Gandalf - geat or a joke of a wizard?

[Galadriel55]

In LotR, Gandalf is presented os a powerful wizard with great abilities and a very strong willpower. In The Hobbit, However, when attacked by the wolves, all that he can do is through burning pinecones at them and climb a tree.
I would like to know your oppinion about this little contradiction.

P.S.: I couldn't find any similar thread, but if there is one already, please forgive me.

[Andsigil]

Part of Gandalf's mandate from the Valar was to use as little overt power as possible. His mission was one of facilitator while opposing Sauron.

If you look closely at his more blatant displays of power, they generally came only in the face of great evil, like the Balrog.

[Galadriel]

Gandalf is a Maia (a demi god), and a servant of the Valar. His powers are much restricted in Middle-earth, though his real power seems to be in his organization, his wisdom and his courage. "Powerful wizard" has come to mean, with modern fantasy, someone who has magical powers and can shoot dragons and kill people with a snap of his fingers, yet we forget that true power lies in knowledge and kindness, and Gandalf possesses both.

[Aiwendil]

I don't see Gandalf's powers, even restricted as they were by his mandate, as all that weak. Shooting fire doesn't sound too shabby to me. He was greatly outnumbered by the wolves and goblins, and had 13 Dwarves and 1 Hobbit to protect besides himself.

But to answer the question as literally posed by the thread title - no, he was not a Geat, though I don't doubt he could have taken on Grendel just as well as Beowulf!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But to answer the question as literally posed by the thread title - no, he was not a Geat, though I don't doubt he could have taken on Grendel just as well as Beowulf!

That was a typo - apologies for that - I meant to write great


And thank you for your opinions!

[Aiwendil]

Just my little joke - no offense intended; typos happen to everyone.

[Inziladun]

It's not an idea that's occurred to me before, but I wonder if the power Gandalf was "allowed" to display to the other denizens of ME was not somewhat tied to the level of the threat.

In The Hobbit, Sauron had not arisen in his full might, so Gandalf was required to show even more discretion in the overt use of his power than later in LOTR, when things were quite clearly coming to a boil.

In addition, Gandalf had to have been aware the Eagles had habitations nearby, and was counting on them to show up to investigate the fires.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Gandalf's greater overt ability after his return from death was directly related to Eru changing the scope of his mission and his ability. I'm out of town again and don't have the Letters with me, but Tolkien said that Eru took his sacrifice as an opportunity to enlarge upon the Valar's original plans at the moment of their failure, and sent him back in an enhanced state to answer the greater challenges he would face. So in a way, his power had been increased because the situation had become more dire with the overall failure of Project Istari, but I don't know that one could say that Gandalf was allowed to use more or less power depending on the situation right from the beginning of his mission.

Whether or not he was a great "wizard" is not the same as being a powerful "magic user," in Tolkien's world. The term "wizard" is, in Middle-earth, an inadequate translation of "Istar," a term which actually refers to wisdom, not power (which, etymologically, is the actual root of wizard, "wise"). In that respect, I believe Gandalf acquitted himself quite well.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Whether or not he was a great "wizard" is not the same as being a powerful "magic user," in Tolkien's world. The term "wizard" is, in Middle-earth, an inadequate translation of "Istar," a term which actually refers to wisdom, not power (which, etymologically, is the actual root of wizard, "wise"). In that respect, I believe Gandalf acquitted himself quite well.

Well said, Ibrin

[Galadriel55]

These are some very interesting ideas, Ibrin.

I agree with you that Gandalf's wizardness is not really dependent on the magic that he does, but I'm not talking about that. In the book, it says that when attacked by the wargs and goblins, he was afraid and didn't know what to do, so he made fun of the wargs and goblins to waste time. It doesn't really explain the real reasons for Gandalf's feelings or behaviour. According to me, Gandalf is never afraid for himself, so maybe he was just worried about Thorin and Co. and the expedition. I don't think that he was expecting the eagles to come, since he lost hope and was about to jump off his tree and fight when Gwaihir saved him. Maybe at that oment he was about to sacrifice himself to save the expedition, like on the bridge of Khazad-Dum, but since this was not as important, he could not use as much inner power, because when he fought the Balrog, it was more of a battle of wills.
On the other hand, he was allowed to show his power to Grima in Meduseld, but maybe since the fate of Rohan would determine the fate of Gondor and the rest of ME, he was allowed...

