Why did Gandalf save Faramir?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Don't you think there's also the, slightly uncomfortable, notion of Gandalf believing Faramir was worth more than 'normal' men?

Gandalf knew Faramir; he didn't know the nameless soldiers. Gandalf knew that Faramir was a brilliant man; he could only suppose that the nameless soldiers were good men though, equally, he probably supposed that they were not as special as Faramir.

It's a classic moral dilemma. I'm not going to judge on it (yet ) but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Gandalf's decision was to do with judging the lives of some as lesser or greater than others.

[Guinevere]

Well, already when Denethor sends Faramir out on the hopeless errand to hold the passage through Osgiliath against the enemy, Gandalf tells him:

"Do not throw you life away rashly or in bitterness." "You will be needed here for other things than war."

So he clearly thought, that Faramir was important for Gondor. He is not only noble (Somewhere it is stated that "the blood of Numenor runs more true in him than in Denethor or Boromir" but I can't find the quote right now.) but he is also wise and compassionate, and the people of Minas Tirith love him.

And, like Bricho said, Gandalf was the only one who could save Faramir.

Well, I must come, since no other help can reach him.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

So he clearly thought, that Faramir was important for Gondor. He is not only noble (Somewhere it is stated that "the blood of Numenor runs more true in him than in Denethor or Boromir" but I can't find the quote right now.) but he is also wise and compassionate, and the people of Minas Tirith love him.

I don't have the quote handy, but I'm almost positive that Denethor was not included in Tolkien saying that, I believe it was just Boromir it did not run "truly" in...which I always found to be rather annoying, bias, and selective...not to mention almost hereditarily impossible.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Don't you think there's also the, slightly uncomfortable, notion of Gandalf believing Faramir was worth more than 'normal' men?

Gandalf knew Faramir; he didn't know the nameless soldiers. Gandalf knew that Faramir was a brilliant man; he could only suppose that the nameless soldiers were good men though, equally, he probably supposed that they were not as special as Faramir.

It's a classic moral dilemma. I'm not going to judge on it (yet ) but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Gandalf's decision was to do with judging the lives of some as lesser or greater than others.

The dilemma is not moral, really. Gandalf was not sent to Middle-earth to save anyone - he willingly sacrificed the lives of thousands of men.

Why? He was doing his service to Eru - he was doing his dharma.

I see a parallel between this and the tale of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita - Arjuna is told by Krishna that he must do selfless service in the name of God, guided by Compassion - yet Krishna is telling him this as he prepares to slaughter his enemies in an epic battle.

It was for his own benefit that he led the characters of tLotR into battle - yet he acted solely out of Compassion.

I see this as frankly trans-moral. His impetus was Divine Purpose, and it does not matter at all to the story that his victory over Sauron was at the expense of the lives of characters in a musical composition.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

To be a, no doubt very basic, Devil's advocate, isn't there conflict between means and ends here? Great atrocities have been carried out in the pursuit of a higher purpose. Or is it just that Eru decides what is moral and what is not?

Maybe then Gandalf's decision was not a moral one, but there's the added bonus in the story of the author postulating a god. In non-fiction at least it's a classic moral dilemma, but it could lose something in adaptation.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

To be a, no doubt very basic, Devil's advocate, isn't there conflict between means and ends here? Great atrocities have been carried out in the pursuit of a higher purpose. Or is it just that Eru decides what is moral and what is not?

Maybe then Gandalf's decision was not a moral one, but there's the added bonus in the story of the author postulating a god. In non-fiction at least it's a classic moral dilemma, but it could lose something in adaptation.

Can you explain what you're saying here? I don't understand what you're getting at...

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

To be a, no doubt very basic, Devil's advocate, isn't there conflict between means and ends here? Great atrocities have been carried out in the pursuit of a higher purpose. Or is it just that Eru decides what is moral and what is not?

Maybe then Gandalf's decision was not a moral one, but there's the added bonus in the story of the author postulating a god. In non-fiction at least it's a classic moral dilemma, but it could lose something in adaptation.

I think the problem here is that you cannot look at The Lord of the Rings as the Arda cosmology.

Tolkien labored his entire career over the Arda cosmology; The Lord of the Rings represented one phase of his literary career.

Eru does not exist in the Lord of the Rings.

I was wrong in saying that the Lord of the Rings is trans-moral. In fact, the morality behind the Lord of the Rings is of a staunchly Catholic variety: a moral battle taking place on a plane on which Deity does not exist; there are, however, three 'transcendental' figures who impose themselves on the narrative: Gandalf, Wisdom; Sauron, Corruption; and Saruman, Wisdom Corrupted.

Then there is the Hobbit: there is no Deity and only a vague allusion to Transcendental force - though there is magic of a childlike variety, to be sure.

Then there is the Silmarillion: it is this piece which is trans-moral, as it presents to us the paradox of Evil as an Illusion which God caused to be.

