What's in a Staff?

[Ancalagon'sFire]

I know many of you can search tirelessly to find references to 'staff's' in Tolkien's work, but really, what do you know about them? Tolkien give's great credence to staff's specifically in reference to the Istari and it is that which interests me most. What is it about an Istari wizard that requires him to have a staff? 5 entered Middle-Earth, all of whom had staff's but what connects each and what, if any, power lies in possession of a staff?

[Boromir88]

Wood?

But seriously, I've always thought of them as an ordinary stick, that can be used as a prop for walking or in the hands of a "magical" person, as a tool. Gandalf performs magic without his staff, note his description of his fight against the Balrog. His staff breaks on the bridge, but he's still lighting up the mountain.

I think Hama's got the best idea of a staff:

"The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age."~King of the Golden Hall

The key being "in the hand of a wizard," in someone like Hama's hands, it would just be a piece of wood.

[Inziladun]

I've always thought the staffs of the Wizards to act much as the wands in the Harry Potter books: a means of focusing, and perhaps amplifying the magic, but not the ultimate source of it.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

As Tolkien made it quite clear that "magic" in his world is the power native to the being wielding that "magic," I have wondered about the nature of an Istar's staff for a long time. While there appears to be some connection between the staff and power, I think it is more symbolic than real. The staff may act as a conduit for the wizard's innate power at his whim, but I really haven't seen anything that convinces me that it is necessary for the wielding thereof. There does appear to be something about them that makes them important to the Istari -- why go through the rigamarole of breaking Saruman's staff if there was not some point to it?

Finally, after a good thirty or more years of puzzling over this, it finally occurred to me: the wizard's staves were not the only ones Tolkien mentioned; there was also the staff of stewardship of the Stewards of Gondor. The wizard's staff may be an emblem of office, as the white staff is an emblem of the office of the stewards of Gondor. After all, Gandalf did say to Denethor, "I am also a steward. Did you not know?" That was the real job of Istari in ME, to be stewards who would teach and guide the people for the protection of their world against the "illegal" incursion of Sauron. It was a visible emblem of their office, possibly given to them by the Valar when they were sent on their mission, and as such it would be quite important and precious to the wizards, as a scepter or crown or any other signet of office is to any person. Embodied in the human form with its many burdens both physical and emotional, they probably became quite attached to them, and would not want to lose them, or hand them to another save at great need. The breaking of Saruman's staff would thus be akin to the breaking of a king's scepter, or Denethor's deliberate breaking of the Steward's staff: a sign that the office was at end, that the reign was over. Saruman's tenure as head of the Istari ended, and his staff was broken.

Just my thoughts, as ever.

[Formendacil]

In addition to being a prop form a wizard's age, it occurs to me that a staff in the hands of a wizard might also be a prop in a more dramatic sense--that is, it's part of the visual equipment dealt the Istari for their role in Middle-earth as wizards.

The idea being, that, because the Istari are Maia in their nature, their power will certainly come from their own being, rather than from some stick they carry--but perhaps they carry the stick as a prop--the people of Middle-earth wouldn't know the difference, and it might make the power appear less inherent in the wizard.

On the other hand, however, it's clear that some sort of power must reside in the staff, since when Gandalf the White breaks Saruman's staff, this is not merely a ceremonial act--it actually deprives Saruman of some/most of his power (it is said that his voice is pretty much all that is left thereafter).

So...

Gandalf fights the Balrog without his staff, with no apparent problems.

Saruman has his staff broken and loses his power.

How to reconcile these points?

Perhaps it is not that the staff, itself, has any power, but rather that it houses a wizard's authority. The distinction between the two is subtle, but I think there is one. A staff broken for a wizard will not cripple his power, because his power does not reside there. However, a staff broken by a higher authority (as the returning Gandalf is to Saruman--whether in his own right or on behalf of Manwë--or Eru--is another matter), robs a wizard of his ability (or authority) to exercise his power.

Does that make sense?

