|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes
Lindon
Apr 1 2016, 2:19pm
Post #1 of 15
(1928 views)
Shortcut
|
Sorry, I know the term "power levels" evokes either Dragonball Z or various superheroes, but I really could not think of a better term for this.
Like I said back when I asked about Tom Bombadil, me and a friend often discuss the internal logic of Tolkien's world. Besides Bombadil, another thing that keeps coming up (which I forgot to ask about) was... well...
My friend put it best: "Gandalf is an angel or something, right? And he beat the Balrog, an ancient servant of Melkor, right? Well, the Witch-King was created by Sauron and thus should be weaker, so why should I believe there's any tension in the fight?"
He's kind of got a thing about conflicts needing to have tension, and he's cynical because modern fiction betrays him so often (IE saying a villain is a threat but then the heroes keep wiping the floor with them, or when the heroes fail its always for an arbitrary reason). I'm attempting to allay his concerns here with regards to Tolkien but, to be honest, now I'm wondering exactly how things work in Tolkien's world too. I mean Gandalf could take a Balrog and yet in The Hobbit he was nearly killed by wolves and goblins.
Granted, I'm well aware that much of the problem could very well be that I'm trying to make an epic fantasy work the same way an RPG or modern manga would and maybe I'm just in the wrong mindset altogether, but still I figured it would be better to hash it out here and arrive at a definite conclusion rather than think myself in circles. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Gianna
Nargothrond
Apr 1 2016, 2:29pm
Post #2 of 15
(1891 views)
Shortcut
|
Whilst Gandalf took out the Balrog, it pretty nearly took him out at the same time. IIRC, after Gandalf finally killed the Balrog, he himself was nearly dead and was only saved by Gwaihir and Galadriel.
Regarding nearly being killed in The Hobbit, do keep in mind that at the time Tolkien wrote TH, it wasn't actually connected to Middle-earth. So I can accept that he isn't as strong in TH as a Maia ought to be. I imagine this is one of the things Tolkien might have changed in his rewrite of the book to match the tone of LOTR.
Not quite sure which fight between Gandalf and the Witch-king your friend was referring to (at Minas Tirith, perhaps?). But the Witch-king had a Ring of Power so I'm thinking that would make him a more formidable opponent. (And to be fully accurate, the W-k wasn't created by Sauron - he was a human corrupted by the Ring of Power Sauron gave him. An interesting aspect of Tolkien's philosophy is the concept that evil cannot create, only destroy - I agree with this.)
~There's some good left in this world. And it's worth fighting for.~
------
My website
My LOTR-inspired fantasy novel is on Amazon
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Apr 1 2016, 7:56pm
Post #4 of 15
(1865 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It very definitely doesn't work like an RPG.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien's main theme was the power of the "weak" providing they remain true to their purpose. Thus, two little Hobbits are able to save Middle-Earth. Gandalf is, indeed, an "angel or something," one of five "Istari" sent from the Valar (gods - note lower case - subordinate to Eru, or God) to help in the fight against Evil. However, they were not sent as powerful agents themselves, but rather intended as "coaches" to help the people of Middle-Earth do what needed to be done. As Tolkien described in his essay, "The Istari" (Unfinished Tales):
For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years.
[They] were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.
With this background, the fight against the Balrog seems a bit out of order. However, the general consensus is that, as the Balrog was not directly aligned with Sauron, but rather a sort of "wild card," Gandalf was able to summon some reserves of power against him. Nonetheless, he did perish in the battle (see my post above).
Note that Gandalf was never tested against the Witch King: their confrontation was interrupted, and WK was slain by Éowyn and Merry, a woman and a Hobbit, with no "power points" at all. Tolkien absolutely does not deal in "power levels." Your friend will have to find his "tension" elsewhere.
