Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

If you "take the celestial out of it" you end up with a meaningless myth. In the Old Testament, gods other than the Hebrew God Yahweh are false gods; powerless, and therefore only pagan symbols, not real beings. If you imagine that Goliath had any real gods backing him, you deprive the story of its relevance, since it is relevant only as an expression of the sole divinity of Yahweh. It was never a story of the weak overcoming the strong; it was always a story of Yahweh protecting his chosen people from the surrounding pagans. If you don't share that Hebrew monotheism, there's no reason to believe it ever happened, and there's no lesson to be learned from it. Whether you believe the story or not it is completely misapplied in this discussion.

So what you're saying is that, for all, the words "David and Goliath" mean 'God protecting his chosen.' Interesting. Googling "David and Goliath" results in not only the Biblical references, but also the cartoon, the clothing company and many 'headlines' (such as here) where the words are used to mean something other than your definition.

Anyway, my point, now too long in the making, is that the reference to DvG to me (and I assume at least one other far across the pond) is shorthand for the weak beating the strong.

I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means.

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.

Agreed. But if we extend your DvG argument, is not Merry's hand, the hand of the blade's maker, the leg of the Witch-King and the worms underneath all the work of the hand of Eru? As you say, this may be another thread's material, but what part does an individual play? Could Merry have resisted planting the blade in the Witch-King's sinew?

But to get back on track, did PJ consider this topic so deeply? Or is there the cinematic formula to be followed that audiences require a 'boss' in a story on which to focus?

[Essex]

Quote:
I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means.

LOL Alatar. What obloquy is saying is that some people can 'mis read' the Bible and therefore come up with 'incorrect' arguments. i.e. what we've been saying about David and Goiliath being Weak vs the Strong.

In other words people don't read the Bible, or understand it's meanings, 'correctly'.

But then how can the Bible be read correctly one way or the other? It's been studied for a few millenia, and there is no stone cold way or reading the Bible and knowing EXACTLY what it's meaning is. Pretty much the same way that we cannot certainly state who would win G v WK, as we can read the 'evidence' in various bits of Tolkien's works and letters (which conflicts with itself in some cases as the Bible also does) in different ways depending on our view.

Being a Catholic, like Tolkien, I have heard many an argument over what certain parts ot he Bible are telling us, but I have never had the temerity to tell someone that they MISUNDERSTAND the Bible, as we can all take different things from it.

PS, you may have missed my last post as we may have cross posted, Alatar

As I mentioned in another thread, I think Erik Tracy has explained Tolkein's work in a balanced way, & in a good context. It may well be speculation to some extent, but very promising nonetheless. Balrogs afterall were the servants of Morgoth, not Sauron; they did not have a great part of their original strength taken away from them like Sauron did either. In the LOTR Sauron did not even try to acquire the Balrog for aid. In terms of commanding will, why would a Balrog submit to Sauron given the circumstances of power each has? A strong case could be made that the Balrog could even rival Sauron in combat, irrespective of whether it lost.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

LOL Alatar. What obloquy is saying is that some people can 'mis read' the Bible and therefore come up with 'incorrect' arguments. i.e. what we've been saying about David and Goiliath being Weak vs the Strong.

Much agreed, now that that's more clear (the fact that I routinely disagree with Peter Jackson shows how dense I must be ).

In other words people don't read the Bible, or understand it's meanings, 'correctly'.

Agreed. But when you use a colloquialism and some assume a dissertation...

But then how can the Bible be read correctly one way or the other? It's been studied for a few millenia, and there is no stone cold way or reading the Bible and knowing EXACTLY what it's meaning is. Pretty much the same way that we cannot certainly state who would win G v WK, as we can read the 'evidence' in various bits of Tolkien's works and letters (which conflicts with itself in some cases as the Bible also does) in different ways depending on our view.

I think that regardless of the material that we need to be consistent and leave the pretzel-making to the bakers.

PS, you may have missed my last post as we may have cross posted, Alatar

Yep. Not only am I dense, but obtuse as well.

[obloquy]

I am not bothered by things being called "a modern-day David and Goliath" or "a scenario reminiscent of David and Goliath" or whatever. As a cliche it's harmless--still misapplied, yet harmless all the same. But when one uses the story (not the cliche) as a historical example of the underdog prevailing, I have to balk.

--

The power hierarchy was evidently important to Tolkien. He talked about power and spiritual "greatness" often. Melkor was the greatest of the Valar; the Valar were the Powers, greater than all other sentient creation; Sauron was the greatest of Melkor's servants; the Maiar were greater than the Eldar; Melian, a Maia, mothered the greatest of all the Eldar; The Eldar are greater than Men; the Numenoreans are greater than other varieties of Men; and so on and on. Barriers are occasionally breached, such as when elves slay Balrogs or when they are reincarnated nearly as powerful as Maiar. But when individuals create exceptions to these general rankings of power, it is usually a revelation of that individual's true latent power rather than a negation of the hierarchy.

I think this whole disagreement stems from a fundamentally different view of Tolkien's work. Some seem to see LotR as a self-contained story, starting at its first chapter and ending at its last. This might be too strict a definition for anyone here on this forum, but the viewpoint must exist in various degrees. Others can only see LotR as a microscope over the latter part of the Third Age of Tolkien's Middle-earth, a product only of what came before it and not of any conscious desire of the author to create moral lessons. I think that these two perspectives differ greatly, and I am buried deep in the latter camp. In my eyes, Tolkien wrote histories of a fictional world. History provides lessons and surprises, but not contrived ones that are intended to uplift; rather, only incidental ones that may sometimes encourage but often enough disgust our sense of justice and burn our hearts like acid. To me, Tolkien told us nothing more than what happened on the Pelennor, and what happened was necessarily predicated upon rules and circumstances established previously. So it was not Merry's inherent value and courage that overcame the Witch-King, but an ancient power and a miraculous circumstance. That Merry had the bravery to strike is a credit to him, but I do not see the same lesson to be learned as some sincerely do.

