It's not just about having the power...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

The outlining of what should be discussed here is somewhat vague, however I hope that people will be interested in this and will join this discussion and post their thoughts, points, ideas, whatever which they feel like adding to this thread, connected with the topic. This topic is something I have been thinking about a lot, and now one remark in a totally different thread reminded me of it:

Originally Posted by Gordis

Humility is a good thing, and a part of "general strength" but it is different from raw power. Had Gandalf been mightier than Sauron, he wouldn't fear to confront him over the Palantir. Had Gandalf been mightier than Saruman, he wouldn't be trapped in Orthanc.

Instead of replying right there (and going even further off-topic to the particular thread than even this quote already was), I decided to make a separate thread for this.

My immediate reaction upon reading Gordis' words was that I would contest the words "Had Gandalf been mightier than (...), he wouldn't fear to/wouldn't be trapped..." Especially the second one serves a nice example. Are we sure it was just a question of power? In other words, are we sure, that if Gandalf was mightier than Saruman, he wouldn't be trapped in Orthanc? - And, the more pressing the question would be in the case, what if he was mightier?

Let's see what I think of that.

I don't believe Gandalf wouldn't have been trapped had he been mightier. Or, I don't believe he was trapped because he wasn't mightier. And I am not sure whether he was mightier or not - whatever you imagine under it - but he definitely was not helpless or powerless. Yes, you say, but what good it is when although he is not helpless, he doesn't have enough power to defeat Saruman. If he contested him, he would still end up being defeated and locked up in Orthanc. That's right. PJ showed us exactly this in the FotR movie. However, I oppose: and what if Gandalf wouldn't have contested Saruman at all? And not just because he would resign, knowing in forward that he would be defeated.

This is something which, I believe, PJ has gravely misinterpretated. Remember the recounting of the encounter of Gandalf and Saruman in Orthanc? There are no words about Gandalf contesting Saruman. In fact, it would even make no sense. Even if Gandalf, let's say, defeated Saruman in a "staff duel", there would have been many Orcs and Men to face before he could escape. Remember, the gate silently closed behind Gandalf when he came. He was expected, the guards probably had their own instructions, even if Saruman was knocked out unconscious (I am not even mentioning the possibility of killing him; it's obvious, I believe, that Gandalf would't do that in any case), Gandalf would have been overrun by dozens of guards. But okay, for the sake of PJ we should also say that in the movie, there were not yet any guards in Isengard, so in that setting, Gandalf may have escaped had he defeated Saruman. However...

...however even then I don't believe he would. I think we all agree that Gandalf had at least the power to contest Saruman, maybe had he been lucky, he could've won... then made himself "invisible" for the guards (like we see in The Hobbit), jumped on a horse and disappeared before anybody could catch him. But that will mean at first opposing Saruman with power, making an offensive move - when Saruman told the guards "take him to the top of the tower", Gandalf would have no other option - as the negotiations failed. Gandalf would take his staff and start a PJ-ish duel, start casting lightning bolts, or whatever else. It would have been the use of his power, in any case. And here, after all the rant, is my point.

I would say the whole Lord of the Ring, even the main plot of it, is not about not having, but about not using power. Please note that carefully. Noted? Okay. It is a big difference, in fact, that's something on the totally opposite poles. The Free Peoples had the Ring, and it was not too hard to give the Ring to some Elrond or Aragorn, we all know the stuff. I believe it's similar with Gandalf here. The fact why he didn't try to fight Saruman (presuming he didn't, which, as I take it from the books, he didn't), is not in that he wouldn't have the power, but that he would not use it to contest Saruman. I think that in this case it was not even cowardice (although Gandalf confessed he's afraid sometimes, of Sauron, for example - or at least he used to be), because just before that Gandalf tried to do his best to oppose Saruman. He wasn't afraid to say his true opinions to Saruman, he's been quite daring in the dialogue. But when it came to using the power, he didn't use it against Saruman. And he still had it: Saruman didn't even take his staff from him (he still had it atop the Orthanc)!