Until and unless broken by a competent authority, a wizard's staff could be any old stick--but he would typically have to have one as the badge of his office. If broken by a competent authority, however, no matter that it was just some old stick, his ability to exercise his power was gone.

Which leads to an interesting question... was Saruman a competent authority to break Gandalf's staff--thereby rendering his power inert? One assumes not, since he did not do any such thing when he had Gandalf prisoner in Isengard... but it's hardly conclusive. Was it because he didn't see the need? Because such an action would have involved the Valar?

Or I am overcomplicating it, and it was merely that Saruman, though head of the order, did not have that authority? In which case, Gandalf returning as the White would be a separate matter from Gandalf returning empowered to divest Saruman of his authority.

EDIT: Crossposted with Ibrîn, who seems to be taking a similar line.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

The breaking of Saruman's staff would thus be akin to the breaking of a king's scepter, or Denethor's deliberate breaking of the Steward's staff: a sign that the office was at end, that the reign was over. Saruman's tenure as head of the Istari ended, and his staff was broken.

I can certainly see symbolism in the staffs, as well. When Saruman's staff is broken, the head of it falls at Gandalf's feet. This would seem a clear indication that Gandalf was then the 'head' of the Order.

All the same, the staff seems to have some quality of magic of its own, or at least the ability to channel it. Consider the Fellowship at Moria.

As the wizard passed on ahead up the great steps, he held his staff aloft, and from its tip there came a faint radiance.

A Journey In the Dark

And earlier, when Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarves were caught in the trees in The Hobbit:

Then Gandalf climbed to the top of his tree. The sudden splendour flashed from his wand like lightning..

Out of the Frying-Pan Into the Fire

'Wand' there, should surely be read for 'staff'.
I think the staffs are both instruments of power, and, as Ibrin said, symbols of office.

[Rumil]

Well all I know for sure is that Terry Pratchett claimed that a Wizard's Staff has a knob on the end .

I am temped to agree with Formy regarding the authority to 'practice magic' maybe resided in the staff, as I read it Saruman was deprived of his magical power, apart from his hypnotic voice, when Gandalf broke his staff.

I wonder if a proportion, maybe even a majority, of an Istari's power did reside in their staff, or require the staff to allow its use? Could this have been one of the limitations that was imposed by the Valar when the Wizards were sent?

[Ancalagon'sFire]

The staff in the hand of a wizard may be more than a prop for age' said Háma. He looked hard at the ash-staff on which Gandalf leaned.

It is an interesting choice of words Háma uses and probably the most adept observation he could make. The term ash-staff also intrigues, for one wonders where the staff originates from, was it brought with him across the sea, if so it is ash from Valinor and made from the song of Yavanna herself. If not, it originates then in Middle-Earth and is but a stick until it finds itself in the hands of a Wizard. The two seem intertwined, made for one another but by whom? Is it carven by Elves or by Aule himself? There is clear reference in Unfinished Tales describing Gandalf's arrival:

Others there were also: two clad in sea-blue, and one in earthen brown; and the last came one who seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and grey-clad, and leaning on a staff.

It may be safe to assume he brought it with him, unless someone other than Cirdan brought it to him for the journey across the sea, having first been carved in Middle-Earth. I suspect however he has brought it with him, as did they all. Yet, when Gandalf strayed out of thought and time, and wandered far on roads that he would not tell, he is returned naked and conveyed to Lothlórien where he is clothed in white. Where does he regain his staff on this occasion? Gandalf is most associated with the staff, by Men, Elves and Dwarves alike, but that is most likely due to his constant relationship building among each race.

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!' There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face.

Wormtongue's comment is clearly the counsel of Saruman who knows such things. The staff is a conduit for Gandalf's power, without which he is but an impotent fool. There is an intriguing insight into Tolkien's deliberations about Gandalf's staff taken from Book of Lost Tales 2 in which he makes several varying references to the power of the staff.