Like our world, Tolkien's has rules, and just as the danger of me standing in opposition to a speeding train is obvious, so is the danger, for example, of an Elda standing in opposition to Morgoth. Eowyn defied the Witch-King, and I think that it might be argued that her power truly overcame his, but there was no transcendence of hierarchy here; both were mortal Men, fear whose power would be measured on the same scale. When the Witch-King stood before Gandalf, he faced a power that he likely did not comprehend, and, I believe, could not have overcome.

Tolkien's world is real enough to me that I have difficulty entertaining ideas that I feel run counter to what I have come to understand about it and its established rules. I do not claim that this is a superior perspective of Tolkien's work, but it is preferable to me and is the only way that I can discuss Tolkien. Having defined these differing perspectives, however, I do think that I have a better understanding of the nature my disagreement with certain posters.

[Raynor]

Melian, a Maia, mothered the greatest of all the Eldar

But the only thing in which she apparently surpassed Fearnor was beauty; in all the other gifts of the elven race, Feanor excels ("mightiest in skill of word and of hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame"; "he became of all the Noldor, then or after, the most subtle in mind and the most skilled in hand").

Others can only see LotR as a microscope over the latter part of the Third Age of Tolkien's Middle-earth, a product only of what came before it and not of any conscious desire of the author to create moral lessons.

So, Tolkien's opinions on religious and moral truths that appear in his work have no weight for you?

[The Saucepan Man]

Obloquy, it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty. I don't have the Letters to hand, but there are a number of quotes to that effect. Whether he intended this from the outset is less clear, I believe, but it was certainly part of his perception of his own work. And, regardless of whether you share that opinion, it is clearly open on the material for readers to perceive it in that way.

Quite what this has to do with the portrayal of the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King in the film, though, I have no idea.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Having defined these differing perspectives, however, I do think that I have a better understanding of the nature my disagreement with certain posters.

And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well.

[obloquy]

But the only thing in which she apparently surpassed Fearnor was beauty; in all the other gifts of the elven race, Feanor excels ("mightiest in skill of word and of hand, more learned than his brothers; his spirit burned as a flame"; "he became of all the Noldor, then or after, the most subtle in mind and the most skilled in hand").

What someone excels at is irrelevant when Tolkien talks about greatness. He uses the term without qualification when speaking of Melkor, Sauron, Feanor, Galadriel, Luthien, and others. He's talking about the potency of the spirit, the inner potential; how brightly the fire burns.

So, Tolkien's opinions on religious and moral truths that appear in his work have no weight for you?

That's not what I meant. I don't see LotR as a vehicle for lessons of the author. The fact that an event took place the way Tolkien relates it does not indicate to me that he wants me to learn something about the real world from it. Events occur in history not to teach lessons but because of the complex interaction of many free wills and chance. A lesson may be learned by examining the causes or effects of an event, but they are not discovered as a preconceived purpose for what occurred. Therefore, to me the Witch-King was destroyed because over many years things fell into place for it to happen, not because Tolkien engineered the encounter to teach us all something.

Obloquy, it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty.

Perceived, yes. Intended? Maybe, I don't really know. It seems that things unfolded for him as he wrote much as they do in the real stream of time. In any case, that's the effect they have on me.

And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well.

I assume you mistake me. I'll put it another way: I now have a better understanding than I once did of why I conflict so frequently and bitterly with certain posters.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

He uses the term without qualification when speaking of Melkor, Sauron, Feanor, Galadriel, Luthien, and others.

Well, I, for one, am not aware of Tolkien reffering to Luthien as the greatest elf. Do you know of such an instance?

He's talking about the potency of the spirit, the inner potential; how brightly the fire burns.

But in that respect it appears that Feanor is at the top.

Originally Posted by obloquy

The fact that an event took place the way Tolkien relates it does not indicate to me that he wants me to learn something about the real world from it.

It seems to me that he does

Originally Posted by Letter #181

But, of course, if one sets out to address 'adults' (mentally adult people anyway), they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the 'human situation' (of all periods).

Originally Posted by obloquy

Perceived, yes. Intended?

I would say so:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

[EDIT: cross-posted with Raynor]

...it is quite clear from Tolkien's Letters that he perceived LotR, the book, to be, partly at least, concerned with the "ennoblement of the humble", the weak prevailing over the mighty.

But is that really what Tolkien meant by this? The most obvious parallel to your interpretation appears in letter #131 (Letters p.160):

But as the earliest tales are seen through Elvish eyes, as it were, this last great Tale [i.e. LR], coming down from myth and legend to the earth, is seen mainly through the eyes of Hobbits: it thus becomes in fact anthropocentric. But through Hobbits, not men so called, because the last Tale is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforseen and unforseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, forgotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole... is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.

In his last recorded interview, Tolkien said:

I've always been impressed that we're here surviving because of the indomitable courage of quite small people against impossible odds: jungles, volcanoes, wild beasts... they struggle on, almost blindly in a way.