Gandalf is the link between Trans-Morality and Childhood Faerie Tale: he saves Faramir as a moral act on the earthly plane which exists between the two, because he alone knows the trans-moral implications of sacrificing the lives of others.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Sorry to jump in in the middle of a dialog, but...

I do think that Gandalf's choice was a necessary one. With Denethor worse than useless by this juncture, and the risk ever present that Aragorn might die at some point in this struggle, Faramir is sorely needed as a back up. Between his exposure to the knowledge of Gondor, familiarity with Gandalf's priorities and his Numenorian disposition , Faramir would best serve in the role of Gondorian leader (though perhaps be forced into exile by Sauron's forces), should things go bad.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

I do think that Gandalf's choice was a necessary one. With Denethor worse than useless by this juncture, and the risk ever present that Aragorn might die at some point in this struggle, Faramir is sorely needed as a back up. Between his exposure to the knowledge of Gondor, familiarity with Gandalf's priorities and his Numenorian disposition , Faramir would best serve in the role of Gondorian leader (though perhaps be forced into exile by Sauron's forces), should things go bad.

Exactly! Faramir was indespensible, for many reasons, not just his position in Gondor. And not to sound harsh, but in relation to the story, more common men dying on the battleground is far less important than if Faramir had been burned to death.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Eru does not exist in the Lord of the Rings.

I don't believe that's correct. Although I can't recall the name "Eru" being said in specific in The Lord of the Rings, there are many references to a higher authority, or fate. Faramir and his men do a ritual prayer, if you would, facing the Undying Lands before supper in Henneth Annûn. The name of Eru doesn't have to mentioned for it to exist. If it didn't exist in The Lord of the Rings, then it surely couldn't have existed else where in Middle-earth at any time, for The Lord of the Rings is part of the big story.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

I don't believe that's correct. Although I can't recall the name "Eru" being said in specific in The Lord of the Rings, there are many references to a higher authority, or fate. Faramir and his men do a ritual prayer, if you would, facing the Undying Lands before supper in Henneth Annûn. The name of Eru doesn't have to mentioned for it to exist. If it didn't exist in The Lord of the Rings, then it surely couldn't have existed else where in Middle-earth at any time, for The Lord of the Rings is part of the big story.

The fact is though that Eru is a character in Tolkien's cosmology but is entirely non-existent in The Lord of the Rings. One cannot attempt an analysis of the Lord of the Rings if one assumes that there is Godhead somewhere in its pages. The Valar are mentioned; Gandalf's divinity is hidden - what Gandalf does is what needs to be done - which means he is wrathful and joyous, "quick to anger and to mirth" - as long as he gets done what needs to be done - he is the Magical (not the Divine) Essence of Good in the Lord of the Rings.

[Holbytlass]

Something to add before I think about it further...
I think a factor also is Gandalf's love for Pippin. What might have been the difference if anyone else had come to him wanting his help in saving Faramir? Maybe Gandalf's love for Pippin is something that can be overlooked but Gandalf is still thinking of those out on the battlefield and the way the battle is going in when he says that other will die and debates within himself for a moment about going or not.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

The fact is though that Eru is a character in Tolkien's cosmology but is entirely non-existent in The Lord of the Rings. One cannot attempt an analysis of the Lord of the Rings if one assumes that there is Godhead somewhere in its pages. The Valar are mentioned; Gandalf's divinity is hidden - what Gandalf does is what needs to be done - which means he is wrathful and joyous, "quick to anger and to mirth" - as long as he gets done what needs to be done - he is the Magical (not the Divine) Essense of Good in the Lord of the Rings.

Smeagol falling was not deus ex machina

Frodo failing was not deus ex machina

So what was the outcome of the Lord of the Rings?

The Philosopher's Stone.

Yes, I agree the outcome of the story is golden, but this isn't The Alchemist. Although not apparent, there is no denying that other powers are at work in The Lord of the Rings that imply fate and a higher being. Just because Eru isn't mentioned within the story doesn't mean it is to be completely neglected, for Middle-earth in itself has to deal with Eru.

And to many, Gandalf was the magical and the divine. Heavenly figures have been wrathful too, you know. There's been many discussions which point to Frodo failing as being as fated by Eru, and just as though this can't be proven, just as though you can't say for a fact that it wasn't fate, or intervention of a higher being. By the way, I don't understand what "not deus ex machina" means, but I'm guessing it means "wasn't planned by a God", or something along those lines.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

The dilemma is not moral, really. Gandalf was not sent to Middle-earth to save anyone - he willingly sacrificed the lives of thousands of men.

Why? He was doing his service to Eru - he was doing his dharma.

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Eru does not exist in the Lord of the Rings.

You're contradicting yourself, SoN, if I understand this correctly. In LotR Gandalf is doing his service to Eru, who does not exist in the book? You can't possibly mean Eru exist in between the lines, since you reject that theory too. What can you possibly be aiming at?

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

You gotta lay off that palm fenny, Son!

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Hilde Bracegirdle

You gotta lay off that palm fenny, Son!

haha, totally.