|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Oct 30 2016, 8:17am
Post #26 of 49
(1492 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that explains what I'm finding confusing. I don't have much problem with Gandalf declaring himself to be in retirement now, so that folks will have to look to a new generation of leaders.
That would naturally cause "tests" (as in difficulties; challenges) for the new leaders. To me, that's distinct from the idea of Gandalf deliberately creating tests (as in assessments; examinations). That would not be the act if someone in retirement; it's the act of an assessor or examiner, or judge. The difference is subtle: real in my mind, but maybe it's moot to others? Or perhaps we've been thinking of different senses of the word "test", and it's tested my communication skills?
Possibly what is bothering me is as simple as Tolkien continuing to use Gandalf to issue cryptic warnings - for example we wondered how Gandalf knew there were now gates at the border of the Shire. If he's collected such information
(Because old habits die hard?) why not share it explicitly with the hobbits? (I mean, what is the in-story reason for this? The storytelling concern is easy to see: set up the surprise of the Shire being troubled, without it being such a surprise that readers are confused or feel the surprise is down to poor storytelling).
~~~~~~
Volunteers are still needed to lead chapters for our read-thorough of Book VI ROTK (and the appendices if there are sufficient volunteers) http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=909709#909709
A wonderful list of links to Book I - Book V chapters in this read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Oct 30 2016, 8:31am)
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Oct 30 2016, 1:53pm
Post #27 of 49
(1478 views)
Shortcut
|
I’ve never viewed Gandalf’s leaving the Hobbits on their own as deliberately “a test”. More of just a “letting go” with confidence in the Hobbit’s newly acquired abilities (“The Ring is destroyed, Sauron has been (mostly) defanged – all will be well after some necessary speed-bumps). But your various thoughts for the word “test” does give one pause.
Would Gandalf after all these many years of scheming and planning not suspect that Saruman was likely headed for (or now “in”) the Shire. As Saruman himself says in Many Partings: " …it will serve you right when you come home, if you find things less good in the Southfarthing than you would like. …" (hint, hint). No, we aren’t told exactly how Gandalf ‘knew’ there would be locked gates at the border, but it’s a logical assumption, as Saruman and Grima were headed in that direction and that they gathered ruffians along the way, and due to Saruman’s last ‘fang’, his ‘smooth talking’, he would set up control over the borders and make his way to the Westfarthing.
So I think Gandalf’s warning to the Hobbits about locked gates could well be logically deduced from Saruman’s own words and Gandalf’s own ability to ‘read’ Saruman. And this warning seems quite explicit to me: “there’s trouble in the Shire”. And re-reading the beginning of The Scouring I detect no surprise from the four Hobbits as they reach the Brandywine and find locked gates.
What I really want to know is: what happened to Bill Ferney? As Tolkien tells us he was never heard of again. Jeez, is there no end to these mystifying (I gots to know) conundrums. 
‘. . . the rule of no realm is mine . . .
But all worthy things that are in peril . . . those are my care.
For I also am a steward. Did you not know?'
Gandalf to Denethor
|
|
|
Ingwion
Lorien
Oct 30 2016, 3:17pm
Post #28 of 49
(1471 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Gandalf maybe sees no point at all in telling the hobbits - it won't change anything, and we know Gandalf doesn't indulge in frivolous chit-chat. As for the "test", I don't think Gandalf is setting them a test as such, but he knows the hobbits won't be tested by this, and will have no problem dealing with it. But he also knows that if he intervenes the hobbits may become too dependant on him, and as he cannot stay for years in the Shire, there will be no one responsible enough to deal with any crises.
Also, the major trouble here is not only expelling the ruffians, which Gandalf could have helped with, but helping the Shire return to normality, and repairing the woods and the smials, which only the hobbits could have helped with. So I don't think Gandalf actually would have helped as much as expected.
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 12:11am
Post #29 of 49
(1441 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I very much agree with you, BG, and Morthoron
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Although the "lack of Gandalf" made me uncomfortable my first reading or so of "The Scouring," the confident, take-charge attitude of Merry and Pippin, and the calm wisdom of Frodo, and just they way they all handled the entire situation showed that they were ready; and they seemed to know it themselves. What I find most convincing is that none of them were figuratively looking over their shoulders, wishing for or even mentioning Gandalf. That in the end convinced me that Gandalf leaving the task to them alone was simply letting them get on with being "grownups" in a sense.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 4:46am
Post #30 of 49
(1432 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbits' confidence is striking.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We never saw a moment of, "OMG, this is awful! Wish Gandalf were here, or Aragorn! I guess we'll have to do the best we can." I actually find it a little hard to imagine their not having these thoughts, at least momentarily, but we certainly never see it. Instead, the confidently stand up to whoever needs to be confronted, and move straight towards their objectives.
|
|
|
Ingwion
Lorien
Nov 1 2016, 10:56am
Post #31 of 49
(1423 views)
Shortcut
|
I actually find it a little hard to imagine their not having these thoughts, at least momentarily, but we certainly never see it.