Another relevant passage appears in Letter #181 (Letters p.237):

[The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen] could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

(emphasis mine)

I note that there is no mention here of victory. Tolkien is pointing out that behind the great events, and often ignored by the more important participants in them, there are hundreds of unregarded individuals who do their bit, and that sometimes a small person in the right place can do more than a more powerful person in the wrong one. That has nothing to do with intrinsic powers, nor with ennoblement. Ennoblement doesn't derive from victory or triumph: it's an internal spiritual process, which can be traced in LR through Frodo's increasing pity for his enemies, or Sam's quest for Elves; even Aragorn's relationship with Arwen. In each case there is some nobler personality or ideal that raises a character up to higher spiritual standing. On this scale, Gandalf, as an emissary of the Valar and the sole Istar to make a decent stab at his mission, is higher than any other character in LR, but it must be remembered that this is not a scale of power, but of sanctity and nobility. Tolkien qualified ennoblement by offering sanctification as an alternative; surely a term that implies a spiritual process, not the defeat of insurmountable odds. Someone may be ennobled in death (as Boromir may be seen to be) and sanctity is unaffected by triumph or disaster. Similarly courage against impossible odds is not the same as overcoming those odds. With the grounding he had in Germanic literature, Tolkien would have appreciated that more than most.

It has been said in the past that Éowyn and Merry's defeat of the Witch-king shows that the weak can defeat the strong, but to me it reinforces Tolkien's statement quoted above. Neither character ought to be where they are at the time they perform the action; they would probably have failed had Merry not in the course of his adventures, come by an extremely powerful weapon, but even so it is only Éowyn's final blow that finishes the job. By chance or providence, two people are in the right place at the right time and with the right weapon to make a difference, but this has nothing to do with their inherent power. It was simply that the application of that power at precisely the time and place they did had a disproportionate effect on larger events. Of course, as obloquy pointed out, neither of them is facing a being of a higher order, however diabolically enhanced he may have been.

As for the Witch-king's ability to defeat Gandalf: whereas Tolkien leaves some uncertainty, it seems unlikely that a Maia could be defeated by a human sorcerer, even one imbued with additional power by another Maiarin spirit. I don't think that the dispersement of power and will required to hold Sauron's armies together allowed him to put enough of his native force into one of his servants as to enable that minion to defeat a fellow Maia. It seems to me that Tolkien realised this, and so chose to have the chief Ringwraith instead confront two weaker characters for greater dramatic tension, rather than simply show him being swatted by Gandalf. The tension arises from the fact that nobody on the battlefield apart from Gandalf can be guaranteed to face the Nazgûl lord successfully.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, I, for one, am not aware of Tolkien reffering to Luthien as the greatest elf. Do you know of such an instance?

Aye...

The Shibboleth of Feanor

These two kinsfolk [Galadriel and Feanor], the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor, were unfriends for ever.

[Author's Note]Who together with the greatest of all the Eldar, Lúthien Tinúviel, daughter of Elu Thingol, are the chief matter of the legends and histories of the Elves.

Great post, Squatter.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Squatter

Neither character ought to be where they are at the time they perform the action; they would probably have failed had Merry not in the course of his adventures, come by an extremely powerful weapon, but even so it is only Éowyn's final blow that finishes the job. By chance or providence, two people are in the right place at the right time and with the right weapon to make a difference, but this has nothing to do with their inherent power. It was simply that the application of that power at precisely the time and place they did had a disproportionate effect on larger events.

But isn't that rather the point being made in this discussion? That, regardless of the relative "power" of the combatants, there is always remains the possibility that "circumstances" will allow the weaker to prevail. In any confrontation, it is not a foregone conclusion that the higher in relative (natural) power will gain the victory.

That said, I still fail to see the relevance of this dicussion to the scene in the film, since the Gandalf of the film is not necessarily of a higher order than the Witch-King of the film, and there is no suggestion that a more powerful Gandalf might be defeated by a less powerful Witch King in consequence of "circumstances". Jackson made the choices he did, including "adjusting" the relative power levels of these two characters, for film-based reasons, primarily (to my mind) those that I touched on earlier in this thread.

[Raynor]

Ennoblement doesn't derive from victory or triumph

But in the context of the work, lack of victory would have made all ennoblement equal to zero. If they failed, there won't be any noble or sanctified beings - you cannot divide these two.

Tolkien qualified ennoblement by offering sanctification as an alternative; surely a term that implies a spiritual process, not the defeat of insurmountable odds.

However, it is this sanctification, that brings about the happy end:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

it is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately allows the Quest to be achieved

Originally Posted by Letter #191

He (and the Cause) were saved – by Mercy : by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury.

this is their part in the great tale, their participation. Their inner process, if you like the phrasing, brings about the victory.

it seems unlikely that a Maia could be defeated by a human sorcerer

However, he was "hard put" to fight them at Wheatertop, and (barely) escaped in the morning.

Aye...

The Shibboleth of Feanor

I would note however that the Shibboleth is somewhat experimental in nature, beginning with the new names of Feanor's sons, and ending with a death of one of them - none of these, including the refference to Luthien, are found in the Silmarillion, or anywhere else, as far as I know.

[Essex]

Obloquy re my post "And your post was going so well up to this point. Ah well."

I assume you mistake me. I'll put it another way: I now have a better understanding than I once did of why I conflict so frequently and bitterly with certain posters.

Ah, I see! Then I apolgise for my reply!