'Well, that's that,' he said. 'It was all I could do. I expect I
have buried Balin. But alas for my staff: we shall have to go by
guess in the dark. Gimli and I will lead.'
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.'

Of course, this is not the finished product and doesn't make the final version which we see in Fellowship of the Ring;

Suddenly at the top of the stair there was a stab of white light. Then there was a dull rumble and a heavy thud. The drum-beats broke out wildly: doom-boom, doom-boom, and then stopped. Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company.
`Well, well! That's over! ' said the wizard struggling to his feet. `I have done all that I could. But I have met my match, and have nearly been destroyed. But don't stand here! Go on! You will have to do without light for a while: I am rather shaken.'

It is clear however that the staff has been employed in the destruction of the chamber and as such the light has been lost. These references seem to give some indication as to the power within the staff. I would suggest that the staff itself is made for each Wizard, possibly corresponding with their respective colours/skills and each ordained with specific powers exclusive to the nature of that Wizards colour/skill. It begs the question; Does a Blue Wizard have a Staff that harnesses 'water' and if so were they choices of Ulmo? The Brown Wizard, Radagast, does his staff induce growth, control over the flora and fauna of the Land? Saruman, it would indicate his seems more inclined towards vision, of revealing secrets and thus controlling (at least attempting to) the minds of others? Although there is clearly much more to his make-up than that, not the least his control of the weather while the fellowship attempted the crossing of the Misty Mountains. As for Gandalf he says himself: `I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.' Most references to Gandalf's Wizardry seem to point to fire, flame or light. There is no doubt each Wizard has some innate ability to control or manipulate the elements which one would suspect is the gift of all Maiar since they had a part in the 'song' and their creation. The significance of a 'wood' staff and how power is divined through it, I am not so certain.
As always, these are mere observations and speculations on my part and open to the utmost scrutiny

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Interesting. I don't have my copy of the letters at hand, so I can't quote directly, but I do know that Tolkien said that Gandalf's wanderings "out of thought and time" meant that he left the Circles of the World, and was sent back by "the Authority," aka Eru. Whether or not his journey from life and back included any time spent in Valinor, he does not say. But he was returned directly to the top of Zirak-zigil, literally naked, and was reclothed by Galadriel and the Elves of Lothlorien. One can presume that either Gandalf took Glamdring with him, or Gwaihir picked it up for him, but no mention of him having a staff with him is made. Therefore, it would appear to follow that the staff he had as Gandalf the White came from the Elves of Lothlorien. If it had any special "power," I would think it either came from Galadriel, or from Gandalf himself.

I have speculated in other writings that in the fashioning of these "signets of office," each of the wizards might have been required to place something of their own power into them, not to imbue them with mundane magical ability, but as a pledge to their position as Stewards. Others would not be able to use it to make magic, but it would give the wizards a taste of what they would be dealing with in the matter of the Rings, and perhaps make them more inclined to stick to their purpose, as the power would (by plan) be returned to them only when they returned to Valinor, and were able to resume their natural forms. This is wholly speculation, mind you; there's absolutely no proof to support it, except perhaps in Saruman's statement about Gandalf wanting the staffs of all the Five Wizards, which indicates some degree of more than symbolic importance to the items (this thought, of course, is contradicted by the puzzling fact that when Gandalf was a prisoner in Orthanc, Saruman let him keep his staff. We know this because he had it and used it, if I recall correctly, when Gwaihir plucked him off the top of the tower).

Ah, so much speculation, so little proof....

[Andsigil]

Perhaps Saruman invested much of his own power into his staff in order to increase his strength, much like Sauron did with the One Ring. Both beings were Maiar, after all.

Gandalf, always wary of worldly trappings and vigilantly keeping his eyes on his mission, chose to keep most of his own power inside of himself. This is why he was able to fight the Balrog without it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Perhaps Saruman invested much of his own power into his staff in order to increase his strength, much like Sauron did with the One Ring. Both beings were Maiar, after all.

