Two Gandalfs

[Bungo Baggins]

I think the character is essentially the same. I think that since the Hobbit is written as more of a lighthearted tale, the character of Gandalf is likewise a little more lighthearted. Although the adventure is dangerous, it does not have the same stakes that play out in The Lord of the Rings. Also, although I am no expert yet, it seems Gandalf learns more about the ring in his latter, darker trilogy. But as some others pointed out, his brilliance can be demonstrated by how cleverly he interwove all his stories together.

[davem]

It is a difficult question. But it can be extended - as happened in the part of the Canonicity thread to which H-I has directed us. What about Galadriel? The 'later' Galadriel, is not the one we meet in LotR. Many of the characters in the Legendarium change - not just 'develop' but acually change in fundamental ways. This was why I feel that any hope of producing a 'definitive' Sil is doomed to failure. There are multiple 'Gandalfs', multiple 'Galadriels', multiple 'Elronds' (& of course a couple of 'Glorfindels' )scattered through the works. Come to that there are multiple 'Gondolins' - the Fall of Gondolin we have in BoLT is not the same as the account we find in the published Sil.

We have all this just in Tolkien's own writings - when we come to the versions of the texts which were 'edited' by CT we find ourselves in even greater difficulties. As Child says, these are basically insurmountable difficulties - if we wish to look at them in that way.

But these aren't 'problems' unless we demand some kind of consistency across all Tolkien's writings. We have internal consistency within each work, which is all we really need to enter in & be convinced by the 'reality' of the 'secondary world'. To demand any more would be unfair. Probably it would have been impossible for Tolkien to write LotR if he had stuck too closely to TH. He had to break free of the style & mood of TH before he could produce LotR.

Yet its a trap Tolkien himself falls into.The changes he made to TH later, to bring it line with LotR - principally the change in Riddles in the Dark - don't really fit the mood of the rest of the book. And they weren't actually necessary, as the original version of that chapter is accounted for in the story of Bilbo's 'lie' about how he came by the Ring which we're given in LotR.

Its also quite likely that one reason Tolkien was never able to complete the Sil to his satisfaction was because he felt it had to fit as perfectly as possible with LotR.

Clearly he had a desire to produce a coherent secondary world with as few internal inconsistencies as possible, but i can't help feeling that HoME is a better reflection of his mind, & his genius, than either CT's Sil or his own 'completed' Sil, if he'd managed to achieve it. Each character, each story is a product of who he was at the time he wrote it, & should really be seen in that way, rather than as the scattered pieces of a jigsaw, which if put together in the 'right' way will produce a coherent picture.

[Lalwendë]

I think that there is a very good reason why we see so many 'versions' of characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel and that is that Tolkien's major works were the works of an entire lifetime. Everyone throughout their life will change, both psychologically and in their philosophy of life; naturally this will mean that any creative endeavours will change. In Tolkien's case he devoted his whole life to the one secondary world, and many of the characters therein must by necessity have changed with him.

In effect, the Gandalf of the 1930's was very different to the Gandalf of the 1960's, as Tolkien was a different man at these times. These Gandalfs/Gandalves (I love that) were created by very different men. I'm sure there are other characters in literature who have changed in this way but I cannot think of any examples beyond those found in blockbusters as it is quite unusual to find such lifetime devotion to a character/characters.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lalwendë

"Gandalves"! What a fine term. It made me smile, but it also contains a great deal of truth!

Davem -

We have all this just in Tolkien's own writings - when we come to the versions of the texts which were 'edited' by CT we find ourselves in even greater difficulties. As Child says, these are basically insurmountable difficulties - if we wish to look at them in that way.

But these aren't 'problems' unless we demand some kind of consistency across all Tolkien's writings. We have internal consistency within each work, which is all we really need to enter in & be convinced by the 'reality' of the 'secondary world'. To demand any more would be unfair. Probably it would have been impossible for Tolkien to write LotR if he had stuck too closely to TH. He had to break free of the style & mood of TH before he could produce LotR.

I couldn't agree with you more. To me, the differences in the texts are very real, and I can't gloss them over with a simple rewrite of the Riddles chapter. The varying characterization of Gandalf is just one part of a wider puzzle. A talking purse for a troll and a multitude of Elven rings simply don't exist within the Middle-earth of the Silm or LotR. These are only two small examples from many that could be highlighted. But even these two small changes suggest a different world, one where magic plays a primary role. I believe that we are dealing here with more than simple variations in tone, narrative voice, and characterization, or understanding that one part of the Redbook was written by a less mature Bilbo or a more naturally solemn Frodo, although all these factors are worthy of discussion and certainly play a role.

