own.
If you use the absence of denial to say that something MUST be the
case (rather than COULD be) then you are going outside what Tolkien
wrote. However, I can't see why you would bring this up as you are
using the absence of a denial that the staves did not have power as
'proof' that this was the case... in direct contradiction to the
logic you present here.
> We can point to the ambiguities and say, "There is no clear
> evidence one way or the other"
Which is what we >have< been doing.
> but we cannot point to them and say, "In the absence of denial we
> can assume that this must be so."
Which is what >you< have been doing.
> Therefore, we are left with no passages which imply that a
> Wizard's staff is anything more than a piece of wood
I'd dispute that... but again, you've just gotten through telling us
how the absence of passages denying the staff had or did not have
power does not make either 'true'.
> Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the wooden staves
> were anything more than wooden staves, it is unreasonable to
> assume they were more than just pieces of wood the Wizards
> carried.
Though there is of course evidence (not proof mind you) that the
staves were more than unempowered wood it is not unreasonable to
suppose they might be... it would only be unreasonable to insist
that they MUST be. Or must NOT be.
> It just means we cannot make statements of fact other than that
> the staves were made of wood and that the Wizards were indeed able
> to function without them (even Saruman was still able to use his
> power on Treebeard after Gandalf broke Saruman's staff).
Which is precisely what everyone but you HAS been saying so far as
statements of fact go. After all, it WAS you who wrote;
"Until and unless someone can show that Gandalf's staff had power of
its own, it had no power. Period."
This is stated as a 'fact' despite your admission above that it
cannot be based on the evidence. In the absence of proof one way or
the other the staff may or may not have had power - you claim above
that in the absence of proof one way or the other it DID NOT have
power. This is the illogic people have been pointing out.
"But others have commented on the staves simply being wood. That's
all they were: wood. Tolkien doesn't say anywhere that they were
anything more."
Again, a 'fact' beyond what the evidence allows... you say that the
staves were nothing MORE than wood despite having no proof of this.
You then use the absence of a denial of this view to support it -
which per your own words above means that it is not "Tolkien's
creation but your own."
John Savard
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <385f9c11...@news.prosurfr.com>, jsa...@domain.ctry (John Savard) wrote:
>>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote, in part:
>>>There are no mountains in the Shire because Tolkien doesn't say there are any
>>>mountains in the Shire, not because he says there aren't any mountains there.
>>And because we have reason to believe that, were there mountains in
>>the Shire, they would have been mentioned. (After all, even a map is
>>provided.)
>You're just restating the same principle. In order for the staves to have
>power, J.R.R. Tolkien must state they do, just as he must state that there are
>mountains in the Shire.
Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding you, but I'm attempting to modify
the principle.
The toes on Tom Bombadil's left foot were not mentioned in LotR, but
we are allowed to assume they existed, because it is their absence
which would be something unusual.
LotR does note that Gandalf went to some trouble to bring his staff
with him before Denethor. Elsewhere, as well, it is indicated that
Gandalf _requires_ his staff to perform certain types of magical
operations. We are not shown Gandalf carving an ordinary piece of wood
to make a new staff for himself.
Thus, we really don't know if the staff is simply a convenient focus
for Gandalf, but otherwise a piece of wood - or if it was somehow
blessed or enchanted by Gandalf, including the possibility that he
displaced some of his own power into it, as Sauron did with the Ring -
or even if the innocent looking staff was actually given to Gandalf by
one of the Valar, and thus embodies awesome power.
Taking the position that the staff "had no power" is as much an
assumption as taking the opposite position; _both_ are speculative in
the absence of more evidence.
There is also the possibility that _Gandalf_ had no power, but that
every magical thing he did was, in some sense, due to the power of
Illuvatar - an _external_ literary source, of course, is what suggests
that such thinking may have been in Tolkien's mind (even if other
evidence suggests that alternative was rejected).
Robert S. Coren
John Savard <jsa...@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>LotR does note that Gandalf went to some trouble to bring his staff
>with him before Denethor.
Since this is the second time in as many days that I've seen this
error, which I assume to be mere carelessness on the part of the
articles' author(s), I feel compelled to remind all and sundry that
the "staff" incident occurred at Théoden's court, not Denethor's.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I often postulate with high structural coherence."
--Jeffrey William Sandris
Conrad B. Dunkerson
> And how could he [Saruman] have known Gandalf was wearing Narya?
"And the Grey Messenger took the Ring, and kept it ever secret; yet
the White Messenger (who was skilled to uncover all secrets) after a
time became aware of this gift, and begrudged it..."