Sauron's motives for endowing the Ring with much his native power were fairly singular though: he had to make it exceptionally strong, so that it could control the other Rings of Power.
I don't see Saruman having any incentive to follow suit, especially since he was so well versed in ring-lore that he likely knew just how vulnerable Sauron had made himself by dividing his power.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

This is wholly speculation, mind you; there's absolutely no proof to support it, except perhaps in Saruman's statement about Gandalf wanting the staffs of all the Five Wizards, which indicates some degree of more than symbolic importance to the items (this thought, of course, is contradicted by the puzzling fact that when Gandalf was a prisoner in Orthanc, Saruman let him keep his staff. We know this because he had it and used it, if I recall correctly, when Gwaihir plucked him off the top of the tower).

I think Saruman's statement actually further strengthens the symbolic argument, because it's just Saruman ranting about Gandalf becoming power-hungry:

"Later! Yes, when you have the Keys of Barad-dur itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boos many sizes larger than those that you wear now."~Voice of Saruman

It's all symbolic for Saruman calling Gandalf power-hungry, concluded in Tolkien's interesting spin on a common phrase for someone becoming "too big for their own boots."

Saruman is claiming Gandalf wants the Keys to Barad-dur (power over Sauron).

crowns of seven kings (note: "of" seven kings, not "of the") - a symbolic statement by Saruman saying Gandalf wants power of seven kings, or power over Men, power over the physical realm of Middle-earth. If Saruman was referring to specific seven kings, it would be "of the" as he does in his next statement

rods of the Five Wizards - the staffs being a symbol of the Istari power, Gandalf wants power over the Istari, power over the spiritual realm.

What's ironic is Saruman is projecting his desires onto Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I don't see Saruman having any incentive to follow suit, especially since he was so well versed in ring-lore that he likely knew just how vulnerable Sauron had made himself by dividing his power.

I don't know, of course as with almost anything you can argue multiple views, but I think Saruman's ego became so big he let that get in the way of his (at one point) reasoned judgement:

"For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-Maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"~Council of Elrond

Gandalf notes that Saruman has a ring, it is debatable whether Saruman made it or not (since Tolkien cut out parts of earlier drafts where it is explicitlly stated that Saruman made his own Ring)...However, Saruman does use the title "Ring-Maker" which is a title that Sauron is also known as. Saruman's ego was becoming Sauron and conceived himself to become even more powerful than Sauron. I think he would have done anything to emulate, or try to achieve Sauron's power, since his ego takes over for rational judgement.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Gandalf notes that Saruman has a ring, it is debatable whether Saruman made it or not (since Tolkien cut out parts of earlier drafts where it is explicitlly stated that Saruman made his own Ring)...However, Saruman does use the title "Ring-Maker" which is a title that Sauron is also known as. Saruman's ego was becoming Sauron and conceived himself to become even more powerful than Sauron. I think he would have done anything to emulate, or try to achieve Sauron's power, since his ego takes over for rational judgement.

If that was the case, I think it much more likely he would have tried to transfer his power into the ring, in imitation of Sauron, rather than into his staff.

[Lush]

I can certainly see symbolism in the staffs, as well.

As can I.

But seriously, what strikes me about the staffs in particular is how Tolkien avoids making them gimmicky. I think they very obviously have a lot of visual power as well - in terms of delineating a certain kind of authority.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Lush

As can I.

No doubt. Rings and staffs - Dr Freud, can you please shut up?
But seriously:

Originally Posted by Ancalagon'sFire

The term ash-staff also intrigues

Using mythological meta-reasoning, it's only logical that Gandalf's staff would be made of ash. Gandalf is, among other things, very reminiscent of Odin in his persona as The Wanderer (described in the Edda and Sagas as a bearded old man wearing hat and cloak, and using his spear as a walking-stick), and Odin is intimately connected with Yggdrasill, the World-Ash (which is named thus ['the steed of Ygg', Ygg being another name for Odin] because Odin was hanged in its branches in a ritual of shamanic initiation).

