I personally considered the Wizard's staffs a bit like swords: methods of combat and a focus of their skills, magic in their case. So they're best off with them, but can do without, i.e. Gandalf vrs. the Blarog.
To explain it to my brother, I used this example: Legolas has a bow and arrows. When it runs out, (staff is lost) he uses the daggers as a last defense.
So Gandalf's destruction of Saruman's sword was symbolistic: No more fun for you, pal. I think it also reduced his use of magic drastically, though. As his main weapon, he now could only rely on his magicky speaking powers: You *will* use Clearall for dry, red, itchy eyes. It has the ingredient to moisturize.
This, though, made my brother instantly confused on how Gandalf could still beat a Maia. I think it might have had to do with his Ring of Power, the Elven ring of Fire, that helped him continue his use of magic.
This all, however, is my opinion and probably drastically wrong. Any corrections or thoughts, if I may be prudent enough to ask for them?
Thank you!
__________________
Rock-a-bye Nazgul, on Weathertop, when the Ring calls, the horses will run. And when Sauron calls, the Nazgul will go, and down will come evil, Ringwraiths and all!
|