[Khazad-dûm]

Gandalf purpose is to give advise/wisdom (hence wizard) to the people of middle-earth for them to help them selves and not just everything for them. When he has to he'll flex his power only to do as much as needed to get the job done. I read somewhere that he's not suppose to show how powerful he really is to the Elves, Men Etc. (if i find the quote ill come back with it.)That's why he only threw flaming pine cones at them.

[Khazad-dûm]

And by that I mean he is GREAT and not a joke.

[Galadriel55]

Gandalf is definitely GREAT, and that's why it bothers me.

Originally Posted by Khazad-dûm

I read somewhere that he's not suppose to show how powerful he really is to the Elves, Men Etc.

As I said before, he showed his power to many men. Maybe not all of it, though. Someties he had to do it or fail his mission, that's true. But if it wasn't for Gwaihir, he'd fail the current mission that he had with the Dwarves. He was planning to jump off and basically commit suicide when the Eagles came (at least that's what my translation says. Maybe the original is different). In LOTR, in every battle there's something special said about Gandalf - shadows avoid him, or something like that. And it said that he was afraid! - again, maybe it was translator's fault. But AFRAID?!?! It is possible that he was afraid for the mission, but in my book, it was pretty clear that Gandalf was afraid for himself. *Stupid translators!!!*

[Findegil]

But one of the things the Istari were bothered with during their special mission was fear for their own well being.

So having read a german tarbslation and the english original text, I think that Gandalf beeing affraid for himsself is not a translator fault.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

"Powerful wizard" has come to mean, with modern fantasy, someone who has magical powers and can shoot dragons and kill people with a snap of his fingers, yet we forget that true power lies in knowledge and kindness, and Gandalf possesses both.

Yea, that reminds me of a quote from Star Wars V:

• Luke: "I'm looking for a Great warrior."
• Yoda: "Wars not make one Great."

[Aiwendil]

As I said before, he showed his power to many men. Maybe not all of it, though. Someties he had to do it or fail his mission, that's true. But if it wasn't for Gwaihir, he'd fail the current mission that he had with the Dwarves. He was planning to jump off and basically commit suicide when the Eagles came (at least that's what my translation says. Maybe the original is different). In LOTR, in every battle there's something special said about Gandalf - shadows avoid him, or something like that. And it said that he was afraid! - again, maybe it was translator's fault. But AFRAID?!?! It is possible that he was afraid for the mission, but in my book, it was pretty clear that Gandalf was afraid for himself.

I think the translation is perfectly accurate. Why shouldn't Gandalf be afraid? Fear is not within the purview of the weak only. And what makes one courageous is not so much the absence of fear as the strength of will to overcome that fear. Gandalf was a powerful being, but he was not a Vala - and we know that even one of that great order (Melkor) was subject to fear. Moreover, Gandalf was incarnated in human (or at least "humane") form and was, I would say, subject to the weaknesses, both of mind and of body, that necessarily come therewith.

[Galadriel55]

Good points, all of you. Thanks for your opinions!
However, what I wanted to say in my last post is that Gandalf was afraid for himself, which is, I think, the only time in LOTR and TH when that happens. He can be afraid for others, for missions, for many different things, bu I've always imagined him to be this kind of person who doesn't feel fear for himself. And I don't mean stuff that involves the Ring, because Gandalf is afraid of how the Ring could make him evil, and what that would do to others.
Aiwendil has an interesting explanation for that - that accepting human form forces you to accept human weaknesses and limitations, if I understood it correctly. However, I think that the human form only affected the physical (more or less) part of him, and not the mental (or psycological). Taking a form is like putting on clothes for the ainur, and clothes don't usually affect the way you think and feel. Of course, this is up to speculation, and I guess it depends on your personal opinion.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Aiwendil has an interesting explanation for that - that accepting human form forces you to accept human weaknesses and limitations, if I understood it correctly. However, I think that the human form only affected the physical (more or less) part of him, and not the mental (or psychological). Taking a form is like putting on clothes for the Ainur, and clothes don't usually affect the way you think and feel. Of course, this is up to speculation, and I guess it depends on your personal opinion.