I actually think the hobbits didn't waver in confidence at any point - I find it hard to see why they should. Pippin has engaged in a mental battle with The Dark Lord, Merry has rode to (he thought) certain death at Minas Tirith, Sam has braved the long dark of Shelob's tunnels and Frodo has been nearly destroyed by the seductive qualities of the most dangerous object in Middle-earth, and all of them survived. I don't think a few hundred bumbling ruffians would have bothered them.
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 11:27am
Post #32 of 49
(1422 views)
Shortcut
|
It seems to me the debate (which occurs in my own mind) is between the wonderful narrative effect of the 4 hobbits saving the Shire on their own (and good point that they never have a moment of doubt), vs. the ethics of sticking by your friends in need, which is one of the most important themese throughout LOTR. So what works within the story doesn't work from a perspective outside the story. Gandalf both abandoned his friends to fix the Shire on their own, and he didn't even give them sufficient warning of what they were facing.
So the narrative AND the ethics could have been salvaged if Gandalf had been given some other important task to do (find Radagast, or anything), but instead he rather flippantly abandons them.
But I think it's similar to my general feeling that the Valar always leave Middle-earth to fend for itself rather than act responsibly as the official Guardians of it. If they solved every problem, the story would be dull. But sitting around having garden parties in the safety of Valinor while the Melkor enslaves the world seems a real ethical failure to me.
|
|
|
Ingwion
Lorien
Nov 1 2016, 11:34am
Post #33 of 49
(1416 views)
Shortcut
|
But I think it's similar to my general feeling that the Valar always leave Middle-earth to fend for itself rather than act responsibly as the official Guardians of it. If they solved every problem, the story would be dull. But sitting around having garden parties in the safety of Valinor while the Melkor enslaves the world seems a real ethical failure to me.
I'm not sure...... It was really the Exiles own fault they were being destroyed... but then again, what about Thingol's Elves.... I suppose there's always this theme of Providence, and everything being timed according to the Divine Plan
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 11:39am
Post #34 of 49
(1415 views)
Shortcut
|
That's certainly a well-reasoned investigation, Wiz. I myself am never fully sure why Saruman targets Frodo, of all people. Surely his main personal grievances should be against M&P for being allies of the Ents who destroyed his home. Why not target them instead? Stabbing Frodo makes as much sense as stabbing the Gaffer.
Various possible reasons:
1. He's a murderous psycho, and those people don't pick their victims logically.
2. He may sense (somehow) Frodo's connection to both Galadriel and Gandalf, and figures killing Frodo will sadden the other two, whom he certainly can't kill directly.
3. Or maybe he is Gollum/Smeagol-like, and there are brief moments when the good, insightful Maia in him is lucid and in control, and he senses that Frodo was the fulcrum for the whole lever that brought down his ally Sauron, and/or that he senses that Frodo has become the virtuous person that Saruman the Maia used to be.
The last explanation is the most gratifying to me, because I adore that line of Saruman looking at Frodo with mingled respect, wonder, and hatred, and telling him that he has "grown." The good part of him senses all these new, noble characteristics of Frodo, and the corrupt part of him hates them, even resents Frodo for being "better" than Saruman.
|
|
|
Ingwion
Lorien
Nov 1 2016, 11:44am
Post #35 of 49
(1411 views)
Shortcut
|
I think he hates Frodo for being better than him, and he's horrified a mere halfling could outmatch a Maia, but yet the corrupted side of him will not let him admit to Frodo being better than him, and this internal war manifests itself in an explosion of thoughtless rage and hatred.
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 11:51am
Post #36 of 49
(1412 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm actually having trouble thinking of real-world situations where a leader is never seen or depicted. Isn't it the reverse, where they may spend time bunkered in their palace, but they put up their face on murals and posters all over cities, and they show up in well-staged TV events to appear powerful and wise?
But Sauron and Melkor both acted like Sharkey, staying hidden from public view and directing everything from their bunker.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 11:57am
Post #37 of 49
(1407 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One thing about Sharkey that doesn't add up
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is that Bag End is a mess and unused. OK, it's too small for a man to live in, but Saruman appears from "sheds" which don't sound all that palatial, and every tinpot dictator or warlord always live in some kind of luxury. Saruman looks well-fed, so he's no longer begging for scraps, but why didn't he make a little palace for himself?
OK, 2 things don't add up: Saruman is well-fed, but Grima is kept hungry and presumably at Lotho after killing him. Is this pure sadism at work? Just what is going on with Saruman's abuse of Grima? And yes, I know Grima is afraid to leave Saruman, but if you're hungry, you'll do lots of things, like run away from home. Was Grima under some Saruman spell? Was Saruman punishing him for throwing away the palantir?