(This post was edited by Elizabeth on Apr 1 2016, 8:03pm)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Doriath
Apr 1 2016, 9:06pm
Post #5 of 15
(1845 views)
Shortcut
|
Tale of Years tells us that Gandalf
. . . casts down the Balrog, and passes away. His body lies on the peak. And later: Gandalf returns to life, and lies in a trance.
So clearly he is killed, in body at least. Then as Gwaihir says to the effect of "you are light as a feather"; so after some 19 days atop the cold peak there was naturally some decay, but through grace he was sent back and healed by presumably Galadriel.
"I never said most of the things I said."
- Yogi & Me
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Apr 1 2016, 9:31pm
Post #6 of 15
(1845 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'll suggest an answer in three parts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Part 1: The Hobbit is not fully consistent with LOTR (As Gianna has already said).
Or at least Gandalf is presented rather differently. There are other contrasts too: the elves are more tra-la-la-lally, and the Ring seems little more than a useful magical gadget, not the terrible and dangerous thing it is in LOTR. So the idea of Gandalf we get from The Hobbit isn't really all that helpful for LOTR.
Part 2: tension
In a game, tension arises from knowing the situation is finely balanced, or is in our disfavour. In fction, I suppose, we mentally weigh up the abilities of characters in a similar way, even though we might not know scores and odds.so I think I understand your friend's concern. It looks like weak writing if the storyteller suddenly tips the balance in some way (oh look, the hero just happens suddenly to remember a convenient superpower!!) I don't think that happens much within LOTR: plot twists are usually well managed within the logic of the story. (As per Part 1, I don't think it works to expect The Hobbit and LOTR To be utterly consistent. )
But: there's an important thing to note about the logic of the story:
Part 3 : Tolkien uses "soft magic" , which is a different approach to having power levels.
the magic is included in order to establish a sense of wonder and give the setting a fantastical feel. Books that focus on this use of magic tend to want to indicate that men are a small, small part of the eternal and mystical workings of the universe. This gives the reader a sense of tension as they’re never certain what dangers—or wonders—the characters will encounter. Indeed, the characters themselves never truly know what can happen and what can’t. Brandon Sanderson - an essay on Magic systems in fantasy http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/
A consequence of this is that we readers can't really work out "the stats"'for different characters: as both you & Elizabeth have said. It's a fundamental feature of the "soft magic" approach. Mr Sanderson's essay is well worth a read for more thoughts on this, and how soft magic does not need to be the same thing as the author just making up any old thing he or she pleases. The piece also considers "hard magic" where rules are carefully explained. In books like that, the tension can be created in the way your friend wishes: magic becomes a tool or technology and the plot can become about how well characters can use it.
~~~~~~
volunteers are still needed to lead chapters for our upcoming ROTK read-through http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=893293#893293
A set of links to our Book III discussions can be found here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=886383#886383
A set of links to the Book IV discussions are here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=899201#899201
A wonderful list of links to Boook II, Book I and previous read-throughs is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Doriath
Apr 1 2016, 9:58pm
Post #7 of 15
(1837 views)
Shortcut
|
You might tell your friend
My friend put it best: "Gandalf is an angel or something, right? And he beat the Balrog, an ancient servant of Melkor, right? Well, the Witch-King was created by Sauron and thus should be weaker, so why should I believe there's any tension in the fight?" No, Gandalf is not “an angel or something” while in Middle-earth. He is mortal with all its frailties and could be killed. Elizabeth’s quote from U.T. says it well. In Aman he IS “an angel or something”; we might say a “lesser angel”, a Maia, one of the lesser Valar, named Olórin.
As for beating the balrog – well, if getting killed is “beating” then 7/7 in a football game is not a tie.
And, I wonder like Gianna -what is the fight that we need find tension in?
"I never said most of the things I said."
- Yogi & Me
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Apr 1 2016, 10:44pm
Post #8 of 15
(1826 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ever heard of David and Goliath?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In Tolkien's novels (as in real life, a lot of the time) there are no simple and predictable outcomes. The characters don't come with points values to enable you to work out what will happen if they fight. The most powerful force of evil in the whole cycle of stories was outwitted by an elf with a beautiful face and a good singing voice (helped by a man and a talking dog). The combined powers of the White Council could only force Sauron to move house: it took a defenseless hobbit and a poor wrecked little creature only bent on mischief to put an end to him.