By coincidence, I was just reading a portion of Tolkien's Letters that addresses Gandalf and his humanity/lack of humanity. Since I know where to find it easily, let me quote:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 156, to Robert Murray SJ

But G[andalf] is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I w[ould] venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an ἄγγελος: that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.

--emphasis mine

...and, from the same letter, regarding Gandalf the White:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

Gandalf may be enhanced in power (that is, under the forms of this fable, in sanctity), but if still embodied he must still suffer care and anxiety, and the needs of flesh.

Actually, the letter is worth reading in its entirety, but that's a lot of copying... In any case, I think the point should be sufficiently clear that the incarnation of the Istari was not like putting on clothes--it was not merely assuming a form, or wearing it; rather, it was becoming it.

[Morthoron]

I don't believe Gandalf was a Geat. I am more inclined to think he was an Angle, concurring with Pope Gregory I and his comment that Angles were angels ("Non Angli, sed angeli"), particularly considering the Maiar were referred to as "angelic" beings. And therein is the joke as well.

[Sarumian]

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Erlond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

Would you agree?

I definitely would!

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

It might also be worth mentioning that among the many books, commentaries and articles I've read about LOTR and M-E it was very convincingly pointed out that Wizards, while having great power, were particularly great against other magical individuals of great power (like the Balrog), and not necessarily so useful in a common fight with slings and stones, whereupon wit and wisdom served better. The capacity to wreak great ruin among his numerous foes was limited to his more "earthbound" skills, such as with gunpowder and fiery pine cones (oh dread!).

This may possibly have had something to do with the limits of his proscribed duties, but even the great among the ancient elves, for example, could only slay people one sword swipe or arrow at a time, even though many Great Lords of Elven kind waxed extremely powerful during their visit to Valinor, overshadowing their own kindred who remained behind. Some appeared to approach Even lesser Maia-like potency and ability. Gandalf was surely as great as any Elf Lord.

The great Girdle of Melian is an example of the kind of power a "good" Maia could wield, and was defensive rather than offensive and destructive, so it's doubtful whether Gandalf, even as Olorin, would, could, or might be inclined to cause his enemies to vanish in a great cloud of smoking ruin, even if he had great need to do so. The "Powers" of Middle Earth appeared to be more that of empowering and dominating, or influencing and convincing, great masses of others to do all of the slaying for them. Otherwise, the "good guys" so respected life and creation that it's probably not even in their realm of thought to overly consider the arts of mass destruction.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Azrakhor

Gandalf The Geat

Ok, ok, this was my first thread, and I didn't bother checking the spelling! Is everyone gonna point out the missing "r" to me until the end of my days?!

/joking.

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

**poke** :d

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

I tend to agree with many things mentioned here, but think when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit he probably hadn't formed his idea of Gandalf-Olorin, or it could have been a bit different. We just need to compare Gandalf's encounter with wolfs in The Hobbit with the battle he gave them in LOTR near Garadhras (Journey In The Dark). The situations were quite alike, save for the fact that in LOTR Gandalf new for sure what the Ring was. But that must not have changed things much: if Gandalf had died in The Hobbit, he would also have failed fulfilling his quest.

I believe Tolkien allowed such difference not by mistake, but for a good reason. While the LOTR is "based" on the account of Frodo and other members of the Fellowship, the Hobbit is written "according to" Bilbo's notes. Gandalf could have told Bilbo that he had been afraid or the latter just assumed it as he'd been in panic himself. I would argue that Bilbo had had a limited knowledge of Gandalf's might till the time of the Council of Elrond, and he was also slightly ironic in regard of the Grey Wizard, playing a part of a well-intended hobbit. Would you agree?