[Essex]

By chance or providence, two people are in the right place at the right time and with the right weapon to make a difference, but this has nothing to do with their inherent power. It was simply that the application of that power at precisely the time and place they did had a disproportionate effect on larger events.

Then if you believe this, then you must believe it for every event that happened in Tolkien's Works? Nothing was earned, nothing was really 'won' - Frodo was not redeemed because of his compassion? an so on.

Then what do the stories hold for you then? What do the stories mean? If you believe everything was either pre determined or just down to Chance, the books must be a very dull read for you? The books for me are mainly about the emotion they bring out in me for the 'lesser' beings - the hobbits. I cry with pity every time Merry asks Pippin if they are going to Bury him, I cry with sadness when Sam sings 'In Western Lands beneath the Sun' - I cry with Pride when Aragorn goes down on one knee to Frodo and Sam, also when Gandalf says the hobbits are amongst the Great, and then when Frodo tells Rosie how improtant Sam was to the Quest. And I cry with grief when Frodo leaves behind his friends to go to the West.

Do you have these kind of feelings at all when reading LOTR? I really hope you do.

This is not a pop at you Squatter, or Obloquy - After reading your posts above, I just wonder whether you have any of these kind of 'emotions' when travelling in Middle-earth. If you do not, so be it - maybe you have other reasons for loving the books so much?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Since Saucepan has condignly reminded me that Jackson's trilogy has little if anything to do with Tolkien's book of the same name, I'll respond to the far more interesting off-topic argument on the related Books thread this evening.

What I will say here is that this difference between the book and the films is a fundamental one, and symptomatic of a general failure on the part of the film-makers to portray a profound and significant theme in LR: that virtue and courage alone are not enough. What wins the battle more often than not is faith: the faith, and indeed the hope, to persevere against seemingly impossible odds simply because the only alternative is to give in. We have to understand that Tolkien's universe contains an omnipotent deity, who can and does sometimes reward such faith with divine assistance. Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other; balancing the nobility of holding firmly to the right cause just because it is right, even if it is guaranteed to fail, against the idea that we are servants of a higher power, who rewards good service with aid. The reason why good characters seem able to defeat far more powerful evil ones is that they have divine assistance, through wyrd or Providence. "God's forethought", as Alfred the Great called it. Tom Shippey goes through this argument in much more detail in The Road to Middle-earth.

To reduce Tolkien's book to conflict on a physical plain is to misapprehend its nature entirely, and worse: to reduce it to a tired Hollywood cliché that little people with pure hearts can overturn mighty empires. Tolkien wasn't saying that the weak can defeat the strong: he was saying that with God's help the righteous can (not will) defeat the wicked, if they strive to the utmost limits of their endurance and skill without despair or pride. In other words: God helps those as help themselves. This is why Tolkien made the forces of darkness so overwhelmingly strong; this is why he introduced the word 'heathen' into Denethor's ranting as he reached the limits of despair (another botched scene). The odds have to be overwhelming if his composite theory of courage is to have full play. He wasn't using a story to proselytise as Lewis did, but simply taking for granted a theistic world view and incorporating into it the starkest and most unflinching form of valour. It's not a view that many people would have understood even in Tolkien's day, but nowadays it seems to be missed entirely, and from such a misapprehension stems the belief that because Merry can incapacitate the Chief Ringwraith, by the same token the Witch-King can defeat Gandalf. Sauron may be awesome, but he is to Eru as Fredegar Bolger is to him. He just can't offer the same kind of support to his followers.

Either it went over Peter Jackson's head or he was in some way persuaded to abandon it in favour of more conventional film motifs. Perhaps this was inevitable given the way in which films are funded and the expectations of profitability that are placed on them; but it's also why the films are on a lower plain of art than Tolkien's books; why the books are more original, more satisfying and ultimately more enjoyable. Tolkien wasn't trying to appeal to a mass audience (although significantly he does) or please financial backers, but to please himself; and so his work has an integrity in its bold risk-taking that is lacked by interpretations produced by committee with an eye always on cost, turnover and public reception. Obvious theistic themes don't play well in the world of business, and in any case subtlety isn't what blockbusters are about: so when I think about a duel between Gandalf and the Witch-king, I'd rather consider Tolkien's complexities and subtleties than Jackson's more predictable and orthodox Hollywood approach. No doubt in a duel between his characters you'd have Witch-king and Gandalf fight each other for half an hour, with each alternately getting the upper hand; then just as W-K was about to deliver the coup de grâce, Gandalf would suddenly find a hidden reserve of strength, his questing hand would find the handle of a discarded sword and he'd gut his enemy with a perfectly timed upstroke and a wry quip. That's the Hollywood way, but my point about the films has always been that it wasn't Tolkien's.

[Raynor]

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other

LotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.

To reduce Tolkien's book to conflict on a physical plain is to misapprehend its nature entirely, and worse: to reduce it to a tired Hollywood cliché that little people with pure hearts can overturn mighty empires.

The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms. I don't know how else to refute it. I don't know if it was already a cliche during his time, but he certainly didn't give a damn.

Tolkien wasn't saying that the weak can defeat the strong: he was saying that with God's help the righteous can (not will) defeat the wicked

Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

As it happens, I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow, so I'll address some questions that have been raised here and let the rest slide. I don't propose to get bogged down in a long-running debate here. I suggest that any responses to this should go to PM or a thread in Books.

