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.