In Middle-earth motive, purity of intent and chance - if chance you call it - plays a major part in every turn of events. There are no 'power levels'. The tension in every conflict in Middle-earth is that no outcome is certain - and there's no telling what price the one left standing may have to pay for victory.
I think the problem lies with your friend. He needs to expand his imagination - and to think a bit more about how the real world works - before he's ready for Tolkien.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Menegroth
Apr 2 2016, 9:27pm
Post #10 of 15
(1783 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"He is mortal with all its frailties"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I would argue that point, since an elderly human man would surely be killed within moments of engaging a Balrog in battle. Also, Gandalf the White tells the Three Hunters that they have no weapon that could harm him. He at the very least is far more durable than Men.
|
|
|
No One in Particular
Menegroth
Apr 2 2016, 11:07pm
Post #11 of 15
(1777 views)
Shortcut
|
Gandalf the White is greater than the Grey though. He had been through the fire and sent back. The rules were a little different then. I imagine Greydalf could indeed be "killed" by mortal weapons. (All that would accomplish is to send him back to the Blessed Realm though.)
While you live, shine
Have no grief at all
Life exists only for a short while
And time demands an end.
Seikilos Epitaph
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Doriath
Apr 3 2016, 1:40am
Post #12 of 15
(1770 views)
Shortcut
|
"He is mortal with all its frailties."
I would argue that point, since an elderly human man would surely be killed within moments of engaging a Balrog in battle. Making my point. Gandalf WAS killed by the balrog, although the fight lasted about 10 days.
He is mortal with all its frailties sans a normal mortal lifespan. So we could say he was more “durable than Men” in that way. Yet to be mortal is to feel hunger, thirst, weariness, pain etc. (which all the Istari felt), as has already been quoted.
He at the very least is far more durable than Men. If you mean by durable “long-lasting” okay; but I should rather say he is far more powerful than Men. He shows this during the stand-off at Amon Sul and the Battle of the Peak as The Grey. How much more powerful was Gandalf the White than the Grey we don’t know, but yes, he says to the Three Hunters that they have no weapon that could harm him. Ah, is he still being the braggadocios Gandalf that we know and love, or could he possibly be caught unawares and wounded with arrow, axe, or sword? Who knows?
I think we need to go back and read again Elizabeth’s quote from U.T. This isn’t about who’s the most durable, powerful, or even about frailty. This is about five Istari that were sent to Middle-earth as mortals to contest evil, not with physical power against power but to counsel and unite the Free Peoples, and Gandalf was the only one of the Wizards that held steadfastly to this raison d'etre.
Some might say that he possibly broke this creed during the fight at Amon Sul and the battle with the balrog, but I personally give him an exception here as he was fighting for his very mortal life. And apparently Eru (or the Valar?) agree as he was sent back more powerful (at least spiritually) and wise. Think of the healing of Theoden.
"I never said most of the things I said."
- Yogi & Me
|
|
|
Nuradar
Nargothrond
Apr 4 2016, 3:49pm
Post #13 of 15
(1725 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nicely explained, Elizabeth! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
dreamflower
Menegroth
Apr 6 2016, 2:55pm
Post #14 of 15
(1702 views)
Shortcut
|
Power levels don't mean that much in M-e.
Or rather the types of powers matter, something you might explain to your friend.
In Arda, the Bad Guys are overloaded with traditional power: Magic, physical strength, armies, etc. They have more than enough to deal with a traditional threat.
The Good Guys, OTOH, have some traditional power, but the also have loads more of non-traditional powers: love, friendship, loyalty and determination.
Look at the main match-up: Sauron vs Frodo.