Originally Posted by Ancalagon'sFire

Gandalf is most associated with the staff

Indeed. His very name derives from this association: Norse Gand·alfr = 'elvish wight with a staff' (Tolkien's translation).

Originally Posted by Ibrin

this thought, of course, is contradicted by the puzzling fact that when Gandalf was a prisoner in Orthanc, Saruman let him keep his staff.

If the staffs of the Istari were something like badges of office, symbols of the authority bestowed on them by the Valar, Saruman would have had no right - and hence, no power - to take Gandalf's staff from him as long as Gandalf remained faithful to his mission; only the Valar themselves (as the issuers of the staff) could do this, or someone acting on their behalf, like Gandalf the White did when he broke Saruman's staff, revoking Saruman's authority when it had become clear he had deserted the mission.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon'sFire

What is it about an Istari wizard that requires him to have a staff? 5 entered Middle-Earth, all of whom had staff's but what connects each and what, if any, power lies in possession of a staff?

Interestingly enough, in the quote from UT you mentioned afterward, only Gandalf himself was described as having a staff when the Istari first arrived:

Others there were also: two clad in sea-blue, and one in earthen brown; and the last came one who seemed the least, less tall than the others, and in looks more aged, grey-haired and grey-clad, and leaning on a staff.

If all had their staffs upon arrival, why is Gandalf's possession of one so noteworthy?
Along those lines, there is this quote from TTT, where Faramir tells Frodo and Sam about Gandalf's words to him years earlier:

'Many are my names in many countries. Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Dwarves...'

And in a related note in UT regarding that quote, Tharkûn is said to have the meaning 'staff-man'.
Again, it's interesting that Gandalf gets the distinction of association with a staff. We don't know the Dwarven names for the other Istari, but presumably their names aren't derived from their attachment to a staff.

Lastly, was Radagast described as having a staff when he met with Gandalf on the borders of the Shire? I don't have a copy of FOTR with me, but I don't remember any mention of one.

[Findegil]

Gandalfs staff is mentioned at his arival because he is leaning on it, like an old man needing it support. At least that is theoverall impresion I got from the discribtion.

I think in the secene with Gandalf Radagasts staff was not mentioned, but Saruman confirmed that Radagast had one when he blamed Gandalf lustin all staffes of the five wizards.

Respetfully
Findegil

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Gandalfs staff is mentioned at his arival because he is leaning on it, like an old man needing it support. At least that is theoverall impresion I got from the discribtion.

If that was the case, why wouldn't it say 'an old man, leaning on his staff', to show others had them, but were not relying on them for support?

Bêthberry and Pitch, I'll outdo you in pedantry yet!

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If that was the case, why wouldn't it say 'an old man, leaning on his staff', to show others had them, but were not relying on them for supprt?

Bêthberry and Pitch, I'll outdo you in pedantry yet!

Well, as it is that point is moot since Saruman's rant prove beyond reasonable doubt all five Istari carried staffs, wouldn't you say? If not, Saruman's metaphor would make little sense.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Well, as it is that point is moot since Saruman's rant prove beyond reasonable doubt all five Istari carried staffs, wouldn't you say? If not, Saruman's metaphor would make little sense.

I was mainly addressing the question of whether they all had the staffs upon arrival, with them being made of some 'enchanted' Valinorean wood, as posited here.

[skip spence]

Aha, I see.

Haven't read the whole thread and don't know if this has been brought up but one thing to consider in connection to this is Gandalf's second staff, the one he held as G the White after his previous one was broken in Moria.

Now as I understand it, Gandalf *died* and was sent back again. A question to ponder is whether this coming and going only concerns his soul, ie that his soul left the body which remained on the mountainside and then was sent back, or if he was actually reincarnated or healed bodily in Valinor (or elsewhere) and then physically brought back. If the former is true, which is what I would favour, his new Gandalf the White staff would presumably have been fashioned by wood from the realm of Lorien and not out of the Undying Land.