Lke you, Davem my "solution" to all this would be not to impose a solution at all, but simply to enjoy the variation and diversity expressed in the different texts. I think you are correct when you suggest that one of the things holding Tolkien back from doing revisions on the Silm was his desire to have complete consistency within the Legendarium. And, like you, I actually prefer much of the content of HoMe and UT to that of the Silm. The stories are richer and show what Tolkien thought at different points in his life. I also have less trouble deciphering the mind of CT from that of his father.

The funny thing is that this is exactly what historians are compelled to do, especially when dealing with the very wiggly chronicles of the medieval period. Sometime it's possible to find a way to synchronize differing accounts of things, but at other times the only real option is to leave the differences extant (and perhaps have an argument about which comes closest to the 'Truth'). So,in a certain sense, the legendarium with all its funny twists and side alleys is truthfully more like "real" history than a more sanitized version would be.

Fordim has made an excellent point in noting that the sentiment Gandalf expresed at the end of The Hobbit could also have been uttered by the later Gandalf of LotR. There are underlying themes and ideas that have to do with morality and a view of the world that we can see consistently through allTolkien's writings. These ideas helped to form and shape his characters, and they do not change. In that sense, we may have multiple Gandalves, but there is one core set of values that animate him, however differently they may be expressed.

**************

BTW, no one has mentioned my favorite Gandalf of all who shows up in an intriguing piece of the Hobbit story that lies outside the actual book. I love "Quest of Erebor" and how it reveals a picture of Gandalf as a maia sent to Middle-earth to choose someone for a task. This whole section also adds great depth to the character of Bilbo that goes beyond anything we read in the original tale.

Although dealing with the Hobbit tale, the Quest was probably written in 1953-1955, as the appendices for LotR were being fleshed out. The original intent was to include the material as part of Section III of Appendix A concerning Durin's folk. This was not done, most likely because of pressure from the publisher to keep things down to a reasonable number of pages. Still, I am glad it was published as a separate essay rather than trying to find a place for these ideas in the Hobbit itself.

[davem]

I can give you 'another' Gandalf (I've quoted this before, but I like it) - its from a page of doodles Tolkien made & reproduced in the catalogue for the 1992 Bodlean Library Tolkien exhibition:

Gandalf caused quite a stir in Alfaromdor by having his whiskers curled. Can you imagine anything more inept?

[Lalwendë]

"Gandalves"! What a fine term. It made me smile, but it also contains a great deal of truth!

I hasten to add - it was inadvertently stoeln from H-I. But where he said Gandhalves I was inept and said Gandalves!

[HerenIstarion]

where he said Gandhalves I was inept and said Gandalves

No ineptitude observed - both terms are rightful - Gandhalves standing for a lot of Gandalf halves which add up to make one complex Gandalf, and Gandalves being correct form on the ground of the stem alf in Gandalf meaning elf. As JRRT's singular elf becomes elves once there are at least two of the chaps having a picnic by the roadside, so Gandalves would stand for a party of bearded oldsters going for a walk puffing at their pipes.

cheers

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lalwendë -

Then I shall have to extend accolades to both you and HI. Except at the rate we are going with multiple images, we will end up with "Gandtuplets"!

Davem -

I must have missed your earlier post citing this wonderful quotation! Wish I had a copy of the Bodleian catalog to see what it looks like.

How about this for another "proto-Gandalf"? It is not Gandalf at all , but Mother Meldrum, a nasty figure from The Marvelous Land of Snergs who is disguised like an older man. Still, it does look a bit like Gandalf.

Mother Meldrum

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

There are multiple 'Gandalfs', multiple 'Galadriels', multiple 'Elronds' (& of course a couple of 'Glorfindels' )scattered through the works. Come to that there are multiple 'Gondolins' - the Fall of Gondolin we have in BoLT is not the same as the account we find in the published Sil.

Certainly it's true that over the course of Tolkien's work on the Legendarium, characters, places, and events underwent profound changes. Texts written at different times are often in direct contradiction with one another - and indeed one must expect that a revision of some story will contradict earlier versions. Characters changed, sometimes profoundly - the character that eventually became Sauron, for example, started out as a cat.

But to me to say that there are "two Gandalfs" or "two Gondolins" sounds suspiciously mystical. There aren't really two Gondolins, because Gondolin isn't real. There are simply certain texts that say certain things about Gondolin and other texts that say other things. As I said in that most infamous of threads:

Nor do I care about the semantics of "the same character" and "different characters with the same name" and "the same character with different names", etc., etc.

It is semantics because it depends entirely upon your definition of "characters". Your Galadriel (1) and your Galadriel (2) differ in certain ways and are similar in others. On the most basic level, that's all there is to be said. There's no need to argue about how to translate those differences into a proposition using the word "character".