Originally Posted by me

Tolkien was trying to preserve a very delicate balance between his understanding of the Northern theory of courage on the one hand and his own religious views on the other

Originally Posted by Raynor

LotR shows little, if any, sign of ofermode. Aragorn, Gandalf & co are restraiend and wise; the hobbits, arguably the main characters, are as un-ofermode as you could get. Boromir could be an example, but he is not a main character; Theoden and Eomir could show this at Pellenor Fields, but again, this is singular of them, not necessarily descriptive of their nature.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT. It should always be borne in mind that this is just one word applied (either disparagingly, neutrally or positively, whichever expert seems most convincing) to one character (Byrhtnoth of Essex) in a single poem (The Battle of Maldon). The Northern heroic spirit is something far greater.

...that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere , incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.

Letters #45. p.56.

The words of Beorhtwald [in Maldon] have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will... Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put into the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards only loyalty upwards. Personal pride was therefore in him at its lowest, and love and loyalty at their highest.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth. Section III: ofermod.

The Northern heroic spirit is about facing impossible odds simply for the cold comfort of having done the right thing. In order to achieve its full power this spirit must be faced with a situation entirely without hope, either in this world or the next; such as that of the Norse mythology, in which good and order are destined to be destroyed by evil and chaos. The philosophy against which Tolkien was attempting to balance this spirit was one which has at its centre the idea of an omnipotent deity, whose ultimate triumph over evil is assured, and who is capable of moving events invisibly, with millennia of foresight, to grant victory to the faithful. Tolkien solves the paradox by keeping the deity, but making Providence play a part only when hopeless situations are about to reach their inevitable conclusions.

Originally Posted by Raynor

The boldened part contradicts statements from the book or letters, which have been quoted at least once here, which express that idea in almost identical terms

No it doesn't. Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great. They say that sometimes the actions of the small and unconsidered can have dramatic results in world events. They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies, even tear down mighty empires. When the fate of the world rests on whether one good character shows mercy to one debased character, or who happens to find a ring in a tunnel, the small can make a difference. Bilbo's discovery of the ring has a devastating effect on the councils of the Wise, but that doesn't mean that he can waltz into Mordor and fight Sauron. Frodo's mercy to Gollum makes the difference between victory and defeat for the whole of Middle-earth, but that doesn't mean that he could have faced down the Nazgûl on his own. There are many apparent coincidences in the chain of events that lead to Sauron's downfall, but very early on Gandalf comes close to mentioning divine will.

Behind [Bilbo's discovery of the Ring] was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were meant to have it.

The Shadow of the Past

Originally Posted by Raynor

Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat. Dover Castle can be demolished - reduced completely to rubble. It is therefore not invincible, but I can't destroy it with my bare hands or on my own. If this were true then Fingolfin would have been choosing a good spot for Morgoth's iron crown in his trophy cabinet before Eärendil had even been born.

Essex: I can't say that I share all of your responses, but I'm attached enough to the book to spend hours discussing it. Suffice it to say that in my understanding of LR grace must be earned, and requires as great an act of heroism as any victory it might grant.

I'm sorry to have kept this thread so far off topic. In order to avoid continuing to do so, I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM. I shan't be responding in this thread again.

[Raynor]

I can't incorporate my arguments into the books thread without breaking the flow
...
I'd like any responses to be directed to other threads and/or PM.

I am a bit confused by these two statements.

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT

Since Rico Abrahamsen states that some critics did see ofermod as "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", I will take your bolded statement with a grain of salt.

Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great.
...
They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies

Aren't you contradicting yourself concerning this 'policies' issue? Anyway, Tolkien also said that the 'wheels of the world are often turned by the seemingly unknown and the weak; Elrond says that the hobbits will shake the towers and councils of the wise. I believe that the only true disagreement between us is that it seems you consider all (great) victories of the weak to be, ultimately, atributed solely to Providence. If this is indeed what Tolkien envisioned, I don't like this puppet show. A help here, or a help there, a nudge to Gollum, a whisper in the ears of Sam, that is ok. But the weak do have their crown and Frodo rightfully receives all honors.

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat.

But this is a strawman of my argument.

The entire debate can be beautifully summed up by Wikipedia as follows:-

During the siege of Minas Tirith, as Gandalf races to the upper levels of the city on Shadowfax, he unexpectedly runs into the Witch-king on his fell beast. In a duel of "wills", the Nazgûl prevails and shatters Gandalf's staff, knocking the wizard off his horse. As the Witch-king raises his burning sword, he hears the army of Rohan approach the besieged city. The scene is only in the extended version of the film.

Some fans of Tolkien's books have criticized Jackson's take on the confrontation scene which they felt showed the Witch-King as the likely prevailing victor. They assert that it unlikely that the Witch-king — in reality a corrupted, undead human — could be more powerful than Gandalf, who has ancient, divine origins, and is an incarnate angelic being called a Maia, as are Sauron and Saruman. This is only hinted at in The Lord of the Rings. However, Gandalf and the other Istari, when sent to Middle-Earth from the Uttermost West to oppose Sauron, were stripped of much of their original powers, as they were intended to use persuasion and wisdom instead of fear and force. Nonetheless, Gandalf did manage to defeat Durin's Bane, considering that Balrogs are also Maia, and supplanted Saruman as the head of the Istari.