We all know that when Saruman was defeated, Gandalf didn't "finish him". That was mercy, you say. Yes, I say. But just from the view of power now, it is that the one who has the power over another does not execute it. Aragorn and the defeated Easterlings&Southrons. Rohirrim and the defeated Dunlendings. Even though you could expect them to have revenge all their dead. This is quite a feat for itself, think about it, not going for "a compensation". However, this is the position when one of the sides is definitely superior, unquestioned. But Gandalf imprisoned in Orthanc definitely isn't the superior one. Saruman, in an usurper's move, simply threw him into a jail. But Gandalf isn't totally powerless as well. He doesn't start the fight. But at the same moment, he still does not approve Saruman. This is by no means defeat for Gandalf. It is a defeat for Saruman - what did he get? One prisoner, who eats away his supplies, but doesn't help him at all to locate the Ring or do anything else. Also, Saruman may now be labeled as the aggressor, soon the Free Peoples will know about that, knowing also for sure that he's a traitor. And, on the top of it, as it goes in Middle-Earth, Gandalf is even saved later, and that's through the only safe way from Orthanc.

An attempt to sum it up in a few words. There are often moments in LotR when simply having or not having the power is not the question, and when not using the power actually does not mean loss but rather the opposite. And it doesn't work like that only in the story of the Ring itself, "because it's the Ring and it's a special thing which works like that", but in other, much lesser-scale examples as well.

It is not just about having or not having the power. Had Gandalf been mightier than Saruman or Sauron, it wouldn't have changed the basic situation, I say.

I hope this was not too confusing and uninteresting rambling. Also, it was meant as basis to get some discussion rolling. React - to anything you wish.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I would say the whole Lord of the Ring, even the main plot of it, is not about not having, but about not using power.
.

Thanks for reminding us of this. I think the focus has shifted too much to categorical statements about who is the more powerful. After all, the basic plot is that the least powerful characters (Frodo and Sam) finally defeat Sauron. That, and as you say, whether this or that character (Aragorn, Faramir, Boromir, ...) will or will not take a power that he shouldn't have...

[alatar]

Interesting thoughts, LoAL. I think that your thoughts about 'power' are what separate the good from the bad in Middle Earth. To use power without much forethought can be folly; the use of power can create the equal but opposite reaction.

Gandalf could have forced anyone, save a few, to bend to his will. In doing so he would have become like those he wished to oppose.

My one brother is much stronger and faster than me. He was a track star, holding some local records in both pole vaulting and sprinting. My brother can lift me completely above his head. In a fight, which, as brothers we did sometimes as kids, he could easily best me unless I played to my strengths, which were to taunt him until he lost control, and then hit him when he was ill-prepared - usually by taking out one of his legs. When he would hit the ground, I would wrap his one arm with both legs and the other with both arms and restrain him until he either came to his senses or he got loose and beat the tar out of me.

There were easier ways to take him down, but...he was my brother, and except for a few seconds when I would be enraged, even when we were fighting, I never would want to physically hurt him. A jab to the neck, a kick to the lower region and he'd be down...but why? Why would I do something so reckless/dangerous just to show him up? If/when he recovered, he too would escalate, and then I would have to hurt him seriously to keep him from hurting me more. Where would it end?

Being the calmer of the two of us, I tried to keep it from getting out of hand. I love my brother, even when he's being a pain in the neck.

I think that Gandalf felt this way. He could have fought Saruman, but he didn't want to start a fight which, even if he won, would only have resulted in the destruction of his foe, and I don't think that he wanted that. Even at the end he wished that Saruman found healing, and it may be that he felt the same about Sauron.

Look at the clear difference between Gandalf and the Witch-King. The later stomps over both friend and foe alike, whereas the former felt pity even for Sauron's slaves.

[Morthoron]

I am 6' 2'' and 225 pounds. My younger brother is 6'6'' 300 pounds. I know he can beat me up if he likes. He knows he can beat me up if he likes. However, we both know he would ultimately have to kill me, because if left alive, I would come back at him with a baseball bat. We have never had a fist fight ever. *shrugs*

I think Saruman did indeed overpower Gandalf at Orthanc (although perhaps not as dramatically as the "Star Wars with Staffs" sequence in the movie). The reason I believe this is that when Gandalf defeated the Balrog and died, he was ressurrected into 'white' status, and his sacrifice was a purification in order to reach that next 'power' level. It would make little sense for Tolkien to write that part of the tale if there was no significance in Gandalf's death and ressurrection.