The above is a good in character way of putting it. Out of character, I don't believe all Tolkien's works were intended to be in the same style, written for the same audience, or holding the same themes. Silmarillion and other First Age works are tragedies reminiscent of Wagner, with larger than life flawed characters doomed ill thought out oaths or flaws such as pride. Lord of the Rings is more Christian less Pagan. The Hobbit is a less serious work, more fun.

In a role playing game, I have had to deal with the changing styles in character development in play. The game master wouldn't tell us the year, so I wasn't sure how to play my elven minstrel. Were her songs to be merry nonsense as in The Hobbit when Bilbo passed through Rivendell, or was the mood far more somber and serious as when Frodo arrived years later. As my character was a singer quite knowledgable in the old sagas, she is most reluctant to swear oaths, her worship of the Valar is checked by knowledge of how their stubbornness and anger contributed to much turmoil.

Thus, like many, I was trying to sustain the illusion of a whole bunch of works written about one world with a single consistent history. In the game, once we learned that Mount Doom had recently burst into flame, I decided that the merry care free days at the core of the Third Age were coming to an end, that the elves had begun to see that their time was near its closing. I played Aerlinn's singing as about one third the frivolous style of The Hobbit, two thirds Lord of the Rings. I played her personality and values too as Lord of the Rings rather than Hobbit or Silmarillion.

Perhaps one shouldn't say the books are inconsistent, but that cultures change over long periods of time.

Or, one can suppose that Bilbo and Frodo were just different personalities, and their way of scribing the tale into the Red Book was distinct as the the titles they selected for the book.

At any rate, when setting the style and themes of a role playing game, there are several distinctly different styles available. The game master and players might best decide which one they are trying to work with. I find myself, when discussing the books, remaining aware of changing style and theme as well.

[FlameofAnor]

Like it was mentioned, Gandalf was a Istari Wizard - one of five. He was one of the more powerful beings in existence, sent on divine purpose. In the midst of a Hobbit and a band of Dwarves, though, he is but a wizard - a 'conjurer of cheap tricks,' if I may borrow the saying. No doubt powerful, but to simple folk like Hobbits and Dwarves, not much more than that. To prance around like some deity shooting lightning from his fingers, glowing like an angel would no doubt, for one, make him unapproachable, and two, give away his whereabouts and intentions to the enemy.

Don't forget about Radagast the Brown, too. Tolkien says he was counted in the same class as Gandalf, but, according to the lore, his stayed out of the affairs of Men and Elves, and lived in the forest, going so far as to forsake his purpose.

I think when we think of a 'wizard' nowadays, we think of a powerful conjurer like we see in movies and other fantasy stories. I don't think Tolkien wanted his wizards to be quite so stereotypical, Mickey Mouse in a point hat, type characters. Plus, I like Gandalf's bit of subtly when dealing with minor enemies, like those creatures. It makes his confrontation and power against more sinister forces, like the Balrog, more epic.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by FlameofAnor

I think when we think of a 'wizard' nowadays, we think of a powerful conjurer like we see in movies and other fantasy stories. I don't think Tolkien wanted his wizards to be quite so stereotypical, Mickey Mouse in a point hat, type characters. Plus, I like Gandalf's bit of subtly when dealing with minor enemies, like those creatures. It makes his confrontation and power against more sinister forces, like the Balrog, more epic.

I don't know. Tolkien was a linguist. I might argue that the greater spells are in words and in courage. Mere fireballs are weak in comparison. One of my favorite examples, Eowyn exchanging prophecies with the Witch King...

A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.'

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'

'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eommond's daughter. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.'

One doesn't have to be a great wizard to wield words in a decisive way. If one dares to exchange words with a Nazgul, if the Nazgul makes a mistake in his prophecy...

Another example of non-wizardry magic might be oath breaking. The folk who lived along the Paths of the Dead broke an oath, which gave Isildur the power to declare an appropriate curse.

The magic of Middle Earth isn't weak and it isn't necessarily subtle. It's just different. Throwing fire or teleporting might be major physical manifestations of magic, but manipulating fate through words is nothing to sneer at.

[Galadriel55]

Please don't mistake me, I am not, and was never, expecting Gandalf to be a "Harry Potter" wizard. However, in LOTR, he's more... more. In TH he seems slightly to be a comical fool... a bit. He's not as wise, or as powerful, or as strong ("innerly") in TH than in LOTR.