The Lord of the Rings is quite clear that the Witch-king "wields great powers". Notably, the Witch-king is responsible for the breaking of the mighty gate of Minas Tirith (as Grond the battering ram was unsuccessful until his intervention). However, Gandalf has recovered much of his past strength in his latest incarnation, as Gandalf the White. The book also hints that the other eight Nazgûl are aware that "their Captain" would come forth to "challenge the white light of their foe", and indeed, he does aggressively confront Gandalf at the broken gates of Minas Tirith; though they do not get the chance to clash as the Rohirrim arrive. Before that happens, Denethor taunts Gandalf by asking him if he is overmatched by the Witch-king, and the Wizard says, "It might be so. But our trial of strength is not yet come."

However, other references in the book tend to hint that Gandalf would have been the victor of the aborted battle. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf battled all nine Ringwraiths simultaneously at the Tower of Amon Sûl at Weathertop hill, before Frodo arrived there and the battle ended in a stalemate, even with Gandalf being heavily outnumbered. In The Two Towers Gandalf the White claims that he is "...very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord." Aragorn also says, "The Dark Lord has Nine: But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider. He passed through the fire and the abyss, and they shall fear him." Finally, in The Return of the King Gandalf later says that he could have defeated the Witch-king if he had not had to save Faramir from Denethor's madness.

Other fans say that Jackson's take on the confrontation was done to heighten the drama of Éowyn and Merry's victory over the Witch-king, and not to show whether Gandalf or the Witch-king was more powerful over the other. Of course, since the films do not go into his backstory and some lines from the book have been omitted, Jackson's Gandalf may not be latently powerful as the divine being of Tolkien's books.

Had people read this from Wikipedia then a lot of hassle would have been saved. Nonetheless an interesting topic! All the same, it amazes me that some posters have never been convinced that Gandalf the White was on paper much more powerful than the Witch King with added demonic force.

[obloquy]

Wikipedia can be great, but it's not the undisputed authority on all things. In fact, I'd sooner trust the Encyclopedia of Arda than Wikipedia on Tolkien. The writer(s) of the bit you quoted probably arrive at the correct conclusion, but the fact is that, in the book, that conclusion is obvious. "A lot of hassle would have been saved," however, if certain people did not stubbornly worship certain anti-heroes in willful denial of the facts. The question deserved little to no serious response, and I indulged in debate only because of Jackson's misrepresentation of Gandalf/W-K and the fact that so many seem to have swallowed it whole.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

WThe question deserved little to no serious response, and I indulged in debate only because of Jackson's misrepresentation of Gandalf/W-K and the fact that so many seem to have swallowed it whole.

I indulge just to keep me from doing actual work.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Wikipedia can be great, but it's not the undisputed authority on all things. In fact, I'd sooner trust the Encyclopedia of Arda than Wikipedia on Tolkien. The writer(s) of the bit you quoted probably arrive at the correct conclusion, but the fact is that, in the book, that conclusion is obvious. "A lot of hassle would have been saved," however, if certain people did not stubbornly worship certain anti-heroes in willful denial of the facts. The question deserved little to no serious response, and I indulged in debate only because of Jackson's misrepresentation of Gandalf/W-K and the fact that so many seem to have swallowed it whole.

While Wikipedia isn't a good source, it is also incorrect to say that Gandalf would have just plowed through the Witch-King, as the text in the books (even a quote from Gandalf) does not give a clear victory for Gandalf or the Witch-King. Also, the people who disagree with the idea of Gandalf easily winning aren't contesting it because they "stubbornly worship anti-heroes." People such as Essex and I simply do not interpret the confrontation at the gates as a one-sided show of little meaning to the story. Please try to be less insulting to those who have a different view.

[Essex]

Exactly, 1,000 Reader.

some people you cannot get through to. They are so sure of themselves and that their viewpoint is 100% correct inasmuch the same way as they think Gandalf is 100% certain that he would have beaten the Witch King.

I reckon it's only 99% certain he would have

But there's the rub. The final 1%.........

I hark back to a point I've raised a number of times that Tolkien himself has said. The Istari are "subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain" - Gandalf is not invincible, thus can be beaten. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Like David vs Goliath - oops, I mean Hereford vs Newcastle

[obloquy]

Actually, the encounter at the gates is virtually irrelevant to the debate. It provides us very little information other than that the Witch-King himself might have believed he could take on Gandalf. His opinion of himself is useless. The confrontation does not provide any indication that Gandalf was unsure of his own superiority; all arguments to that effect come from debatable interpretations of earlier statements by characters (as opposed to Tolkien himself). And most importantly, relying solely on your visceral reaction to the confrontation for an answer strips away everything that does actually matter, such as the histories and natures of the characters involved.

As for your stubborn worship of an anti-hero, I think I can back up that claim by simply pointing (again) to your completely irrational signature.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Essex

Exactly, 1,000 Reader.

You know, this is funny: you, Essex, want to convey the not-so-profound concept that nothing is impossible. Great...so what? It's debatable, but it's not a debate worth having. To illustrate: it's also not possible to say with 100% certainty that the Witch-King could not have built a ladder out of Hobbit bones and climbed it all the way to Iluvatar's comfy spot outside of time and creation and punched him in his immaterial nose.

On the other hand, 1,000 Reader believes that the Witch-King was, at least, evenly matched with Gandalf. He disagrees with this:

Originally Posted by Essex

I reckon it's only 99% certain he would have

So you're trying to hammer home a valueless point while 1,000 Reader is trying to defend an insupportable position. You both seem to identify with the other's cause, but you're not arguing the same point at all. hehe!

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Actually, the encounter at the gates is virtually irrelevant to the debate.

The encounter at the gates is pretty much the start of this debate.