This is the same reason that I have a problem with the insistence (e.g. by M. Martinez) that the Silmarillion is a "different mythology" from the Book of Lost Tales. That's a perfectly valid way of defining "mythology" in the context of Tolkien's work (we could speak of BoLT mythology, '30s mythology, '50s mythology, Myths Transformed mythology, . . .) but it is just a definition. Similarly, we could call the two Galadriels different characters, or we could call them the same character portrayed differently - but we would not be saying anything substantive; we would simply be defining a convention for the word "character".

A distinct question we might ask is: how different is the portrayal of person/thing/event A in text X from the portrayal of A in text Y? Do the portrayals directly contradict each other? Do they implicitly contradict each other? Do they differ in style or tone? And so forth.

Now, obviously there are differences to be found. But I think that these differences tend to be exaggerated, largely because we know so much about the way Tolkien wrote. What in other works we might call character development or simply the portrayal of different aspects of a character's personality, in Tolkien we tend to call conradiction, because we know about his tendency to revise and rewrite and change elements of the story.

In the case of Galadriel, we have some direct contradiction among some of the stories. The late version that has her leave Aman separately from Feanor is in direct contradiction to the earlier version that had her join in the rebellion. But what about Gandalf? Here we do not have direct contradiction. The claim is that we have different portrayals. But what specific things did Gandalf do in The Hobbit that LotR Gandalf could not have done? Is there really enough there to call the portrayals implicitly contradictory?

I don't think there is. We certainly do see more aspects of Gandalf's personality in LotR, but I see no problem there. Most people speak differently, for example, depending on whom they are addressing. Why shouldn't Gandalf do the same? Tolkien even notes (I can't recall whether this is in the appendices or only in HoMe XII) that the variation in speaking style by some of the characters was intentional.

For what it's worth, I see a far greater change in personality when he goes from being Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White.

Yet its a trap Tolkien himself falls into.The changes he made to TH later, to bring it line with LotR - principally the change in Riddles in the Dark - don't really fit the mood of the rest of the book.

This is an interesting issue. Do the changes really not fit the mood of the rest of the book? I first read The Hobbit (or rather, had it read to me) about seventeen years ago. It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone. Of course, it's possible that I simply wasn't attentive enough. Still, I can't help thinking that this:

And they weren't actually necessary, as the original version of that chapter is accounted for in the story of Bilbo's 'lie' about how he came by the Ring which we're given in LotR.

. . . is being a bit too kind to the story of Bilbo's lie. It always struck me as rather forced.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone.

I can put my name beneath that.

as for the

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

the character that eventually became Sauron, for example, started out as a cat.

I proclaim it the quote of the week and ask for permission to use it a signature (not immediately, but after some future change of my current one)

Funny thing being, for the rest of it I'm probably on the opposite end of the balance: I tend to assimilate all of the accounts to produce one coherent mental picture of any given character - but that probably would be rather a position of a 'low-brow' reader, who wants to know what to expect from 'persons' (and one can't help thinking of characters as 'persons' when carried off by the tide of the story) s/he is reading about, than 'high-brow' researcher who studies development of the text and characters.

I believe both approaches are lawful, both may be enjoyed (and by the one and the same person too) just my personal taste makes me prefer the former one.

With which I suggest we should rename (in the light of recent development, not without gentle push from yours truly, and with kind persmission of the author - lmp) current thread into Ganduplets Coming, or Canonicity Strikes Back and start it all anew

The last paragraph being a kidding, of course

[Bêthberry]

HI, could you please clear out your mailbox? I hear Father Christmas is having a hard time getting his letters through.

(will delete this later, after it has been read)

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Do the changes really not fit the mood of the rest of the book? I first read The Hobbit (or rather, had it read to me) about seventeen years ago. It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone.

Always something that will be down to the individual reader, of course. I have to say that the more I consider the two 'Gollums' the more the original version seems to fit with the tone of the rest of the story. Take the 1937 account:

‘Must we give it the thing, preciouss? Yess, we must!. we must fetch it, preciouss, & give it the present we promised.’ So Gollum paddled back to his boat, & Bilbo thought he had heard the last of him. but he had not. The hobbit was just thinking of going back up the passage - having had quite enough of Gollum & the dark water’s edge - when he heard him wailing & squeaking away in the gloom. He was on his island (of which, of course, Bilbo knew nothing), scrabbling here & there, searching & seeking in vain, & turning out his pockets.‘Where iss it? Where iss it?’ Bilbo heard him squeaking. ‘Lost, lost, my preciouss, lost, lost! Bless us & splash us! We haven’t the present we promised, & we haven’t even got it for ourselveses.’Bilbo turned round & waited, wondering what it could be that the creature was making such a fuss about. This proved very fortunate afterwards. For Gollum came back & made a tremendous spluttering & whispering & croaking; & in the end Bilbo gathered that Gollum had had a ring, a ring that he had been given for a birthday present, ages & ages before in old days when such rings were less uncommon. Sometimes he had it in his pocket; usually he kept it in a little hole in the rock on his island; sometimes he wore it - when he was very, very hungry, & tired of fish, & crept along dark passages looking for stray goblins. Then he might venture even into places where the torches were lit & made his eyes blink & smart; but he would be safe. O yes! very nearly safe; for if you slipped that ring on your finger, you were invisible; only in the sunlight could you be seen, & then only by your shadow, & that was a faint & shaky sort of shadow.I don’t know how many times Gollum begged Bilbo’s pardoned. He kept on saying: ‘We are ssorry; we didn’t mean to cheat, we meant to give it our only only present, if it won the competition.’ He even offered to catch Bilbo some nice juicy fish to eat as a consolation.