Did Saruman abuse his ruffians too? I don't think so--they seemed happy with him around. Didn't he feed them well? What did they think of Grima? Or is it maybe a hallmark of oppressive dictators that you keep a Grima-type around, starve him and treat him like a dog, with the implied threat that if you fall out of favor, this could be you next?
|
|
|
Ingwion
Lorien
Nov 1 2016, 12:00pm
Post #38 of 49
(1405 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm no expert in the First World War, but I seem to remember Haig never actually went to the front line - this is kind of "directing from the bunker"
It was a foggy day in London, and the fog was heavy and dark. Animate London, with smarting eyes and irritated lungs, was blinking, wheezing, and choking; inanimate London was a sooty spectre, divided in purpose between being visible and invisible, and so being wholly neither. - Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens.
It is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance that is in this Earth; and many of the Children of Ilúvatar hearken still unsated to the voices of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen. - The Silmarillion, J. R. R. Tolkien
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 12:38pm
Post #39 of 49
(1402 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, the Sindar, the Edain, and the Dwarves
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They all suffered under Melkor through no fault of their own. The Exiles may have invited their own curse of Mandos, but many innocent people suffered along with them. When you're a "god" in all but name, that seems highly unethical to allow to happen.
I know Tolkien tried various story devices such as how a Valar-Melkor war would cause much destruction, so they were reluctant to cause more harm than good, and yes, there's the Great Music, and everything happens for a reason. But none of that is really very satisfying. But again, it makes for a great story, and having gods fix everything perfectly would be boring. Yet Tolkien weaves a lot of other ethics into his stories, so I'm just tempted to extrapolate from what's already there.
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Nov 1 2016, 12:45pm
Post #40 of 49
(1392 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Depends on the leader/situation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Imagine Eisenhower leading the charge in the first wave at Normandy…
“Follow me boys!”
‘. . . the rule of no realm is mine . . .
But all worthy things that are in peril . . . those are my care.
For I also am a steward. Did you not know?'
Gandalf to Denethor
|
|
|
enanito
Rohan
Nov 1 2016, 3:24pm
Post #42 of 49
(1378 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But Gandalf "does" intervene by taking them for a long circuitous ride
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In-story, the Hobbits seem fairly united in their desire to see Bilbo before returning to the Shire. In spite of all this real-world training we've been discussing, they seem a bit oblivious to the fact that their dear Shire might be suffering from spillover effects (dare we say, perhaps, ruffians?) from the War. Frodo even mentions to Bilbo that there's a real king now, and the roads will soon be put in order. He's not troubled about the Shire at all.
By allowing the Hobbits to tag along with nary a peep, Gandalf provides no alternative viewpoint. Sure it All Works Out, but if I'm a Hobbit suffering daily under the fist of Sharky, I'm not as appreciative of Gandalf's decision to allow things to 'take their course'. My viewpoint would be that telling Frodo something about the Shire sooner rather than later, would be a better way to let things take their course!
Again, nitpicking, and I understand the alternate POV that Gandalf rightly disengages from ongoing events.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 3:27pm
Post #43 of 49
(1379 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hobbits liberating hobbits, versus some casualties sustained
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
On the one hand, the Shire is restored by its own people, rather than requiring liberation by a wizard, or by other outsiders. To be sure you could argue that the Shire only remains independent at the King's whim (and by his soon-to-be-created policy of forbidding Men to enter it). But perhaps the hobbits go back to being happy, parochial and ignorant of world politics more readily for having not required a counter-invasion.
On the minus side, the hobbits are not impressive enough a force an uncontested win against the ruffians. So there is a battle at which some men and some hobbits die. Perhaps that price could have been avoided by sending a more impressive force (e.g. a determined wizard, of a few troops of rangers).
~~~~~~
Volunteers are still needed to lead chapters for our read-thorough of Book VI ROTK (and the appendices if there are sufficient volunteers) http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=909709#909709
A wonderful list of links to Book I - Book V chapters in this read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 5:24pm
Post #44 of 49
(1368 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gandalf the Outward Bound leader?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is reminding me of something I once read about the training of Outward Bound leaders.
The leader moves from providing explicit training to tagging along with the group to see what they do.
For example:
Start of the course: Among other map-reading skills the leader teaches that if you come to a fork in the trail you stop and check the map. This is a precaution against taking the wrong fork, a common navigational error.
Later in the course: One of the learners will be map-reading now. If they fail to stop and check the map at a fork in the trail, the leader will wait for one of the party to realise, but point out the mistake after a time, s as to avoid the consequences being too severe.
End of the course: the leader doesn't point out navigational errors, except in dire need. The learners will have to realise and rectify their own mistake. If the group hikes ten miles in the wrong direction they all (including the leader) will have to make up the distance, or come up with another plan.