Sauron would definitely appear to be the odds-on favorite in that match-up. He has all the apparent advantages.
Frodo's main advantage is Sam, and sheer determined hobbit stubbornness to keep going, and his secret weapon: the mercy he showed to Gollum.
As for Gandalf vs the W-k, it's possible that Angmar might have given Gandalf more of a fight before he became White--a power upgrade Gandalf gained because he was willing to sacrifice himself (he didn't know he'd come back!) and so the result of love and friendship.
But that's not the match that felled the W-K, anyway. Instead, it was the alliance between an itty bitty hobbit with a big sense of fairness, and a determined woman that took him down.
Some people call it fanfiction. I call it story-internal literary criticism.
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes
Lindon
Apr 6 2016, 10:24pm
Post #15 of 15
(1693 views)
Shortcut
|
I may have misrepresented my friend's problem a little bit (by which I mean "utterly and completely"). Its a kinda subtle problem that neither of us really have an easy time explaining, but I at least get what he's talking about.
As I understand it, he often finds that stories try to tell us that good is in serious danger of losing, but then something comes up or is revealed that shows that no, they never realistically could have lost.
Maybe if I demonstrate with examples of how my friend saw certain plot points in other media, it'll be clear.
Example One--in an anime called The Slayers, the heroine Lina Inverse is a sorceress who, we soon learn, knows this spell called the Giga Slave which is basically the "win" button. The show also says in-universe that the reason she doesn't use this for every conflict is because there's a chance it could backfire and destroy all of creation.
Why this is a problem? = Because you know that the author isn't literally rolling a dice every time he scripts Lina using that spell. From a Doylist perspective, its always gonna work right and save the world, so (again from a Doylist perspective, as opposed to a Watsonian one) there's no reason Lina shouldn't always use it right off the bat in any given confrontation. It would be better if she simply never had such a spell at all.
He tends to have a similar problem with "forbidden techniques nobody should ever use" or "sworn not to use" by the way.
Example Two -- Lupin the Third, another anime (like I said, anime tends to be a big offender here). Pretty much every episode or movie is about Lupin, a master thief, being "challenged" to defeat an impossible gang or steal an impossible-to-steal treasure (well, at least at first.... one of the TV series got kind of weird after that).
My friend was kind of interested at first, but ran into the problem that one thing Lupin's writers pull, a LOT, is that it'll look like Lupin is in a bind... only to at the last minute reveal that he was secretly manipulating everyone the whole time and that this was all part of a plan. As I understand it, friend would be okay with this if we saw the plans of both sides from the get-go and watched how they played out, but when its done this way its almost like an insult.
Example Three -- Lately he's been reading novels by a guy named Jim Butcher. I've never read any of this guys books, but they do sound legitimately problematic. In some ways they sound like they have the Lupin the Third issue, but other times...
Now, I'm recalling from memory here, but a recurring problem this author sounds like he has is that he'll have characters tell us that the protagonist is the underdog, and that Supernatural Race X (I can't remember what any of them are called) are so strong and have been at the slaying and scheming game for thousands of years... but then any time we see them actually go at it on page, the hero always gets lavishly detailed with exploits of how awesome he is while the villain is made to look weak or buffoonish. To be honest, this sounds less like my friend being the issue and more like the books themselves being the problem, as I would expect any decent writer would know that you can't just tell us someone is awesome or threatening without effectively demonstrating it, otherwise it becomes as laughable as that time Obi-Wan Kenobi said Stormtroopers shoot with precision.
And unfortunately, my friend discovered Tolkien via the movies, which of course made all the heroes ultra-badass and had the nazgul screaming like little girls. Its all well and good to tell him the books are different, but the problem is he's been told that before and he's inclined to do research first, and with regards to Tolkien he's seen many things that seem to be red flags.
I'll get back to this later, as I'm not inclined to speak for him more without running my words by him first, lest I do even more damage with paraphrasings and misrepresentations or even pure simple bad wordings.
|
|
|
|
|