In LOTR Gandalf is afraid for others, but not for his own hide. In TH, it says straightforwardly that Gandalf was afraid for himself. It just...well, messed up my picture of Gandalf.

Moreover, I noticed (more recently) that Gandalf could ot read the runes on Glamdring and Orcrist and had to ask Elrond to translate them. ???

I guess the best explanation for that is that TH and LOTR are just different in style and purpose, and shouldn't really be regrded as one whole.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I guess the best explanation for that is that TH and LOTR are just different in style and purpose, and shouldn't really be regarded as one whole.

I entirely agree. TH started out as a children's book, though it grew a few steps beyond that, clearly. It was not at all an imitation in the style of the old epics as was Silmarillion, nor the prototype for modern fantasy that LotR became. The themes and atmospheres change significantly.

This makes me feel a bit out of step here at Barrow Downs. I'm not one to let an obscure passage in Silmarillion -- or any of the other unpublished-in-his-lifetime works -- too strongly influence my reading of LotR. A lot of the unpublished work enhances and refines my feel for the Third Age, but I feel LotR is the master work. Anything unpublished which diminishes my feeling for LotR is kinda sorta expendable.

The old epics just had a different theme set. Greek tragedy might belong in the same category. The supposedly great are flawed -- selfish, arrogant and proud -- and these flaws bring tragedy to all. I see the old epic themes as reflecting what the general populace generally thought of their lords in the time before democracy. That was the way it was. Selfish arrogant lords brought ruin on everything and everyone.

On the other hand, LotR was written during a time when Hollywood cowboys wore either white hats or black, and you know the white hats are going to end up on top at the end of the last reel. LotR's good guys are still flawed. During the many years of more or less peace during the middle of the Third Age, numerous free people would fence themselves in and not speak to one another. Elf feuded with dwarf, while Galadriel and Fangorn would each advise a friend to not enter the other's woods. Yet, when there came a true threat from Mordor, all knew what was right and acted upon it.

Some might dislike the Jackson movie version of LotR because the balrog has wings. I dislike it as it breaks basic themes. In the books, the lords of the free peoples made the correct calls. In the movie, in order to call Rohan, Pippin had to stealthily light the summoning fire. The Entmoot didn't come to a slow carefully thought out decision. The hobbits goaded Fangorn into acting hastily. Thus, as pretty as the photography is, the definitive LotR movie has yet to be filmed. Someday, someone will make a version where the basic themes of LotR are allowed to stand.

Anyway, yes, the various works of Tolkien reflect very different values and themes. I try to think that elves and men learned much from their folly in the First Age, and will not repeat the ancient mistakes. I try to think that during the relative peace and stability at the time of The Hobbit, everyone was a bit frivolous and silly. I try to think that people at the end of the Third Age knew a storm was coming, and became much more focused. There are in character justifications for the changing themes, for culture shifts.

I can even understand why the movie threw away the 1950s notion of white and black hats. Modern fiction embraces shades of grey. I don't believe the movie people rewriting Tolkien believed in Tolkien. They felt a need to rewrite him for a modern audience.

But out of character, they were just different works.

Sorry for the rant. Felt a need to rant.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by blantyr

A lot of the unpublished work enhances and refines my feel for the Third Age, but I feel LotR is the master work.

Depends on how you look at it. JRRT has spent more time, and I daresay more devotion, on the First Age, even though it was never finished. He began with it, and ater added TH and LOTR. It just happened that the two were easier to polish, and more wanted by the public.

Some might dislike the Jackson movie version of LotR because the balrog has wings. I dislike it as it breaks basic themes.

Ditto. I heartily agree. (I'll spare you a rant here)

Sorry for the rant. Felt a need to rant.

We all do sometimes.

[Nerwen]

Blantyr,

I think you meant to post in the "Silmarillion in one word" thread.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Blantyr,

I think you meant to post in the "Silmarillion in one word" thread.

I did post there. I thought better of my word and deleted the post. Just the one post.

I didn't vanish the other messages. Honest.