Gandalf's Staff

[Folwren]

Hollo, all!

Haven't started very many threads, and none of them have been succesful, but I hope this topic (which has been burning in my mind for some time) gets some sort of comments from some people.

I couldn't decide very easily where to put this thread. It has attributes both concerning movie and book, but I think, over all, it'd best go here, where this is where the conversation may end up being.

To start off with,

In the books, when you read them, did you ever consider the significance of Gandalf's staff? (Or any of the wizards' staffs, for that matter.) What did it mean, and why was it necessary?

Consider Gandalf's fight with the Balrog. In the book, he strikes his staff against the bridge to break the stone, and in doing so, his staff shatters. He and the Balrog fall, and then they fight. They fight a long time, down under the earth, and then up above in the highest turret. In the end, Gandalf is victorious, and yet. . .he dies. He dies and is sent back. With what? More power. . .and a new staff is given him.
It think it is arguable that the wizards' staffs simbolize their power. When Gandalf breaks his staff on the stone, and later, after defeating the Balrog, dies, I believe that becuase he broke his staff, it was evident that he knew he was putting every ounce of his power and strength into defeating this Balrog, and after the job was done, he had nothing left. He had to die, so to speak.

To back this theory up, consider Saruman. When Gandalf came to him as the White, he took away his power. And what else? He broke his staff. Several lines, therefore, are drawn in the book between the wizard's power and the wizard's staff.

So saying, turn now your thoughts to the movie. If you think that my opinions above are correct, then you'll probably think now that they completely botched the meaning of Gandalf's and Saruman's staff in the movie.

Think about it. In the Fellowship when Gandalf goes to Saruman, they end up disagreeing and a 'staff fight' ensues. In the end, Saruman takes Gandalf's staff. A thing he shouldn't possibly be able to do unless he is greatly stronger than Gandalf. What does Gandalf do when he escapes? Gets a new one. Bah. In the book, it only states that

'They took me and they set me alone on the pinncale of Orthanc. . .'

No hint if a fight, and I should hope not.

Anyway, to get on. . .

When Gandalf fought the Balrog, his staff did not break upon contact with the bridge, a fact which rather bugs me, and it also helps the part where Saruman's staff is broken by Gandalf become less important and without meaning.

And the lastly, but certainly not least, and a thing that made me furious - when Gandalf met with the Nazgul in Gondor, what happened?? His staff is completely shattered!!! Broken to bits, ruined! His power is wrenched from him just like that. He's a wimp, he's an old man. . .It was infuriating, to say the least. May as well kept that part out of the movie than put it in even the EE. He get's a new white staff, too, I notice.

So, either the movie people didn't know what the staffs meant, or they chose to ignore it utterly, making the entire thing obsolete and unimportant.

Please state any thoughts on the matter. . . particularly agreements or disagreements with the very long post I have just made. Perhaps an excuse of why the movie makers did what they did in this matter. . .or maybe a confirmation of having observed what I just layed out.

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

Oh, one of my favorite subjects...

On this matter, I usually stand on the "staff with magical powers" part of the debate.

Even if Tolkien never states in the LotR if the staff has (or hasn't) magical powers, there are hints in other works:

Originally Posted by An unexpected party, Hobbit

Gandalf struck a blue light on the end of his magic staff, and in its firework glare the poor little hobbit could be seen kneeling on the hearth-rug, shaking like a jelly that was melting.

counterargument: magic is used rather lightly in the Hobbit

Originally Posted by The Istari, Unfinnished Tales

and so he was called among Men of the North Gandalf, "the Elf of the Wand"

a wand is pretty much different, phisically speaking, from a staff - yet it is similar, in characteristics, to a magic staff; the wand refference appears several times in the Hobbit and LotR;

Originally Posted by The Istari, Unfinnished Tales

It is an actual Norse name (found applied to a Dwarf in Völuspá) used by me since it appears to contain gandr, a staff, especially one used in "magic," and might be supposed to mean "Elvish wight with a (magic) staff." Gandalf was not an Elf, but would be by Men associated with them, since his alliance and friendship wit Elves was well-known

debateable refference, but fine by me.