I read that it's a matter of skilled judgement when to move the learners from one phase to another - the idea is for the learners to learn from the consequences of their error (and possibly to learn more from the problems that their initial error raises), rather than to undermine their confidence.
I wonder whether this is the kind of thing Tolkien has in mind? Maybe Gandalf wasn't going to suggest a faster pace or a shorter stay in Rivendell - that was for the hobbits to do? Maybe he has go used to Frodo being the one who instinctively makes the right choice, and mustn't be forgiven advice (or maybe that is still true)? Or maybe this relates to my idea, somewhat earlier, of Gandalf reverting to an adult character in a children's book, who might be expected to instruct or test the child characters?.
As you and others have pointed out, there's a price to pay, the consequences are worse than a frustrating and tiring extra hike, and aren't just visited on those who made the mistake. So that's different to my Outward Bound example.
~~~~~~
Volunteers are still needed to lead chapters for our read-thorough of Book VI ROTK (and the appendices if there are sufficient volunteers) http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=909709#909709
A wonderful list of links to Book I - Book V chapters in this read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 7:29pm
Post #45 of 49
(1360 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And I personally think it's possible
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that if Gandalf had offered his help, it might have taken the edge off some of that confidence ("He doesn't think we can manage on our own . . . ").
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 9:04pm
Post #46 of 49
(1354 views)
Shortcut
|
you got me thinking: does anyone evil in Middle-earth ever become good? Because we see quite a few good people become evil, but do we ever see the reverse? I'm struggling to think of any significant character who's bad for large stretch of their life who then changes their life to become good and stays good.
Because in that sense (the lack of counterexamples), if you're evil, you stay evil forever, so quite a few people are "truly evil." Maybe not 100% evil every second of every day, but shall we say "doomed to be evil."
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Nov 1 2016, 10:14pm
Post #47 of 49
(1346 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Opportunities for redemption keep being offered...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
....and that suggests that it's thought to be possible to turn back from being evil. But, like you, I can't think of successful rehabilitations.
The nearest I can think of are easily written off as special cases. Boromir tries to claim the Ring, and Frodo actually does so. Neither are irredeemably evil afterward. Boromir returns to the Fellowship and dies fighting for it; Frodo becomes merciful, sad and wise, rather than evil. In the Hobbit, Thorin repents his avaricious behaviour and gallantly joins the battle. But none of these have become evil by habit: rather they have succumbed to an evil impulse.
Lobelia becomes a resistance hero, and her popularity might help her to learn to be generous. But maybe her earlier character is better described as unpleasant rather than evil?
Saruman is offered chance after chance to reform, but his character flaw of pride presents a bigger obstacle each time.
~~~~~~
Volunteers are still needed to lead chapters for our read-thorough of Book VI ROTK (and the appendices if there are sufficient volunteers) http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=909709#909709
A wonderful list of links to Book I - Book V chapters in this read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Al Carondas
Lorien
Nov 1 2016, 11:22pm
Post #48 of 49
(1339 views)
Shortcut
|
I always deduced that Treebeard had informed Saruman of the downfall of Sauron. Treebeard does seem to have "full knowledge" of the deeds of Gandalf and Company before they come to Treegarth.
But I also have an inkling that Saruman, by virtue of being a Maia, would be sensitive to Sauron's destruction. If Faramir can get an inkling at the moment of the Ring's destruction, then surely Saruman would have sensed something.
"Good Morning!"
|
|
|
Al Carondas
Lorien
Nov 1 2016, 11:49pm
Post #49 of 49
(1335 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Middle-earth for Middle-earthlings
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If Gandalf were to help put things right in the Shire, he would be putting them right according to his own conception. It is more than just a matter of letting the Hobbits grow by fending for themselves. Gandalf needs to restrain himself from exerting power over things that he does not have the authority to exert power over. Gandalf must let the Hobbits deal with their own affairs, because otherwise he would be taking a step towards controlling the lives of the inhabitants of Middle-earth, and in so doing he would be exceeding his authority.
I, too, have always had a problem with the Valar leaving Middle-earth vulnerable to the power of Melkor. It was the Valar's job to counteract Melkor, and eventually they did. Thus, they rightly freed the peoples of Middle-earth from the domination of a power they could not be expected to counter on their own. Similarly, it was the Istari's job to counteract Sauron, in order to free the peoples of Middle-earth from his greater power. But now with Melkor and Sauron both defeated, and with Saruman virtually stripped of all his powers, there is no justification for the intervention of Gandalf's divine power into the affairs of the Children of Eru. Gandalf must restrain himself, lest he take even the first step down the same path as Sauron - ordering the world as he sees fit. He must remember that this is not his world to order.
"Good Morning!"
|
|
|
|
|