And really, if you think about it, the only real significant battle of power after Gandalf was ressurrected and became the White was when he broke Saruman's staff; other than that, there is little of note battle-wise that Tolkien remarks on regarding Gandalf (he almost fought the WitchKing of Angmar, almost fought the Chicken of Bristol and almost fought the Dragon of Angnor).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I think Saruman did indeed overpower Gandalf at Orthanc (although perhaps not as dramatically as the "Star Wars with Staffs" sequence in the movie). The reason I believe this is that when Gandalf defeated the Balrog and died, he was ressurrected into 'white' status, and his sacrifice was a purification in order to reach that next 'power' level. It would make little sense for Tolkien to write that part of the tale if there was no significance in Gandalf's death and ressurrection.

Well and that's exactly what I think is not right. Not contesting what you said about Gandalf becoming more powerful after his return as the White Rider: it is hinted, at many places, that he has a new "quality" now, however I think we should bear in mind that once again, this "new quality" was not only about more power. He had somewhat different attitude, he learned about something. I would say, the most significant change was in a "spiritual" way. Also, he had far more self-confidence after that, and it seems likely that he consulted (or "was consulted by") the Valar (or Eru?) meanwhile.

However, like I said, I think there was no real confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman. When the negotiations failed, Gandalf stopped, he did not attack - but at the same he did not capitulate, did not submit, did not do what Saruman wanted from him. I believe Gandalf didn't try to use power to contest Saruman there. In PJ's movie, the one who starts the "duel" is Saruman, because he becomes angry. But in the books, there was no reason for him to become angry to attack Gandalf - it says he was "cold and perilous". He was "cold", he was aware of his superiority at the moment, so he just sent the guards to escort Gandalf to the top. Saruman wouldn't have started anything. So, the only one who could have tried to use his power to get away would be Gandalf then. Gandalf the aggressor? And that's what I believe he won't do. Exactly as alatar says - I may just quote here:

Originally Posted by alatar

I think that Gandalf felt this way. He could have fought Saruman, but he didn't want to start a fight which, even if he won, would only have resulted in the destruction of his foe, and I don't think that he wanted that. Even at the end he wished that Saruman found healing, and it may be that he felt the same about Sauron.

Also, what supports the theory that nothing happened besides the dialogue, book-wise, is what we can read. The only description after the end of dialogue, when Saruman laughed, is:

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond

They took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc, in the place where Saruman was accustomed to watch the stars.

I believe, if it were as Morthoron says, that there would have been at least one more sentence, at least brief, like "I made a vein attempt to escape, but alas, Saruman proved mightier still." But there's nothing like that.

[Morthoron]

I understand what you're saying, Legate; however, for Gandalf to meekly surrender to Saruman makes little sense to me. Frodo was in danger, and the Ring was in peril, for the Nazgul were abroad in the Shire. It was not a time to be genteel and polite (particularly since a little bit later he was blowing up Weathertop, shooting lightning at the Nazgul).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

However, like I said, I think there was no real confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman. When the negotiations failed, Gandalf stopped, he did not attack - but at the same he did not capitulate, did not submit, did not do what Saruman wanted from him. I believe Gandalf didn't try to use power to contest Saruman there. In PJ's movie, the one who starts the "duel" is Saruman, because he becomes angry. But in the books, there was no reason for him to become angry to attack Gandalf - it says he was "cold and perilous". He was "cold", he was aware of his superiority at the moment, so he just sent the guards to escort Gandalf to the top. Saruman wouldn't have started anything. So, the only one who could have tried to use his power to get away would be Gandalf then. Gandalf the aggressor? And that's what I believe he won't do.

While I agree there was no wizard duel between the two I don't think that Gandalf allowed Saruman to imprison him because he thought it was the right thing to do. The way I see it he simply did not have a choice, not because Saruman was mightier than him, but rather because he was alone in the fastness of Orthanc, surrounded by thousands of armed servants of Saruman. Gandalf the Grey was indeed a deadly foe (and at times the aggressor too, at least against Orcs) but he could not take out armies all by himself.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by alatar

I think that Gandalf felt this way. He could have fought Saruman, but he didn't want to start a fight which, even if he won, would only have resulted in the destruction of his foe, and I don't think that he wanted that. Even at the end he wished that Saruman found healing, and it may be that he felt the same about Sauron.

Also, remember Frodo and Gollum. The one who still holds true doesn't kill the one who was corrupted.