Originally Posted by The mines of Moria, HoME VII

They followed in amazement, and as they stumbled behind he gasped out some information. 'I have lost my staff, part of my beard, and an inch of 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. All the power of my staff was expended [?in a flash]: it was shattered to bits.

counterargument: this refference doesn't appear in future variants of the story, which would dimminish its validity - not to me

- another point: his stuff isn't affected by fire (when he lights the fire for the fellowship) - but the staff itself could be protected by Gandalf.

[narfforc]

I have always felt that the Staff represented a link between the physical body/world and the spirit/power within. It is a tool to focus whatever that power is, and bring it forth in the form of energy, a conduit maybe. If Saruman the White was more powerful than Gandalf the Grey he may have had the will to break that contact to Gandalfs Staff. Therefore once Gandalf returned as The White Wizard, the breaking of Sarumans Staff maybe have been caused be either overloading that power, or the contest of the wills within the Staff itself.

[Essex]

as I've said on different threads - the staff was a SYMBOL of their power to me - no more, or no less.

notice in the book (and film methinks) - Gandalf breaks Saurman's staff WITH HIS VOICE - his own power within him. no mention of a staff.

he did use the staff to light up a fire back in the fellowship book wise - but I think that's about it.

To hold the Balrog from following them from the chamber in moria he used a Word of Command. Now here, to me, is his REAL power. And something I've always been interested in, but have not found much to read about. Exactly what were the words of Power? anyone know?

[narfforc]

Gandalf broke The Bridge of Khazad-dum with his staff. The Staff was used to scare off the Nazgul and save Faramir. The reports of lightning on Weathertop and its burned appearence, all point to Gandalfs use of his Staff

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Exactly what were the words of Power? anyone know?

We discussed something along these lines
here

As to the question of staffs having innate power, clearly there are many objects in Middle-earth which have innate power: Silmarils, Palantiri, swords, Galadriel's Mirror ('Do not touch the water!'). But they all also have a symbolic significance as well.

So it seems that certain objects are symbols, 'batteries' which can store & discharge power & conduits of the wielder's own power. Of course, others may take up the objects & make use of their power, so its clear that certain objects do store power & are powerful in their own right. Its also clear, though, that its not always possible for someone to pick up a magical object & just use it. Frodo is told by Galadriel he must train his will to be able to use the One.

As to the Wizard's staff. We know from the example of Sauron & the Ring that it is possible for an individual of sufficient ability to pour some of their power into a physical object. Is there a qualitative difference between the Wizard's staff & the One - or is the same technique behind the process? Does a magical object have to be imbued with power by its user/creator? Does Feanor pour some of his fiery spirit into the Silmarils as Sauron pours some of his into the Ring?

Certainly, if Saruman did pour some of his innate power (a great deal of it?) into his staff then Gandalf's breaking of it would be equivalent on a much lesser scale to the effect on Sauron of the destruction of of the One.

[Raynor]

Does Feanor pour some of his fiery spirit into the Silmarils as Sauron pours some of his into the Ring?

I think that the following passage from Of the flight of the noldor, Silmarillion is relevant:

Yavanna spoke before the Valar, saying:
- The Light of the Trees has passed away, and lives now only in the Silmarils of Feanor. Foresighted was he! Even for those who are mightiest under Iluvatar there is some work that they may accomplish once, and once only. The Light of the Trees I brought into being, and within Ea I can do so never again. Yet had I but a little of that light I could recall life to the Trees, ere their roots decay; and then our hurt should be healed, and the
malice of Melkor be confounded.'
...
Feanor spoke then, and cried bitterly:
- For the less even as for the greater there is some deed that he may accomplish but once only; and in that deed his heart shall rest. It may be that I can unlock my jewels, but never again shall I make their like

There is either a limit on the sub-creative power or a limit on creating unique objects: Yavanna can only make the Trees once, Feanor can make the silmarils once.