Originally Posted by obloquy

It provides us very little information other than that the Witch-King himself might have believed he could take on Gandalf. His opinion of himself is useless. The confrontation does not provide any indication that Gandalf was unsure of his own superiority; all arguments to that effect come from debatable interpretations of earlier statements by characters (as opposed to Tolkien himself).

The confrontation told us that there was no obvious victor if the battle happened. Nobody backed down or showed fear.

Originally Posted by obloquy

And most importantly, relying solely on your visceral reaction to the confrontation for an answer strips away everything that does actually matter, such as the histories and natures of the characters involved.

Like you do?

Originally Posted by obloquy

As for your stubborn worship of an anti-hero, I think I can back up that claim by simply pointing (again) to your completely irrational signature.

You seem to have forgotten me telling you that it was a joke. The joke is that the majority of fanboys (and fangirls) of the forces of darkness love Morgoth and Sauron to death, yet nobody remembers what the Witch-King did, or even remotely remember the defeats of the Dark Lords. The sig was pushing the character limit, so I couldn't go into detail.

As for identifying with Essex, he thinks (or at least thought in the days when I first came here) that the confrontation at the gates was never hinted to be one-sided by the way Tolkien wrote it or any other sources, like I do. He can have his personal opinions on who would win, but he does acknowledge that it was not portrayed to be one-sided.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

As for identifying with Essex, he thinks (or at least thought in the days when I first came here) that the confrontation at the gates was never hinted to be one-sided by the way Tolkien wrote it or any other sources, like I do. He can have his personal opinions on who would win, but he does acknowledge that it was not portrayed to be one-sided.

Yes, that is correct. Even when reading the book for the first time, and in the many re-readings of the book I've had, I still get the feeling that Gandalf is not so sure of himself than Obluquy and others are. It really doesn't seem that cut and dried as some here stubbornly believe it to be.

Like a bad scientist, people take on board texts that Tolkien has written that helps their side of the argument, but forget the odd bit of evidence that refutes this and brush it under the carpet. As I said on my last post, the Istari had bodies that could be SLAIN. They were not supernatural in that sense (as perhaps the WK was) - so the WK could get a lucky strike in (as Merry did of course) and injure or kill Gandalf.

My "99% certain" quote was a bit over the top - it was just to make my point that what we are trying to say is that it is not certain that Gandalf would have been victorious against the WK, and to me, the evidence points this way as well.

[alatar]

obloquy, you know what the sad thing is? Many people will have watched Peter Jackson's version of the events where Gandalf gets creamed by the Witch-King. These people, never cracking the books, let alone reading as much as you have, will always remember how much weaker the White Wizard was, laying prone, unhorsed and destaffed. Persons in my experience have watched completely fictional films of historical events and those films have supplanted the truth in their heads. If you are going to undo PJ's work, yours then is the labor of Sisyphus.

At least Essex and The 1,000 Reader are debating the issue, and even admitting that the Witch-King winning is of low probability (same probability as me liking Pip in the films).

[Essex]

that's a fair point Alatar. Then we must get everyone we know who has seen the movies to read the book, which is of course superior to the films.

I got my mother to read them for the first time and she's 66!

I've mellowed out now and I'm old enough to understand that everyone has different viewpoints, and this thread has explored most if not all avenues of the scene, so there's nothing much more to be said........ so I think I'll retire from this thread (until someone else pipes up with something in a year or so's time and I'll no doubt drag myself back into the debate again!)

[narfforc]

Having just watched the third release of these movies and their Behind the Scenes footage I can now explain why the Gandalf vs The Witch-King scene is the way it is. Sir Ian asks Peter why he doesn't just zap the Nazgul (this is the ones flying about), Peter explains that it is because his batteries are flat and the city hasn't got any AA bateries, so you can see Gandalf doesn't use Duracell and Witchy-poo does.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

you know what the sad thing is? Many people will have watched Peter Jackson's version of the events where Gandalf gets creamed by the Witch-King. These people, never cracking the books, let alone reading as much as you have, will always remember how much weaker the White Wizard was, laying prone, unhorsed and destaffed.

What is even sadder is the fact that obviously PJ figured he had to use this symbolism to prepare his action/adventure- flick-loving audience for Eowyn's victory over WK. It's as if people just couldn't accept otherwise that a mere slip of a girl (with a bit of a hand from a midget) could bring down such oppressive omnipotence. No wonder Eowyn's victory makes some guys cringe.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

No wonder Eowyn's victory makes some guys cringe.

Think that we've discussed this to tears elsewhere, but my cringing is not due to Eowyn vanquishing the Witch-King. Sure, the W-K sent Gandalf the White to the floor, and then a hobbit with a newly sharpened blade (and therefore non-magical) and a shieldmaiden make the W-K look like a crumbled soda can, but that's not enough to earn Eowyn a respite and a little glory. She kills the Witch-King! And moments later she's being chased by Gimpy Gothmog, and without the intervention of Aragorn, would have lost to the orc.

Couldn't we have had her swoon, as if to die, so that we thought her dead and so shed a few tears? Oh, that right, in PJ's world only those that fall from cliffs can come back from the dead...