Maybe a better comparison would be to Manwe and Melkor. Melkor was chained up for ages (literally) and then released back into thw world. I'm sure a similar thing would have happened if Saruman hadn't escaped.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I think that there's another facet of the matter that isn't being considered: the fact that Saruman was actively afraid of Gandalf. In Unfinished Tales (The Hunt for the Ring), we are told:

Saruman soon became jealous of Gandalf, and this rivalry turned at last to a hatred, the deeper for being concealed, and the more bitter in that Saruman knew in his heart that the Grey Wanderer had the greater strength, and the greater influence upon the dwellers in Middle-earth, even though he hid his power and desired neither fear nor reverence. Saruman did not revere him, but he grew to fear him, being ever uncertain how much Gandalf perceived of his inner mind, troubled more by his silences than by his words. So it was that openly he treated Gandalf with less respect than did others of the Wise, and was ever ready to gainsay him or make little of his counsels; while secretly he noted and pondered all that he said, setting a watch, so far as he was able, upon all his movements.

That seems rather paranoid behavior for someone who feels secure in his greater power. It's fairly clear (at least to me) that in Tolkien's mind, Saruman was not secure in his own power, and was afraid that sooner or later, Gandalf would move against him. His fear of Gandalf is mentioned again, as is his eventual knowledge that Gandalf possessed one of the Elven Rings. I think that at the time he imprisoned Gandalf, Saruman didn't dare try to start anything he feared he could not finish victoriously. If he had felt confident of his ability to defeat Gandalf in a battle of power, I suspect he would have tried to at least wrest Narya from him (since by this point, he's certainly aware that Gandalf has it), to presumably weaken him and put Saruman in a better position to force information about the Ring from him. But he doesn't. He tries persuasion and intimidation, but both ring hollow, as does his attitude of superiority. Saruman talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. He has armies and guards to defend him, but he doesn't do more than imprison Gandalf. Saruman's afraid of him, a fear compounded by paranoia. Such people usually project their own motives on those around them, especially those they view as rivals. Even in defeat, Saruman will not give up his staff or the keys to Orthanc, because he believes Gandalf wants them for himself. If such a person made no attempt to annihilate his enemy when he had him in his clutches, I believe it's because he felt he could not defeat him. Elsewhere in the same chapter, it's said that Saruman recognized the "great power and strange 'good fortune' that went with Gandalf." Perhaps Saruman felt that Gandalf had the assistance (or protection) of the Valar, and attempting to defeat or attack him through power might bring down their wrath upon him. Lacking the Ring, Saruman would have had no chance of avoiding that, and he may have viewed it as a risk not worth taking.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

It's fairly clear (at least to me) that in Tolkien's mind, Saruman was not secure in his own power, and was afraid that sooner or later, Gandalf would move against him. His fear of Gandalf is mentioned again, as is his eventual knowledge that Gandalf possessed one of the Elven Rings. I think that at the time he imprisoned Gandalf, Saruman didn't dare try to start anything he feared he could not finish victoriously. If he had felt confident of his ability to defeat Gandalf in a battle of power, I suspect he would have tried to at least wrest Narya from him (since by this point, he's certainly aware that Gandalf has it), to presumably weaken him and put Saruman in a better position to force information about the Ring from him. But he doesn't. He tries persuasion and intimidation, but both ring hollow, as does his attitude of superiority. Saruman talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. He has armies and guards to defend him, but he doesn't do more than imprison Gandalf. Saruman's afraid of him, a fear compounded by paranoia.

Indeed. It's this typical "the one who pretends something is always fearing when somebody might reveal him"-behavior. As is well illustrated on the example with Saruman's secret smoking, even this was a vain fear, because for example in this case Gandalf knew, but did not wish to tell anybody, "for it was never his wish that any one should be put to shame". Of course, concerning more important matters like his treachery, this was something different - but the example above goes with what Ibri said about different projection of Gandalf in Saruman's mind and the real Gandalf.

However, what you say, is indeed worth attention, and thanks for brining it up. It seems indeed, when I think of it, that imprisoning Gandalf was far more of a loss to Saruman than anything else (of course not speaking now about the consequences it had later). So, here I would emphasise once again, the more now: the fact that Gandalf did not fight back was not a loss, and by no means a capitulation. I would now dare to say explicitely: it was a victory for him, and a loss for Saruman.