Hm. As I'm writing I seem to remember that he was sent back naked though, wasn't he? That would indicate that his physical body made the mystical journey, unless his last act before collapsing in a heap on the ground was uncloaking Then he could have had a new magical staff with him too I suppose as a staff can't possibly be considered a piece of clothing.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If that was the case, why wouldn't it say 'an old man, leaning on his staff', to show others had them, but were not relying on them for supprt?

Without the possessive, of course, he could theoretically have been leaning on somebody else's staff which he had borrowed for the occasion...

Bêthberry and Pitch, I'll outdo you in pedantry yet!

Keep trying!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Keep trying!

In light of this exchange, might I suggest that it may possibly be appropriate to reconsider this word staffs which has been used several times on this thread.

Yes, most internet dictionaries do allow staffs as well as staves for the plural of staff, when meaning a walking stick or rod or wand signifying authority. [Reference: Dictionary.com ; Meriam-Webster online dictionary ]Yet they do not reject staves. Consider the suitability of staves!

We are discussing JRR Tolkien, an English author whose work is so very much predicated upon language, and older forms of language in particular. His world of Middle-earth is--well, one might as well say, Sic transit gloria mundi, although we do attempt to relive it every day. In Tolkien's work, old and archaic forms come alive again.

Would it not seem preferable then to recognise and respect the good Professor's delight in the particular and precise use of language by using a word which comes closest to this sense of language?

The OED, the dictionary upon which Tolkien himself worked--not without some interesting results--has this to say about staves:

Originally Posted by OED, staves

The plural form staves is now somewhat archaic, exc. in certain senses in which a sing. form STAVE has been developed from it; but it is still preferred in those senses that are confined to literary use.

Of course it comes down to a matter of preference, but it seems to me that wizards just seem to merit staves rather than staffs.

[Mnemosyne]

Of course, "staff" could merely be a mistransliteration of "staph," short for "staphlococcus," which sheds a whole new light on the text. Could it be that the Valar's true reason for sending the Istari was to experiment on the possibilities of biological warfare?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course it comes down to a matter of preference, but it seems to me that wizards just seem to merit staves rather than staffs.

If it's archaic, it has to be good.

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Of course, "staff" could merely be a mistransliteration of "staph," short for "staphlococcus," which sheds a whole new light on the text. Could it be that the Valar's true reason for sending the Istari was to experiment on the possibilities of biological warfare?

Indeed. 'Staph' in the hands of a wizard could be more than a microorganism of old age...

As for skip's musing of what was meant by 'naked', I think that indicated Gandalf's power and spritual status were not so tightly veiled, not so much a physical appearance. 'Naked' in the sense that he was not as attached to the physical body as before, hence his statement to the Three Hunters that none of them had weapons that would harm him anymore. And also, Gwaihir's comment that Gandalf was so light after his return that he felt Gandalf would simply float to the earth like a feather if dropped, seems to point to a less physically 'there' Gandalf.

[Morthoron]

I believe a wizard uses a staff simply because constructing a giant, wooden badger would be unfeasible and simply too bulky to lug about. And imagine the maintenance and upkeep!

Besides, from a literary standpoint, Gandalf saying, "Saruman, your giant, wooden badger is broken!" simply does not have the serious tone necessary for such a stirring moment in the book. Although as a special effects sequence, Saruman's giant, wooden badger collapsing to the ground in a great crash of shards and splinters might be impressive.

Ummm...have I mentioned that, once again, I have had far too much coffee to drink this morning?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Besides, from a literary standpoint, Gandalf saying, "Saruman, your giant, wooden badger is broken!" simply does not have the serious tone necessary for such a stirring moment in the book. Although as a special effects sequence, Saruman's giant, wooden badger collapsing to the ground in a great crash of shards and splinters might be impressive.

Hmm, it almost makes one wish Bakshi had completed his animated version of LotR, just to see how that incredibly huge log (or is it a contrabassoon?) he made of Saruman's staff would have reacted to being broken.

Thanks, Morth, I needed a good laugh.