The reason this fits more with the rest of TH, for me, is the absence of the tragic element, & perhaps more importantly the lack of any real 'threat' in the competition with Gollum. The Gollum of the revised Riddles chapter is a true 'horror', a canibalistic, immoral, creature, as well as a tragic victim. We feel a pity for him that we don't feel for the Trolls or goblins, or even for Smaug. The Gollum of the original is 'just' a monster, like all the others, just another 'adventure' Bilbo has along the way. In fact, in the original he is A gollum - one of (apparently) a whole race of such creatures. He is not the tragic, lost Hobbit, of LotR.

As I say, a matter or individual opinion.....

[Tevildo]

Aiwendil's comments:

This is an interesting issue. Do the changes really not fit the mood of the rest of the book? I first read The Hobbit (or rather, had it read to me) about seventeen years ago. It was only a few years ago that I learned about the extensive changes that had been made to that chapter. Prior to learning about them, I never detected any discrepancy in tone.

My earliest reading of the Hobbit was an old Houghton Mifflin first edition that I got from the library. Later on, I bought the revised Ballentine paperback even before I read LotR.

I was aware of a change in tone with the revisions. Since Riddles was a pivotal point in the story, I sensed there was something different going on. Plus, I knew that an author wouldn't go back and rewrite a book unless he had a serious reason for doing that (even if I didn't know what the reason was). Those changes cast a shadow over my reading of the story and lent a different tone than before. It wasn't as grim as LotR, but that chapter sounded more serious and less like a children's story.

Look at the critical phrase "my precious". I later read it again in Lord of the Rings. In the first edition, Gollum uses the word to describe himself. In the later revisions, "my precious" seems to refer to the Ring. Just a little change like that makes a difference. The Ring has become something more than a handy gadget to make someone invisible. Bilbo continues to use the Ring to get himself out of scrapes but you still can't help recalling the darker tones of the Riddles chapter.

It's not that the revisions were badly done. In fact they were done very skillfully. And if I had simply read the revisions without knowing about the original, I probably would not have been as aware of the discrepency in tone. But I did sense a difference between the unrevised and revised book even from a casual reading.

I also see a big difference between the Gandalf who is an artist in fireworks of the Hobbit and the early chapters of LotR, and the Gandalf who fought the Balrog in Moria. This was before the istar was transformed from grey to white. Perhaps it's too much to say there are two Gandalfs. There are points of connection and points of difference. But the points of difference are quite large, and I can't always fit the Gandalf of the Hobbit easily together with that of the Lord of the Rings (or for that matter the Necromancer with the later Sauron).

_______________

P.S. About that cat who was the original "Sauron".....I think JRRT made a big mistake in those revisions as well.

Tevildo, the lap cat of Melkor

[Aiwendil]

Looks like my invocation of Sauron's feline origins has conjured up the great cat himself.

Davem wrote:

The reason this fits more with the rest of TH, for me, is the absence of the tragic element, & perhaps more importantly the lack of any real 'threat' in the competition with Gollum. The Gollum of the revised Riddles chapter is a true 'horror', a canibalistic, immoral, creature, as well as a tragic victim. We feel a pity for him that we don't feel for the Trolls or goblins, or even for Smaug. The Gollum of the original is 'just' a monster, like all the others, just another 'adventure' Bilbo has along the way. In fact, in the original he is A gollum - one of (apparently) a whole race of such creatures. He is not the tragic, lost Hobbit, of LotR.

I think you are right that this is a matter of individual opinion. Still - I don't see The Hobbit as horror-less at all. On the contrary, I think that horror is an integral component of it, and of many other succesful 'children's stories'. I think you are right about tragedy - and I suppose that if the style of the revision differs significantly from that of the original, it is in this. But horror and tragedy are different things.

HerenIstarion:

and ask for permission to use it a signature (not immediately, but after some future change of my current one)

Permission granted to use this and any other inadvertantly funny things that roll off my fingers.