UT, The Istari
Michael Martinez
>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 00:33:44 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>>You're just restating the same principle. In order for the staves to have
>>power, J.R.R. Tolkien must state they do, just as he must state that there are
>>mountains in the Shire.
>
>Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding you, but I'm attempting to modify
>the principle.
You cannot modify a principle. You can state a different principle, but you
cannot change another.
>The toes on Tom Bombadil's left foot were not mentioned in LotR, but
>we are allowed to assume they existed, because it is their absence
>which would be something unusual.
Irrelevant.
>LotR does note that Gandalf went to some trouble to bring his staff
>with him before Denethor. Elsewhere, as well, it is indicated that
>Gandalf _requires_ his staff to perform certain types of magical
>operations. We are not shown Gandalf carving an ordinary piece of wood
>to make a new staff for himself.
The Fellowship also went to some trouble to bring their clothes with them.
Does that mean their clothes had power? Of course not. Nor does it imply
that Gandalf's staff had any sort of power.
If Tolkien wants the reader to believe the staff has power, then he'll put
something into the text to give the reader that kind of information. By the
time Grima spits out his staff comment, we've already seen what Gandalf can
do without it. Grima's warning is obviously made in ignorance. Hence, there
is no indication in the text that the staff has power.
In the absence of any such indication, it is invalid to assert the staff has
power. The existence of Tom's left foot is an indication that he probably has
toes down there.
Conrad B. Dunkerson
> Since there's no evidence or ambiguity
Errr... Ambiguity results from the absence of proof. Evidence
contributes to the establishment of proof. If there is no evidence
then there is no proof and thus there IS ambiguity.
It's sort of a definition of terms thing.
John Savard
>The Fellowship also went to some trouble to bring their clothes with them.
>Does that mean their clothes had power? Of course not. Nor does it imply
>that Gandalf's staff had any sort of power.
In the absence of other evidence, I suppose it would imply that the
nudity taboo also existed in the society of the Third Age in much the
same form as it does in societies with which we are familiar.
They troubled, therefore, to bring their clothes with them because
these clothes _served a purpose_. Gandalf's staff, similarly, is shown
to serve a purpose: to enable him to call forth intimidating light and
sound effects before Denethor.
It is, therefore, strongly implied - I would feel that it is
explicitly stated - that the staff facilitates magical operations. How
it did so is not mentioned; there is no textual indication, and I
agree with you on this, that it did so by a power of its own: however,
having power is as natural a possibility to consider as any other
possibility of how it would do this.
Thus, I view the statement "the staff had no power" to be just as much
a speculation as "the staff had power"; no more, no less. Because an
object that facilitates magical acts may legitimately be suspected of
having power.
Alan Graham
John Savard wrote in message <3860e131...@news.prosurfr.com>...
>Thus, I view the statement "the staff had no power" to be just as much
>a speculation as "the staff had power"; no more, no less. Because an
>object that facilitates magical acts may legitimately be suspected of
>having power.
Not at all. If the object is described as a wooden staff that a wizard uses
to facilitate magic - then it is still the wizard that has the power.
When Gandalf is told to leave the staff outside Theodens room, it is stated
that - although the staff is simply a woodednstick, it can be dangerous in
the hands of a wizard. The implication being the staff has no pwer, unless
it is in the hands of a wizard.
Al
Chris Kern
Martinez) posted the following:
>The Fellowship also went to some trouble to bring their clothes with them.
>Does that mean their clothes had power? Of course not. Nor does it imply
>that Gandalf's staff had any sort of power.
It implies a function, perhaps. Just the symbolic function, you
think?
-Chris
Michael Martinez
>Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez) wrote, in part:
>
>>Does that mean their clothes had power? Of course not. Nor does it imply
>>that Gandalf's staff had any sort of power.
>
>nudity taboo also existed in the society of the Third Age in much the
>same form as it does in societies with which we are familiar.
Why? I can think of several stories where characters were nude and no one
batted an eyelash. There's even a scene with nude hobbits. Tolkien didn't
make a fuss over it.
>They troubled, therefore, to bring their clothes with them because
>these clothes _served a purpose_. Gandalf's staff, similarly, is shown
>to serve a purpose: to enable him to call forth intimidating light and
>sound effects before Denethor.
No, he LEANS on it most of the time. I'm sure he could have used a twig to
create a light, since he was able to use a bundle of sticks to create a fire.
It is therefore not even in the least implied that he needed the staff as
anything more than a support. But he did say, when he lit that bundle of
twigs, that he needed SOMETHING to work on.
We can play these silly semantic and logic games all year long, but they won't
bring anyone any closer to showing there was some sort of power or mystical
nature to a wizard's staff (which apparently was so easily replaced the
replacement didn't even require mention).