[alatar]

I finally found my copy of The History of Middle Earth: Volume VIII: The War of the Ring. Thought that I had donated it to charity, or that it was lost in the move. Regardless, here is what it has to say about Gandalf and the Witch-King (text exactly as it appears except where I have bolded it):

There Gandalf stood. And then over the hill in the flare of the fire a great Black Horseman came. For a moment he...halted menacing, and lifted up a great ...sword red to the hilt. Fear fell on all .......Then great rams went on before, but the steel only shook and boomed. The Black Captain.....lifted again his hand crying in a dreadful voice. In some forgotten tongue he spoke crying aloud words of power and terror. Thrice the rams boomed. Thrice he cried, and then suddenly the gate as if stricken by some blast burst [?asunder], and a great flash as of lightning, burst and fell, and in rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. But there waiting still before the gate sat Gandalf, and Shadowfax alone among the free horses of the earth did not [?quail] but stood rooted as an image of grey marble.

'You cannot pass,' said Gandalf. 'Go back to the black abyss prepared for you, and fall into nothingness that shall come upon your Master.'

The Black Rider [?lay for laid] back his hood and .....crown that sat upon no visible head save only for the light of his pale eyes. A deadly laughter [?rang] out.

'Old fool,' he said. 'Old fool. Do you not know death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain. This is my hour of victory.' And with that he lifted his great sword [Added:And then suddenly his hand wavered and fell and it seemed that he shrank.] And [>For] in that very moment away behind in some courtyard of the city a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that far above the shadows of death was now coming once again.

And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, great horns of the north wildly blowing. The riders of Rohan had come at last.

It seems to me that in this earlier draft the Witch-King's power waned suddenly when day broke and he faced Gandalf. Surely you will argue that it was the changing of the weather, and not Gandalf, that weakened the Witch-King. My counter will be that the rising of the sun and blowing of the wind - and horns - does not make the Witch-King quit the battle, but to seek prey with which he may stand a chance.

Not in any draft, but it is rumored that Gandalf, hearing the cock crowing in the distance, absentmindedly said, "Chicken." Pippin, and others witnessing the exchange, tied the word to the shrinking and retreat of the Witch-King, and so made 'chicken' the epithet that we have today.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by alatar

At least Essex and The 1,000 Reader are debating the issue, and even admitting that the Witch-King winning is of low probability (same probability as me liking Pip in the films).

I'm arguing that the fight was 50/50. As for drafts, the final work is what the author deems the most fitting, so they (drafts) aren't really reliable. The link Alatar posted to History of Middle-Earth Volume VIII even has a quote from Tolkien, saying:

Originally Posted by JRRT

It will probably work out very differently from this plan when it really gets written, as the thing seems to write itself once it gets going.

Just pointing that out.

[alatar]

Amidst all of the hype of the 30th anniversary of the release of the first (or is it fourth?) Star Wars movie, there was a documentary on-line at the History channel and on TV. My son wanted to watch, and so we indulged. Guess who made an appearance? None other than our esteemed Peter Jackson.

He was interviewed and added his two cents about the Star Wars movies. What caught my eye was, in the same documentary, the 'story' of Star Wars was examined. It was noted that SW followed the classical hero story formula (not the exact words) where the hero is trained by a wise old mentor who then must fade into the background so that the hero can come into his/her own. This fading can be accomplished via the mentor's death, so that the hero must take his/her place without the crutch/aid of the old bearded one.

Peter Jackson surely knows of this story formula, and so may have seen the diminishment of Gandalf as essential to the story arc of Aragorn. Unlike in Tolkien's view (or at least my view of the same), Gandalf does not fade until Sauron falls. PJ's Gandalf peaks somewhere in Fangorn, and begins his slide there, which is about the time Lord Aragorn starts bossing Theoden around.

It all makes sense now, and so having Gandalf destaffed by the Witch-King shows demonstrably that that mentor's days have ended.

And speaking of formulas, mathematically speaking, if WK>Gandalf, and Eowyn>WK, and Aragorn>Eowyn, as noted here, then Aragorn>WK and subsequently, Aragorn>Gandalf.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Peter Jackson surely knows of this story formula, and so may have seen the diminishment of Gandalf as essential to the story arc of Aragorn. Unlike in Tolkien's view (or at least my view of the same), Gandalf does not fade until Sauron falls. PJ's Gandalf peaks somewhere in Fangorn, and begins his slide there, which is about the time Lord Aragorn starts bossing Theoden around.

It all makes sense now, and so having Gandalf destaffed by the Witch-King shows demonstrably that that mentor's days have ended.

This is just another case of Jackson's incessant meddling with a perfectly good plot. The more he heads off into his self-indulgent ego-stroking, the more the films become irritating. It is exactly why I still cannot watch the Two Towers movie all the way through (even with the extended DVD). Jackson's need to reinterpret Tolkien is most notably annoying and prolonged in TTT, but inane scenes such as the WitchKing breaking Gandalf's staff are unpleasant reminders of PJ's propensity for banal scripting throughout the trilogy. The further he strays from the lore, the more turgid the story becomes, and sadly, most of his forays into self-indulgence do not improve upon the original plot in the least.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Captain of Despair

I agree that Gandalf was done a horrible injustice in that scene. This is one of the wisest and most powerful beings in all of ME, but he is made short work of by the Witchking.

I agree In the books it said that Gandalf could even Take on the dark lord himself and Sauron is even MORE powerful than the witch king.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by TheGreatElvenWarrior

I agree In the books it said that Gandalf could even Take on the dark lord himself and Sauron is even MORE powerful than the witch king.

Hm, I am not sure as to what quote you are referring. Gandalf did say:

Originally Posted by The White Rider, TTT

I am Gandalf, Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still.
...
And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.

Even the second quote doesn't give precedence to Gandalf. Not that it matters much in a movie discussion.