What does Saruman do? He:

1. does not get an information about the Ring from Gandalf, because Gandalf refuses
2. does not get his support, because Gandalf refuses
3. does not take Gandalf's staff, because he does not feel up to it (probably he is afraid that touching the staff, as the attribute of power, might push Gandalf to fight Saruman, of which Saruman is afraid - again, this is Saruman's projection of Gandalf; I think Gandalf probably won't attack in that case, the power - or the staff - is not that important to him to threaten Saruman's life)
4. does not take Gandalf's ring, the same as above
5. can do only one thing, the only one to which he can resort now, he locks Gandalf up. Which, if you think of it, is a pretty cowardly thing inside, although of course Saruman was "playing the cool one", but was unsure inside (also because probably he was afraid of Sauron getting the Ring, too, despite his high talk he was uncertain what would the Lord of the Rings do with his dirty little wizard fellow when he has the power back. Traitors are always afraid - although this time probably rightfully).

There's one thing, that I am not sure how much Gandalf was aware of his own superiority to Saruman in this aspect. He was still in the state of not knowing well what he's dealing with, grave news coming one after another, and not sure how far Saruman's treachery reaches. I think the self-confidence brought by the knowledge of how the things are (for example seeing better into Saruman's mind) was one of the things Gandalf gained with his return as the White Rider. Now the more I think about it, wasn't it really mostly about this knowledge, more than any "new special powers"? I think when we consider what's said in the books, it might as well be like that, maybe besides the "new body"... But this would be maybe for another thread, wouldn't it?
Anyway, Gandalf remained certain in the things that he won't give up to Saruman and that he won't resort to harming him. And had he been aware of his superiority, now the more important would the choice of not going against Saruman be, again the ultimate: having the power (and really an absolutely superior power, and being aware of it), AND not using it.

[Lalwendë]

If you want a perfect example of how, in Tolkien's world, merely exercising your rights or your power is not the best choice, you only have to look to Aragorn.

When entering Meduseld he wants to exercise his rights and take his weapons in, but Gandalf advises him not to do this. Aragorn could do it, and he wanted to do it, but luckily he listened to Gandalf and was instead respectful.

Much later, presumably once he has learned his lessons, he is much more cautious about entering Minas Tirith and just going "Ey up! The King is back!" He waits until he can be accepted as King. What he does is basically use consensus politics. He does not just want to rule because he has won that right or has a divine right to do so, but because the people want him to. Makes for much more effective leadership.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

There's one thing, that I am not sure how much Gandalf was aware of his own superiority to Saruman in this aspect.

That's rather Gandalf all over, isn't it? Humility is one of his defining characteristics. When asked by Manwe himself to go on this mission, he declared himself too weak and fearful of Sauron to be of any use, yet Varda understood even then that he was "not the third" of the Istari -- and Tolkien goes out of his way to mention that Curumo/Saruman heard her remark, and remembered it. Gandalf is never one to put himself forward as a figure of power to be worshiped and revered, so I suspect that even while he knows and understands his own abilities, he doesn't crow about it because he knows there are always going to be others greater than he. He has self-esteem, but not the kind of pride that led Saruman, and others, to their doom. At the time of Gandalf's capture, Saruman was still the titular head of their order, and Gandalf may have felt that it was simply not his place to act directly against him and remove him from that position without some kind of direct permission. It appears that he was given that permission when he returned from death; indeed, it may have even been a direct order, which he regrets but nonetheless carries out.

[alatar]

When Gandalf is taken prisoner in Orthanc, I think that more is going on than what we read. Saruman sets Gandalf away as something of unknown value. He does not destroy Gandalf (even if he could) as Gandalf may have some information, or some other resource, that will be of use to Saruman, who, as we know, is ducking not only the White Council but also the Eye. Saruman has other more immediate tasks at hand, and so having it out with Gandalf may have to wait. This may be his rationale, as he truly knows that he cannot overcome Gandalf and remain unscathed (sans possessing the One).

Gandalf, having been in tight spots before, merely accepts his imprisonment. He is not sure if he can escape Orthanc, at least without risking killing Saruman, and although uncomfortable, he still is alive to fight another day. His fate may be to wait out the war, until either Sauron conquers or is vanquished. While he waits, surely he thinks of what he can do to aid the war. Or maybe he knows that his fate is not to rot atop Orthanc, and that this waiting on the sidelines is actually part of the bigger plan.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Nice points, everyone.