I don't thinkt that the wizards imbued their staffs with a tremendous amount of energy of their own, but it could be that at least for Saruman this is an irrepeatable act.

[Gothmog]

Interesting, indeed.

But I do not agree with Raynor. I have always viewed the staff(s) as both a token of a wizards rank and power (as a king's sceptre), and as a physical aid to focus one's magical powers. The staff itself have limited magical powers, but is filled with the magic of the wizard.

The new staff given to Gandalf upon his return to life is a sign of his rebirth as the leading wizard of Middle Earth and of his growing powers. It's no different from the change of clothes, from grey to white, that appear at the same time. This is also shown when Gandalf takes away Sarumans powers. "Your staff is broken" he says and it breaks apart. But that's not (according to me) what makes Saruman lose his powers. It's only a visible sign that his powers, like his staff, is broken. A symbolical gesture.

Often when Gandalf uses magic in the Hobbit, it originates in his staff. But my theory is that it's used to channel Gandalf's own powers, it can't create magic on it's own. Like a sword that doesn't kill if there's no-one to wield it. But it can't contain an infinite "mass" of power. If there's too strong magic channelled through it, it will splinter like it did in Raynor's quote from HoME VII, The mines of Moria, or at the bridge of Khazad Dum.

I'm not saying that the staff is some ordinary piece of wood, collected in the nearest forest. Just like a king's sceptre or a great warrior's sword it's a very special item, although it's not the staff that makes the magic. It's probably magic in itself, enhanced to make it withstand immense power, fire etc. and to help the wizard focus his powers. But once again: the magic a wizard creates is his own and is not absolutely dependent on his staff.

So I guess I both agrre and disagree with you, Folwren, and disagree with you, Raynor

(Cross-posting with Essex and narfforc)

[Raynor]

Well, since you stated:

"The staff itself have limited magical powers, but is filled with the magic of the wizard.

But my theory is that it's used to channel Gandalf's own powers, it can't create magic on it's own. Like a sword that doesn't kill if there's no-one to wield it. But it can't contain an infinite "mass" of power."

and esspecially

"I'm not saying that the staff is some ordinary piece of wood, collected in the nearest forest. Just like a king's sceptre or a great warrior's sword it's a very special item, although it's not the staff that makes the magic. It's probably magic in itself, enhanced to make it withstand immense power, fire etc. and to help the wizard focus his powers. But once again: the magic a wizard creates is his own and is not absolutely dependent on his staff."

then I see no disagreement between us - quite the contrary. As Tolkien states, "magic is an inherent power" in the wielder, but the staff isn't your everyday piece of wood.

EDIT: How could I forget?. Another even related to the staff's importance, even after Gandalf is the White, is the Theoden's hall incident:

- The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age, said Háma
...
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. In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice:
- Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!

Now, what makes that piece of ash-wood worth risking the entrance into the king's hall at such a critical moment? And why did Grim give it so much importance (and Hama too)? I would say, again, that the staff has certain magical capabilities of its own.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by Raynor:
I would say, again, that the staff has certain magical capabilities of its own.

No, no, no, no. That sounds too much like 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice'. See little Pippin decide to steal the staff while Gandalf's taking a nap (not likely) and turn the party tree into a giant torch. Of course, I know that's not what you meant - not anything near, but that's a rather humorous picture that came to mind.

No, say rather, without the wizard, the staff means nothing. But the wizard is rather handicapped without it. I don't know where exactly they intertwine, how much a wizard is dependent on his staff, or what he can do without it. I'm rather inclined to think that without the staff, a wizard can do no 'magic'.

But I'm not exactly sure. . .this is much speculation, and with how this thread and replies are going, I'm beginning to think it would do well in the Book section. . .

-- Folwren

[Raynor]

without the wizard, the staff means nothing.

I already agreed with that part.

I'm rather inclined to think that without the staff, a wizard can do no 'magic'.

Yet when saving Faramir, Gandalf doesn't have a staff, but drives the nazgul away with a "shaft of light"

[Folwren]

Won't argue with that one just now.

-- Folwren