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

At the time of Gandalf's capture, Saruman was still the titular head of their order, and Gandalf may have felt that it was simply not his place to act directly against him and remove him from that position without some kind of direct permission. It appears that he was given that permission when he returned from death; indeed, it may have even been a direct order, which he regrets but nonetheless carries out.

Now, yes, this is a very interesting idea, and I like it. In any case, this would be another example of this "not misusing the power", or maybe the most fitting description is "not using the power wilfully", quite similar to Lal's example of Aragorn in Minas Tirith.

Originally Posted by alatar

When Gandalf is taken prisoner in Orthanc, I think that more is going on than what we read. Saruman sets Gandalf away as something of unknown value. He does not destroy Gandalf (even if he could) as Gandalf may have some information, or some other resource, that will be of use to Saruman, who, as we know, is ducking not only the White Council but also the Eye.

Yup, the main value of Gandalf for Saruman was that he hoped he can get the information of the whereabouts of the Ring from him. When Gandalf refused to tell him, Saruman locked him up, I believe rather because that was the only "punishment" he could, or dared to execute at the moment, and not because he would hope to actually get any more information out of him. He probably hoped that maybe something could happen... also an unleashed Gandalf could have been a lot more dangerous than an imprisoned one, for sure. The more I think of it, the more I see Saruman's situation as desperate. It's just fascinating. And Saruman is a great character
Anyway... oh yes, there was one more thing I had in mind in connection to this. When the Black Riders came to Isengard (in the Unfinished Tales, the Hunt for the Ring, in all versions of the story), Saruman tried to use the presence of Gandalf as an "instrument of negotiation" - either to get information from him or to pretend he got information from him (or, in one version, to plead for Gandalf's help).

Originally Posted by alatar

Gandalf, having been in tight spots before, merely accepts his imprisonment. He is not sure if he can escape Orthanc, at least without risking killing Saruman, and although uncomfortable, he still is alive to fight another day. His fate may be to wait out the war, until either Sauron conquers or is vanquished. While he waits, surely he thinks of what he can do to aid the war. Or maybe he knows that his fate is not to rot atop Orthanc, and that this waiting on the sidelines is actually part of the bigger plan.

Indeed. But it's interesting to think what might have happened had Gandalf remained locked up inside Orthanc. Had Sauron launched his attack against the West and crossed the Anduin, he would have ultimately come to Isengard. Maybe Gandalf might have found a way to persuade Saruman... I am entertaining myself by this idea: with the Enemy on move, crossing Anduin and getting closer and closer to Isengard, Gandalf persuades Saruman to join forces with him, make the last effort and make the last stand against Sauron. Oh...

Originally Posted by skip spence

While I agree there was no wizard duel between the two I don't think that Gandalf allowed Saruman to imprison him because he thought it was the right thing to do. The way I see it he simply did not have a choice, not because Saruman was mightier than him, but rather because he was alone in the fastness of Orthanc, surrounded by thousands of armed servants of Saruman. Gandalf the Grey was indeed a deadly foe (and at times the aggressor too, at least against Orcs) but he could not take out armies all by himself.

Well, that's the question. I think it wasn't the necessity. Yes, I mentioned exactly this in my first post. But I believe (as I also outlined up there) it may not have been that hard for Gandalf to use some of his "magic" to get out of Isengard once he dealt with Saruman. Surely had he been determined to escape, at most he could use some "Voice of Gandalf" or unleash some horrible fire which would terrify the inhabitants - especially after he would have announced them that he had defeated their master. But the point is that this is the thing he wouldn't do. And speaking of that, he won't probably attack the guards either (as he said about Sauron, "I pity even his slaves", how more this would apply towards Saruman and some poor Dunlendings). And another thing is the intention - I don't believe Gandalf would do that even if there was only Saruman and no guards (like in the FotR movie).

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If you want a perfect example of how, in Tolkien's world, merely exercising your rights or your power is not the best choice, you only have to look to Aragorn.

Or Tom Bombadil. He could have easily enslaved everything within his land land to be his to own and control. He could have forced everthing to be his slave. And just by singing. And since he choosses his borders, what's to stop him taking over the whole of middle earth. Yet he doesn't. He is content with a simple life and doing things himself. He could have had a huge suply of slaves, but still, he doesn't use them.
I just wonder why he doesn't get rid of the Barrow-Wights. He only gets rid of them after they misbehave ("you naughty boy!"). But maybe he has pity on them, or maybe they just don't concern him. He doesn't do things just because he can.

And since they talked together, who knows what ideas spread...



Anyway, Gandalf learnt much during his imprisonment. Surely that is a gain.

[Thinlómien]

I'm not going to take part in the Gandalf-Saruman debate, as it has been discussed rather thoroughly already, and I don't want to get entangled in it as well. Great points, everyone, though...

If you think of it, there are really dozens of examples when not using the power is the course of action for the good guys and proves to be a right choice in the end. Many examples have already been mentioned, but I would like to add a few.

There is the Gollum-case, already mentioned once. Bilbo had in his power to kill Gollum, but he didn't. Neither did Gandalf choose that fate for Gollum, but rather left him to the Wood-Elves' keeping. And as we know, that ultimately saved the whole quest from failure. (Also, maybe we could even mix the Faramir-Gollum thing with this too.)

Also, in Mordor, Sam got the Ring and he was filled with visions of healing Mordor and defeating Sauron. He could have taken the chance and tried, but he would have been defeated and the quest would have failed. He was humble enough to realise it. (Although, this is an interesting case, because we don't know what he would have really been able to and what was just madness caused by The Ring. Surely just a simple Hobbit couldn't have overthrown Sauron even if he had the Ring? But the key point is that he would surely have been able to do something, and he chose not to use the power of the Ring to do so.)

And Denethor, he's maybe a really good example. As long as he refused to use the power of the palantír, things were fine. But when he submitted to it, decided to use his immense power of mind to wield the power of the palantír, he was doomed.

Then there are tons of other examples, surely. But I'd actually love to "twist" the setting a little. Are there any cases where having the power and not using it is actually bad?

I can immediately think of one case. Fëanor, whose Silmarils might have had the power to heal the Trees. He refused. This created much woe, and I think it nurtured the obsessive pride and will of possessing that Fëanor and his kin had over these jewels. Also, I'm pretty sure it worsened many relationships in Aman, but I'm too lazy to walk to an other room, take the Sil from the bookshelf and check...

Are there other examples? I'm pretty sure there are, at least in the Sil, but I can't think of them right now. Furthermore, I have the feeling that we will soon have to define the word "power" or this debate will get all too messy...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I was able to get at one of the bookshelves in my office (after it's cleared out, I think I'm going to call it my studio ), and Morgoth's Ring was on the shelf. The passage I have in mind is in an appendix to the Athrabeth, concerning a conversation between Eru and Manwë and the matter of the reincarnation of Elves who have died:

There were many such fëar of Elves who had died in Middle-earth gathered in the Halls of Mandos, but it was not until the death of Míriel in Aman that Manwë appealed directly to Eru for counsel. Eru ‘accepted and ratified the position’ — though making it plain to Manwë that the Valar should have contested Melkor’s domination of Middle-earth far earlier, and that they had lacked estel: they should have trusted that in a legitimate war Eru would not have permitted Melkor so greatly to damage Arda that the Children would not come, or could not inhabit it (cf, LQ 20, page 161: ‘And Manwë said to the Valar: “This is the counsel of Ilúvatar in my heart: that we should take up again the mastery of Arda, at whatsoever cost, and deliver the Quendi from the shadows of Melkor.” Then Tulkas was glad; but Aulë was grieved, and it is said that he (and others of the Valar) had before been unwilling to strive with Melkor, foreboding the hurts of the world that must come of that strife.”)

By "far earlier," it's rather plain that Eru meant before the waking of the Children ("that the Children would not come or could not inhabit it [ME]"). It appears that a majority of the Valar were not in favor of fighting Melkor out of fear that it would severely damage the world, which was a mistake on their part because they lacked estel, hope, as Eru tells them. They lacked trust and faith in him, and thus did not properly use both their might and their authority. If the Valar had done as they ought, with hope and trust that Eru would never let Melkor win the "real war"-- which was between the renegade and Eru -- then a great deal of later destruction, pain, and suffering would have been avoided. There wouldn't be the tales of valor, heroism, betrayal, and tragedy which followed, but it would have been a more peaceful world.

I'm glad I found it -- I was beginning to think I'd gone nuts.